| Author | Post |
|---|
Lostlittlerobot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 06:50 am |
|
Wow so reading that story didnt help out your case there inNV. Except your excerpt the story is rather frightening about police robbing people...which made me focus on this part of the OP story. Before reading that story I was more or less in agreement the officer didn't do anything illegal.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun."
That to me sounds like a line that could be interpreted as robbery. Threat of arrest is one thing but threat of taking property? One could claim that the OP felt threatened (felt fear) by the officer etc.
NRS 200.380 Definition; penalty.
1. Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to:
(a) Obtain or retain possession of the property;
(b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or
(c) Facilitate escape.
The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property. A taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.
Are officers exempt from penalty when instilling fear as means of coercion to seize property?
If not for that part, the officer did nothing illegal to me, just was an @#$%. However, I know that if I'm an @#$% at my job, and people complain, I don't keep my job. I assume it's the same for NHP? Purely not violating laws is a low low standard for someone in a peace officer position. We should hold them to higher standards, and speak out when they're not being met. My 2 cents.
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 07:00 am by Lostlittlerobot
|
Bass4Life
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 17th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 07:59 am |
|
| WOW!!!i leave for Vacation and my computer takes a dump. when i get it up and running i see all the fun i missed. Tim give a time and date and i to will join you.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:13 am |
|
Lostlittlerobot wrote: NRS 171.1232 Search to ascertain presence of dangerous weapon; seizure of weapon or evidence.
1. If any peace officer reasonably believes that any person whom he has detained or is about to detain pursuant to NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another, the peace officer may search such person to the extent reasonably necessary to ascertain the presence of such weapon. If the search discloses a weapon or any evidence of a crime, such weapon or evidence may be seized.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what I've been saying. Doesn't the bold section above simply mean "dangerous"? Notice how the law states "armed with a dangerous weapon" and "is a threat...". The way it's constructed, it is evident that the law does not consider possession of a weapon, by itself, a threat.
So, since the OC'd weapon was not legally a threat, what other circumstances surrounded the stop to give the officer suspicion that the suspect was dangerous, or rather "a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another", and therefore the authority to seize the weapon?
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:28 am by timf343
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:21 am |
|
Check out the line not quoted in the original text of the law:NRS 171.1232 Search to ascertain presence of dangerous weapon; seizure of weapon or evidence.
1. If any peace officer reasonably believes that any person whom he has detained or is about to detain pursuant to NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another, the peace officer may search such person to the extent reasonably necessary to ascertain the presence of such weapon. If the search discloses a weapon or any evidence of a crime, such weapon or evidence may be seized.
2. Nothing seized by a peace officer in any such search is admissible in any proceeding unless the search which disclosed the existence of such evidence is authorized by and conducted in compliance with this section.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535)
The date I thought was quite interesting because I knew the Terry decision was in the 60's. So I went and checked, and lo-and-behold, the Terry decision was June 10, 1968. I'm speculating, but it seems like this law was passed as a direct result of that decision, and it's significance is to codify what would otherwise just be Supreme Court guidelines.
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:21 am by timf343
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 11:29 am |
|
Thanks for the law cite. A google of "NRS 171.1232" returns lots of good reading. Here's one:
Nevada Supreme Court
State v. Lisenbee
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=116NvAdvOpNo117&invol=2
Snipet:The Nevada codification of Terry is found in NRS 171.123(1). The statute allows a police officer to "detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." Secondarily, NRS 171.1232 permits the police to engage in a pat down of a suspect if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
So, I assumed correctly that NRS 171.123 (and 171.1232) were codified as a direct result of the Terry decision. Note how the NV Supreme Court reads and interprets NRS 171.1232 (highlighted in red).
Another interesting link:
NV Supreme Court
Wright v State
http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CNV%5C1972%5C1972_40123.NV.htm/qx
Snipet:As indicated, Gates' actions were not dependent on cause to arrest. Terry v. Ohio, cited above, recognized that a policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop has the right to protect himself when he "is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous." 392 U.S., at 24. See also: NRS 171.1232(1). In our view, when police see two adult males in a car bearing stolen out-of-state license plates, they may reasonably fear either passenger or driver is armed and dangerous.
They way they phrased the blue text above seems to strongly indicate to me the legal precedent I've been discussing. Notice how it doesn't say "armed" or even "armed and dangerous" but goes on to specifically state "armed and presently dangerous". If the "and dangerous" part is irrelevant, as has been insinuated by inNV, why has the NV Supreme Court specifically phrased it this way? It's because armed does not equal dangerous, and being armed alone does not give police lawful authority to seize the firearm.
Also, in this case, the court specifically lists factors which, given a totality of the circumstances, add up to lawful authority under Terry, or NRS 171.1232. In red, they cited criminals with stolen license plates as one example. I doubt "failing to use a turn signal" would pass their scrutiny as reasonable suspicion of a dangerous person, or rather, one who is "presently dangerous.".
Last edited on Mon Oct 19th, 2009 11:37 am by timf343
|
Lostlittlerobot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 06:59 pm |
|
| We mostly all agree being armed does not necessarily mean dangerous. But if you ask any cop, I'm sure that they feel a threat to safety by anyone they come across armed. It's all subjective and unfortunate. Those other cases (gotta go to work so can't site) that recently occurred I think in new mexico...where the guy was dragged out of a movie theatre...courts said that carrying by itself is not cause for detention or stop...that's the sort of thing we need to fight for. But once the OP was in violation of speeding/turn signal failure, then the police had a reason to stop him, and therefore could say - yah I feel my safety threatened so I'm going to take this - and we can't really argue beyond his subjective opinion/feeling.
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 302 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 09:56 pm |
|
Lostlittlerobot wrote: We mostly all agree being armed does not necessarily mean dangerous. But if you ask any cop, I'm sure that they feel a threat to safety by anyone they come across armed. It's all subjective and unfortunate. Those other cases (gotta go to work so can't site) that recently occurred I think in new mexico...where the guy was dragged out of a movie theatre...courts said that carrying by itself is not cause for detention or stop...that's the sort of thing we need to fight for. But once the OP was in violation of speeding/turn signal failure, then the police had a reason to stop him, and therefore could say - yah I feel my safety threatened so I'm going to take this - and we can't really argue beyond his subjective opinion/feeling.
But did the cop have a right to return his property the way he did? Did the cop have the right to threaten him with false arrest? I really could care less if the cop was NHV or local they need to know the law just like we do. So him making false claims about the blue card is cause enough for him to file a complaint.
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:35 pm |
|
Sheepdawg wrote: I do ride a bada$$ Harley, carry a big gun(Ruger Redhawk .44 mag 7 1/2 in. barrel), and have tattoos all over my arms.
What kind of holster? My poor 7" is still naked, but getting closer I never thought it
would be this much work to carry a big one. Has been a great learning
experience though, so I don't complain to much. With all the news about how strong
carbon fiber and kelvar is, I was sad to discover they do not work well for holsters.
Have one more spool of carbon fiber thread I will try when I can do injection molding,
but I won't wait for that technology to go into the shop.
I got my loading dies in so ammo is not a factor anymore.
Sadly no tatts, and a yamaha, but getting close to evil bald guy.
Is the Flamingo spiral ramp still there? I loved leaning over and shooting
up that greasy spiral, got the blood pumping when the back end lets go.
Sadly I will be on 4 wheels, it is to cold for the 2200 miles by bike, and no trailer.
Now to OC while going for the Big Texan 72 oz steak?
Or will the tight belt make me loose?
Guess the No OC in Texas will be a help in deciding.
Hope to be there for christmas, I loved the open tables that time of year.
Besides the sidewalks are cooler for those face down encounters.
Can't wait to see my sons eyes light up when we step into the first
casino, and the change girls walk by. Maybe the wife won't hit me as hard
if he is there to see it. Amazingly she used to travel through when I lived
there, then we meet on the other end of country. Even used to eat lunch
in the same casino.
It's a shame the national park ban is lifted to late, would have liked to
CC at bottom of carlsbad caverns. Whole new meaning to 'Deep' concealment. 
But for the saddle bags, "I'm sorry officer I do not consent to a search."
|
Sheepdawg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote:
What kind of holster?
Triple K. They can make a holster for just about anything and at a fairly reasonable price.
But for the saddle bags, "I'm sorry officer I do not consent to a search."
Yeah I know I should have stood my ground but I was getting tired of arguing and just wanted to be on my way. Next time I won't back down.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:12 am |
|
Lostlittlerobot wrote: We mostly all agree being armed does not necessarily mean dangerous. But if you ask any cop, I'm sure that they feel a threat to safety by anyone they come across armed. It's all subjective and unfortunate. Those other cases (gotta go to work so can't site) that recently occurred I think in new mexico...where the guy was dragged out of a movie theatre...courts said that carrying by itself is not cause for detention or stop...that's the sort of thing we need to fight for. But once the OP was in violation of speeding/turn signal failure, then the police had a reason to stop him, and therefore could say - yah I feel my safety threatened so I'm going to take this - and we can't really argue beyond his subjective opinion/feeling.
Actually, we can, that's my whole point. The courts have said repeatedly that a suspect must be both armed and dangerous, and the police officer must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion of each prior to seizing a weapon.
Subjective hunches and feelings are not lawfully authoritative, at least in the eyes of the court. And while we may all understand cops reluctance to deal with an armed man, it is part of the job to obey the law. If they don't like it, lobby to have it changed. But the Supreme Court, and subsequently the NV Legislature, were both quite clear.
|
joeschmo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:29 am |
|
Vegassteve wrote: Lostlittlerobot wrote: We mostly all agree being armed does not necessarily mean dangerous. But if you ask any cop, I'm sure that they feel a threat to safety by anyone they come across armed. It's all subjective and unfortunate. Those other cases (gotta go to work so can't site) that recently occurred I think in new mexico...where the guy was dragged out of a movie theatre...courts said that carrying by itself is not cause for detention or stop...that's the sort of thing we need to fight for. But once the OP was in violation of speeding/turn signal failure, then the police had a reason to stop him, and therefore could say - yah I feel my safety threatened so I'm going to take this - and we can't really argue beyond his subjective opinion/feeling.
But did the cop have a right to return his property the way he did? Did the cop have the right to threaten him with false arrest? I really could care less if the cop was NHV or local they need to know the law just like we do. So him making false claims about the blue card is cause enough for him to file a complaint.
Cops are taught to return property that way at the academy. Just like if you have a knife on you, and the cop takes it in a pat down, when the stop is finished, they don't give it directly to you, but put it down somewhere. Pretty much all policies like that came from somewhere, normally an officer being injured or killed at some point.
As for what Tim is saying, cops are taught that what they are doing is perfectly legal during their initial training.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:31 am by joeschmo
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 03:09 am |
|
I don't like the way they return the property, but there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about it, and their reasoning is sound. I also understand the officer safety issue and though I don't want my rights trampled any more than the Supreme Court allows, I think the law is loose enough that it would be quite easy to define reasonable suspicions that a suspect is dangerous to be almost anything.
So I would suggest you just file a complaint if you feel it is warranted, and be done with it.
I did find this posting last night. Obviously it carries no more weight than anything else on the Internet, so read it for what it is.
http://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6915&p=71766
The majority of the posting is presumably testimony by a police Sgt somewhere in Nevada. An interesting statement he made demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of his lawful authority regarding the sovereignty and property of others:
14 Q So you're not concerned about whether --
15 when you pat somebody down, you're not concerned about
16 whether there is a crime involved? You're just
17 concerned -- you want to make sure that nobody has a
18 gun at the scene, right?
19 A Well, correct. Patting someone down doesn't
20 have anything to do with whether or not there was a
21 crime involved. It has to do with whether or not they
22 may possess a weapon.
If this is truly what the guy said, it helps to explain why there is such a clear misunderstanding amongst law enforcement that their safety always trumps the rights and safety of citizens, especially the innocent.
I get it guys, cops need to be safe, I'm not suggesting they don't. And I know they deal with bad guys every day. I'm just trying to apply the law the best I know. When law enforcement seems to overstep it's authority, we all may be able to sit back and say to ourselves "Yea, I can see why he would do that.", but the fact still remains that his actions may not have been lawful. Does it matter to most people? Probably not.
But if the true purpose of law enforcement is to put bad guys in jail, and not merely to keep everyone in conformance with traffic laws, police need to make sure they operate within the law, lest some hot-shot defense attorney get their guilty client set free because the police operated outside the bounds of their authority.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
| How exactly does a PO decide, out of the who knows how many people he sees a day, who is dangerous? Is there some kind of code? A mark that dangerous people have? Do we discriminate so that only blacks and latinos are considered dangerous? Maybe a Harley riding, tattooed guy looks dangerous, who knows? They don't know you from Adam, and to them anyone with equal fire power is dangerous to them, let alone someone with a canon strapped to his hip. Try to prove a cop's perception of someone..
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:58 am |
|
My previous post I think I conceded to you on this point.
...I think the law is loose enough that it would be quite easy to define reasonable suspicions that a suspect is dangerous to be almost anything.
I am not sure of any code. I tend to think it's the same type of reasoning that's used to detain someone.
NRS 171.123 states "officer may detain...circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime."
NRS 171.1232 states "officer reasonably believes...person...is armed...and is a threat..."
And since an officer may not detain someone simply because he is armed, I used that logic as the basis for my argument that merely being armed, by itself, while otherwise lawfully detained, also does not qualify in meeting the definition of reasonable suspicion.
Tim
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:59 am by timf343
|
Lostlittlerobot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:07 am |
|
| I'm sad nobody else has input on the robbery thing =P
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:22 am |
|
Tim, I don't know what else to tell you. It's up to the cop, if he feels like securing your weapon, he can. We can sit here all day and decide what is dangerous, who is dangerous, who is/n't committing or about to commit a crime. The fact of the matter is, a cop can do that. He can say he will arrest you. He can say anything he wants, words don't mean anything in a court of law (when it comes to this). Just because you think/know the OP is not dangerous, doesn't mean Joe Cop will take your or his word on it that all OC'ers are law abiding citizens. And no, it doesn't mean they are all criminals either.
Robot,
Obviously the article was an extreme case when an officer kept the weapon after the fact. This they are not allowed to do. I merely linked to it because of what I put in italics was in it.Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 07:22 am by inNV
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:22 am |
|
inNV wrote: Tim, I don't know what else to tell you. It's up to the cop, if he feels like securing your weapon, he can. We can sit here all day and decide what is dangerous, who is dangerous, who is/n't committing or about to commit a crime. The fact of the matter is, a cop can do that. He can say he will arrest you. He can say anything he wants, words don't mean anything in a court of law (when it comes to this). Just because you think/know the OP is not dangerous, doesn't mean Joe Cop will take your or his word on it that all OC'ers are law abiding citizens. And no, it doesn't mean they are all criminals either.
I don't think I've ever said all cops are criminals. In fact, I believe 99% are wonderful law-abiding folks just like the rest of us.
I'm not asking for your authoritative answer, I'm merely debating with you what I've found in my research and the conclusions I've drawn.
Do you disagree that a police officer must have reasonable and articulable suspicion prior to detaining someone? I doubt it, since that principle is drilled into the head of every cadet. Why then do you disagree that the same standard holds true for seizing a weapon?
A cop can say anything he wants. Sort of. He can't say he will arrest me if he sees me wearing a blue shirt. He can't threaten to punch me in the face because I'm sticking my tongue out at him. This is called coercion.NRS 207.190 Coercion. 1. It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:
(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of his family, or upon his property, or threaten such violence or injury;
(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or
(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.
While an officer is not prohibited from lying to citizens in the course of his duties (there is no law against it), he is, however, still required to obey the law.
If I'm being investigated for robbing a bank, he might lie and tell me I'm on videotape, or they have my fingerprints at the scene, or that the stolen bills were marked with identifiable serial numbers and I was observed spending one of those bills in order to compel me to make a statement. He may not, however, threaten to tazer me if he sees me anywhere near a bank in the future.
He might try to convince me to allow him to search my vehicle by lying and saying it would be in my best interest to cooperate. He may not, however, threaten to arrest me if I do not comply.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:23 am by timf343
|
Lostlittlerobot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:34 am |
|
Ooh Tim, I've never seen that statute for coercion. That could really help us on our LV Strip walks!!! I'll commit that to memory and if anyone gets in our faces with those sort of threats, tell them I plan to file charges for the unlawful act of compelling me to act under threat of force! Very awesome citation that I haven't seen yet!
I love these forums. I learn so much. Seems also that it could be used in the OP's defense for this particular case.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:35 pm |
|
Lostlittlerobot wrote: Ooh Tim, I've never seen that statute for coercion. That could really help us on our LV Strip walks!!! I'll commit that to memory and if anyone gets in our faces with those sort of threats, tell them I plan to file charges for the unlawful act of compelling me to act under threat of force! Very awesome citation that I haven't seen yet!
I love these forums. I learn so much. Seems also that it could be used in the OP's defense for this particular case.
It may also benefit to read up on Color Of Law. Acting as the LE in this case did, under the "color of law" should be challenged at each opportunity. Such acts are akin to those which create the "JBT" view some cops present.
Just because inNV thinks that a cop can do something does not mean it is lawful, or not a violation of Rights.
The cop attempted to use coercion to gain compliance, for a traffic stop. He was not investigating a crime other than a traffic infraction. Had he researched the law, he would have already known whether the OP was legal or not with the firearm, and the rest was sheer coercion in an attempt to gain compliance with demands to comply with demands that do not have the force of law behind them.
The detainment, confiscation, and coercion evidenced go beyond that which would be necessary to fulfill 171.123 and .1232. Also, just because inNV claims there is"no law against a cop lying," it does not mean that a cop lying is automatically allowed.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:37 pm by wrightme
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
| Where is the threat of violence or force to the OP in his story? I don't see it. You can sit here and continue to bring things into play that have no bearing, and have the people here drool all over you, that's fine. The fact is none of what you have been saying applies or is not present. If the OP wants to waste his time and money fighting this based on your words, I guess that's his problem. But Tim, you're completely wrong. Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 08:48 pm by inNV
|
Current time is 11:32 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...   |
|
|
|
