arrested for OC while intoxicated

[wrightme]

Got it !! Just giving an example from a place I could referance. It was meant to be a friendly "slippery when wet" sign. So as not to inadvertently loose the battle trying to win the war.

The applicable "implied consent" statute in NV requires actual belief that the driver is intoxicated. It does not mean "I want to give you a test" without reason.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-484C.html#NRS484CSec150

where the police officer stops a vehicle, if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be tested was:

(a) Driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-484C.html#NRS484CSec160

hall be deemed to have given his or her consent to an evidentiary test of his or her blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance to determine the concentration of alcohol in his or her blood or breath or to determine whether a controlled substance, chemical, poison, organic solvent or another prohibited substance is present, if such a test is administered at the direction of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be tested was:

(a) Driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance

The main question would be this.

"Absent refusal to engage in conversation at a DUI checkpoint, was there 'reasonable grounds?'"

 

[since9]

Consider NOT suing to get thegun back - sue for violation of your due process rights - when the police seize your property, it;s on THEM to provide you due process - notice and opportunity to be be heard re the seizure. File under 42 USC 1983 just for the due process violation - will drive them nuts. As long as they have the gun, you are in charge. Hopefully you can find an attorney willing to take the case on contingency. Your case will force Nevada police departments who do not respect due process rights to start doing so. Unless state law requires polices to conduct a background check to give back your property, i do not see how they can prevail in making you do so.

+1, although I suspect Nevada carrier is correct. However, if he's not, you'll have won a boon for everyone!

 

[END_THE_FED]

I wished the cops had shot that drunk ass-hole, Before he killed someone with his car...

My sister was killed by a drunk driver and i watched a school bus get smashed by a drunk head on, Killed most of the kids....

Road blocks are to stop drunks and catch drug trafficers.... Don't go towards the road block if you see flashing lights if don't wanna deal with the cops.

I think they should ban him from owning a car and ban him from owning a gun, Belongs on the street with the rest of the drunk bums!

 

[KBCraig]

Finally got to see the youtube audio.

Wow, those officer really buried themselves with their statements.

Just... wow. Too many to count.

 

[Yard Sale]

do not underestimate the criminal stupidity of some LEOs

I met with my lawyer and got the police reports yesterday. Interesting tidbits ...

- The city attorney did not file the complaints; the arresting officer did, without review by the C.A. We don't yet know what the C.A. thinks of this.

- The PBT was 0% BAC, twice.

- There's an order for a full BAC and drug screen of my blood, but there are no results.

- Multiple officers report the "sweet" odor of alcohol.

- There are minor discrepancies between the audio and the narrative reports, forgiveable due to the frail nature of human memory.

- Exculpatory statements by me and actions by them are omitted from the reports.

- There are wholesale lies and fabrications in the narrative reports, unconscionable for a sworn officer of the law.

- The reports are not sworn under oath and the demonstrably false statements therein do not constitute perjury. If they repeat those statements under oath in court, it becomes perjury.

- It seems from the reports that multiple officers from multiple agencies are conspiring to falsify their reports to get a felony charge on me from the district attorney. This explains why my gun is held as evidence and my camera evidence has been, at minimum, tampered with.

Shjt just got real.

I removed the YouTube video. It will be back with a vengeance.

Police reports, witness statements, etc., criminal complaints, and my theft report are here:

http://lolinter.net/badcops.pdf

 

[Erik88]

when I click on the link to listen to the tape it says the video is private. I'd love to see it though. I don't know what happened.

 

[Chap]

Crap like wise, I was too late to the party

I also missed hearing the audio. Good luck and hang um high....................

Chap

 

[frankd]

when I click on the link to listen to the tape it says the video is private. I'd love to see it though. I don't know what happened.

Same here.

 

[Chap]

Post #85

Shjt just got real.

I removed the YouTube video. It will be back with a vengeance.

He said he took it down in post #85.

Chap

 

[slowfiveoh]

I met with my lawyer and got the police reports yesterday. Interesting tidbits ...

- The city attorney did not file the complaints; the arresting officer did, without review by the C.A. We don't yet know what the C.A. thinks of this.

- The PBT was 0% BAC, twice.

- There's an order for a full BAC and drug screen of my blood, but there are no results.

- The arresting officer requested the DMV suspend or revoke my drivers license.

- Multiple officers report the "sweet" odor of alcohol.

- There are minor discrepancies between the audio and the narrative reports, forgiveable due to the frail nature of human memory.

- Exculpatory statements by me and actions by them are omitted from the reports.

- There are wholesale lies and fabrications in the narrative reports, unconscionable for a sworn officer of the law.

- The reports are not sworn under oath and the demonstrably false statements therein do not constitute perjury. If they repeat those statements under oath in court, it becomes perjury.

- It seems from the reports that multiple officers from multiple agencies are conspiring to falsify their reports to get a felony charge on me from the district attorney. This explains why my gun is held as evidence and my camera evidence has been, at minimum, tampered with.

Shjt just got real.

I removed the YouTube video. It will be back with a vengeance.

Just remember.

There is No thin blue line.

Hang em high!

 

[VW_Factor]

Thats a bummer you took it down.

Modifying it then?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I met with my lawyer and got the police reports yesterday. Interesting tidbits ...

- The city attorney did not file the complaints; the arresting officer did, without review by the C.A. We don't yet know what the C.A. thinks of this.

- The PBT was 0% BAC, twice.

- There's an order for a full BAC and drug screen of my blood, but there are no results.

- The arresting officer requested the DMV suspend or revoke my drivers license.

- Multiple officers report the "sweet" odor of alcohol.

- There are minor discrepancies between the audio and the narrative reports, forgiveable due to the frail nature of human memory.

- Exculpatory statements by me and actions by them are omitted from the reports.

- There are wholesale lies and fabrications in the narrative reports, unconscionable for a sworn officer of the law.

- The reports are not sworn under oath and the demonstrably false statements therein do not constitute perjury. If they repeat those statements under oath in court, it becomes perjury.

- It seems from the reports that multiple officers from multiple agencies are conspiring /to falsify their reports to get a felony charge on me from the district attorney. This explains why my gun is held as evidence and my camera evidence has been, at minimum, tampered with.

Shjt just got real.

I removed the YouTube video. It will be back with a vengeance.

Wrong it is not only illegal and perjurous(?) to lie on a report it is also illegal and wrong to be misleading on the reports. Officers who do this are labeled Brady Cops. The reports are what make your case and are part of your evidence for PC or RAS and are read in court.

Here's an article written about it in seattle times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003760490_bradycops24m.html

Brady Vs. Maryland, prosecutors are obligated by law to bring into evidence the lies and credibility of police officers. Is it done? Rarely they seem to largely ignore this law.

I have another link to another article that explains the Brady abuses and how it's not being enforced but thats on my other comp.

Give these guys hell, this is utterly bullspit!

 

[KBCraig]

I completely understand why you took down the youtube audio. Having heard it, I agree that it completely goes against the police, and your lawyer probably has some special surprises in mind for them.

Good luck!

 

[END_THE_FED]

Why was the video removed?

 

[rodbender]

....... LEOs “are just doing their job” as we their employers pay them to do.

eye95 ain't gonna like this statement. You've done it now.

 

[eye95]

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

I'd be careful slinging that quote around if I were you. It seems that is exactly what the moonbats and other anti-gunners want to do is "restrain men from injuring one another".

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its people, which necessarily includes restraining them from injuring one another. The mistake the antis make is in the thinking that the usurpation of the right enumerated by the 2A on the part of the government somehow protects us from violating each other's rights.

Oh, and is the point of your previous post (and the one you quoted) to further the discussion of who employs LEOs? Or is it just to take a cheap shot? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer. Moving on.)

 

[eye95]

Thomas Jefferson thought the government had such a purpose. I respect his opinion on the matter just a tad more than I do yours. I shall now move on from this part of the discussion too, as you have just confirmed that you don't want to have a respectful discussion, but instead are, indeed, taking cheap shots.

 

[Claytron]

Thomas Jefferson thought the government had such a purpose. I respect his opinion on the matter just a tad more than I do yours. I shall now move on from this part of the discussion too, as you have just confirmed that you don't want to have a respectful discussion, but instead are, indeed, taking cheap shots.

Are you implying you dont take cheapshots? Ive seen them from you constantly with your "holier than thou" attitude....

Someone who says we should have unrestricted second amendment rights but at the same time should be able to be restrained for no reason is cowardly and hypocritical. Of course this is not a personal attack towards you but a general comment expressing my opinion towards people who DO fall into that category. Not you.

 

[END_THE_FED]

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its people, which necessarily includes restraining them from injuring one another. The mistake the antis make is in the thinking that the usurpation of the right enumerated by the 2A on the part of the government somehow protects us from violating each other's rights.

Oh, and is the point of your previous post (and the one you quoted) to further the discussion of who employs LEOs? Or is it just to take a cheap shot? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer. Moving on.)

Thanks Eye,

I didn't see the comment about my signature quote until just now. You summed it up well and I don't see much need to elaborate at this time.

I would encourage others who see the term "shall restrain" in my quote to take a look at the rest of the quote and at the text of the speech so as to better grasp the context of the words.

This is not the first time someone has mentioned my signature quote. I am starting to think that a lot of people who read it are taking it wrong.

 

[Yard Sale]

Update...

I haven't heard a thing in response to my theft report. Crickets.

The district attorney released their hold on my pistol. The city attorney still has an evidence hold. Evidence of what? The blood test is finally back, after almost three months: 0.0%. I need my pistol back for a GSSF match this weekend.

The district attorney no-issued my case, which means they won't pursue charges. The firearm-while-intoxicated arrest was for a misdemeanor charge which the city attorney would prosecute, so I assume they had my case for the felony alleged in the police report.

The city attorney requested a continuance of the March 24 trial due to a cop being on vacation and it was granted. To be rescheduled in about a month. Speedy trial, what?