Refused to produce ID to private security at Four Queens, Got 86'd Police Involved

[carolina guy]

Might want to read up on Bailment

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b005.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment

Then I guess a search of Nevada laws and perhaps even looking at the ticket at the garage and any posted signs for what the terms of your contract with the garage would have been.

 

[b0neZ]

A somewhat relevant scenario:

Back when I was throwing my house parties, it was widely known that for everyone's safety, all car keys were to be put in a certain box, which in turn was locked securely away. Only I had the key to that. If a person had driven there and was going to imbibe any alcohol, they were there until at least the following morning. Period, full stop, end of story. Use this as an example of an implied contract.

This was done to protect against the possibility of anyone from my place driving under the influence. Therefore, it was done in everyone's "best interest". Sure a couple of people complained, and they were told that if they didn't like it, they didn't have to be there (unless they were already drinking), or simply stay sober the entire time. In the several years I threw those parties only one person broke that rule (they had a second set of keys I didn't know about until it was too late), and the parties happened every weekend.

One caveat: The cars were not parked on private property, so I could not prevent people from going to their cars if they wanted to. They also did not have to provide ID and registration before leaving, as I already knew who was who and who drove what.

 

[john-in-reno]

IMHO they were actually doing you a good turn by requiring you to produce ID.
You can write any scenario of events that could justify the security to ask for ID.
Here is one.
I'm a car thief, I watch you enter the parking lot with your car (I do that).
The next morning I see your car is there, I gain access to the lot, take your car, tell the gate I lost my ticket, pay the price and drive off with your car.
You probably didn't consider this because you are not a criminal so you don't think like one.
I say good call in your best interest by security.

here let me reword part of this for you
Here is one.
I'm a car thief, I watch you enter the parking lot with your car (I do that).
The next morning I see your car is there, I gain access to the lot, take your car, find the ticket or a ticket someplace, pay the price and drive off with your car.
You probably didn't consider this because you are not a criminal so you don't think like one. I always think like a criminal and that's why i was a great security guard
I say security had no reason to ask for the documents and no reason to hold the car and most casinos and other parking facility's state that items left in the car are not there problem and probably goes the same for the car too.

 

[flagellum]

Since you didn't have the parking ticket then why didn't you just show your ID and registration to the parking attendant? They would have made sure it was in fact your vehicle and you would have simply been on your way.

If someone had stolen your vehicle and was attempting to leave the property would you be OK with the staff not checking for any identification? I think you made a big deal out of something that was designed to protect the patrons of this property.

If you read the other posts in this thread you would know the answer to these questions.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b005.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment

Then I guess a search of Nevada laws and perhaps even looking at the ticket at the garage and any posted signs for what the terms of your contract with the garage would have been.

Thank you for this post, this is mainly more towards what I was getting at.

A somewhat relevant scenario:

Back when I was throwing my house parties, it was widely known that for everyone's safety, all car keys were to be put in a certain box, which in turn was locked securely away. Only I had the key to that. If a person had driven there and was going to imbibe any alcohol, they were there until at least the following morning. Period, full stop, end of story. Use this as an example of an implied contract.

This was done to protect against the possibility of anyone from my place driving under the influence. Therefore, it was done in everyone's "best interest". Sure a couple of people complained, and they were told that if they didn't like it, they didn't have to be there (unless they were already drinking), or simply stay sober the entire time. In the several years I threw those parties only one person broke that rule (they had a second set of keys I didn't know about until it was too late), and the parties happened every weekend.

One caveat: The cars were not parked on private property, so I could not prevent people from going to their cars if they wanted to. They also did not have to provide ID and registration before leaving, as I already knew who was who and who drove what.

This is a good example. Though I am curious why you said that the contract was implied. Does that mean that you did not tell them the terms before taking their keys? If you told them the terms and they verbally agreed I would say that goes beyond merely being implied.
As we can see, there are many types of contract.

Summary of them might be:
Written, signed, notarized contract.
Written signed contract.
Written Contract.
Verbal Contract. (The keys example)
And apparently lastly, a sign.

I still question the ability of a sign to establish a contract, but I doubt I will find the answer any time soon. I would hope to run into some case law that establishes it one way or another.

I have not been down there, but I am also quite curious if this sign actually even exists. Has anyone in Las Vegas seen it? In the past I had parked at the Four Queens many times and I have no memory of ever reading anything regarding these terms. I do not think I have ever seen the policy publicly posted.

 

[flagellum]

I didn't bother to read anything in this thread.

Thank you for your valued opinion

 

[b0neZ]

This is a good example. Though I am curious why you said that the contract was implied. Does that mean that you did not tell them the terms before taking their keys? If you told them the terms and they verbally agreed I would say that goes beyond merely being implied.
As we can see, there are many types of contract.

Summary of them might be:
Written, signed, notarized contract.
Written signed contract.
Written Contract.
Verbal Contract. (The keys example)
And apparently lastly, a sign.

I still question the ability of a sign to establish a contract, but I doubt I will find the answer any time soon. I would hope to run into some case law that establishes it one way or another.

I have not been down there, but I am also quite curious if this sign actually even exists. Has anyone in Las Vegas seen it? In the past I had parked at the Four Queens many times and I have no memory of ever reading anything regarding these terms. I do not think I have ever seen the policy publicly posted.

In my example, I used the word "implied", because after telling those who showed up the first couple of parties what the rules were, that information just kind of flowed by others to first-time attendees. That, and the box was on the main table for the first 30 minutes or so of the party, so people just followed others who did what was needed to be done. No sign needed, no paper contract signed, and at no time did anyone verbally agree to the rules of the house. It was implied that they either played along or they simply didn't get to hang out. People also knew that if things got too stupid (things broken, stolen, vandalized, cops called, etc.) that I would cease throwing the parties, and I guess nobody wanted that to happen.

 

[MP_4_Life]

Just an FYI they were not holding you on their property they were holding your property until you could prove it was yours. You have absolutely no case.

No offense, but you said you clearly didn't care to read anything, so please don't comment when your uninformed. It's extremely rude just to state your opinion and so rudely to someone asking a valid question. Go back to your states board, and leave us to our discussion unless you have something useful to say that pertains to the OP's question.

I do appreciate your input but I think a lot of people are missing the point of this post. Obviously, if I had done what they wanted me too they would have let me go. The point of any form of disobedience isn't to make things more convenient, its to press the issue on what authority is legitimate.

It is without question understood by all parties this policy is to help ensure that the people driving cars are the lawful owners.

Perhaps to put this in perspective, I will use an example that is similar to what has happened around here. Say someone goes and purchases a microwave from Walmart. The item belongs to him. Upon walking out the door, an employee demands that the man produce his receipt. The man refuses. Would it be right for the employee to take the microwave(That belongs to the man) because he will not prove ownership of it? No. The man has the right to leave with his property as he has done nothing wrong. He does not have to prove innocence of a supposed crime that there is no evidence of or no suspicion to think one has occurred. And before anyone says "Costco" know that when shopping as a member you do of course sign a legitimate contract, which is unlike this scenario.

The biggest problem is as others have said, you were free too leave, just not your property. Depending on the little ticket contract, and the courts in Nevada would most likely side with the casino's; however, they technically are stealing your property from refusing to let you leave with it, but the biggest hurdle is to figure out that contract, and if it carries any weight behind it. On another note though, you are right in my opinion, they are not law enforcement, so they have no right to demand your paperwork to verify ownership. Though I do have to agree, I'd much rather the inconvenience of 3-5 minutes to show some paperwork and then leave, rather than push forward and risk other people's vehicles because of my own pride. In the end it's a sticky mess, my recommendation would be to let it slide this once and call it a lesson, and from now on, just avoid parking lots with security.

 

[wrightme]

Dude long story short you just should have taken the 3 minutes to show them your ID so they could do whatever they needed. This is absolutely ridiculous. Get over it. They just want to ensure that you were not trying to hijack a car. I didn't bother to read anything in this thread. There's a point where too much is too much.

Then you missed a lot of good information and discussion.

But, 'dude,' it was his choice to make, not yours.

 

[wrightme]

Just an FYI they were not holding you on their property they were holding your property until you could prove it was yours. You have absolutely no case.

By what operation of law were THEY doing such? That IS the discussion; or at least part of it.

 

[flagellum]

I think I've already made all the points I need to make, so I won't flood this thread with more of my comments.

For further reading though, I would like to post this entry, with a similar premise.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109801-Police-Best-Buy-Santa-hat-and-no-receipt

 

[MP_4_Life]

I think I've already made all the points I need to make, so I won't flood this thread with more of my comments.

For further reading though, I would like to post this entry, with a similar premise.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109801-Police-Best-Buy-Santa-hat-and-no-receipt

That is the first thing that came to mind when I read your OP. Very similar, just different location and property.

 

[wrightme]

If you go to court over it, guess what you'd have to do? Prove the vehicle is yours.

If you've ever lost something and picked it up from the police department, guess what you have to do? Prove that item is yours.

If you found something and wanted to return it to the correct owner, guess what you would do? Make the Prove that it is theirs.

Simply owning the key to the vehicle isn't sufficient proof of ownership.

You are forgetting that ownership is recorded with the DMV........
Unless the parking garage includes implied storage lien (which he attempted to pay), the casino has NO ownership rights whatsoever.

Simply put, you added no value to the discussion, other than to try to put down the op.


Maybe, just maybe, a few more years of experience will add wisdom....

[I've open carried since the day I turned 18 on May 6, 2012.]

I started open carrying before you were old enough to drive.

 

[SFCRetired]

Dumb question: Doesn't the fact that OP had in his possession the keys to his vehicle serve as more than adequate "proof" to private security that the vehicle is, in fact, his?

I would not be inclined to show any identification or proof of ownership to any private security. I would also be very upset with the LEO in OP's case who gave his private information to security. They have no right to the information he gave them.

 

[Lasjayhawk]

the 4Q's could give a $hit less if you owned the car or were stealing it.

They want to know who you are to make sure your not in the habit of parking there for a week, and claiming a lost ticket and paying for a day.

 

[KBCraig]

Just an FYI they were not holding you on their property they were holding your property until you could prove it was yours. You have absolutely no case.

Just FYI, every parking garage everywhere disclaims any responsibility for damage to or theft of or from your car.

They can't have it both ways.

Most people leave the ticket in the car so they don't lose it, so it's far more likely someone could steal a car with a ticket, than without one. And in such a case, the garage owners would say "Tough dookie, it clearly says on the microscopic print on the back of your ticket that we're not responsible for thefts."

 

[countryclubjoe]

While the OP was inconvenienced by the Officer and the security company, I don't think any of his rights were violated and no contracts were broken.
Hence OP has no legal recourse either civil or criminal.

You could bill the security firm and or the police department for your time. After they throw your billing statement in the trash, you could attempt
to sue them in small claims court and hope for a Default Judgment. Time is money.

Interesting thread.

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[flagellum]

I just wanted to add a couple more pieces of information.

I found my ticket and here is the text of it:
You park and Lock your own car. Please remove any articles of value. Only a license is granted hereby and no bailment is intended or created. You assume all responsibility for fire, theft or damage to car including articles left in vehicle.

So according to this contract there is no bailment. It also says nothing about verification upon exit. So they only contract explicitly stated is pretty much the exact opposite of what they were telling me.

Also the ticket is not tied to the car in anyway. In fact, I considered just pushing the button again to get another ticket and I could have just drove out without paying anything. I decided it was better to be honest and pay the fee.

There is one other interesting dynamic that I had failed to mention. While refusing to show ID was in nature a protest, it was also a fact that I was not carrying any proof of registration in my vehicle. (I know this is illegal, happened to take it out once and forgot put it back in, I've corrected this now). Before the police arrived I would have been ready to just give up and show them for the sake of convince, but I couldn't. They refused to release the car regardless, knowing my circumstances. While I was reluctant to tell the officer I had no registration (For obvious reasons) I did tell the security but they were not willing to negotiate different terms.

 

[wrightme]

I just wanted to add a couple more pieces of information.

I found my ticket and here is the text of it:
You park and Lock your own car. Please remove any articles of value. Only a license is granted hereby and no bailment is intended or created. You assume all responsibility for fire, theft or damage to car including articles left in vehicle.

So according to this contract there is no bailment. It also says nothing about verification upon exit. So they only contract explicitly stated is pretty much the exact opposite of what they were telling me.

Also the ticket is not tied to the car in anyway. In fact, I considered just pushing the button again to get another ticket and I could have just drove out without paying anything. I decided it was better to be honest and pay the fee.

There is one other interesting dynamic that I had failed to mention. While refusing to show ID was in nature a protest, it was also a fact that I was not carrying any proof of registration in my vehicle. (I know this is illegal, happened to take it out once and forgot put it back in, I've corrected this now). Before the police arrived I would have been ready to just give up and show them for the sake of convince, but I couldn't. They refused to release the car regardless, knowing my circumstances. While I was reluctant to tell the officer I had no registration (For obvious reasons) I did tell the security but they were not willing to negotiate different terms.

'Illegal,' but not very criminal....

NRS 482.255  Placement of certificate of registration; surrender upon demand of certain persons; limitation on conviction.

1.  Upon receipt of a certificate of registration, the owner shall place it or a legible copy in the vehicle for which it is issued and keep it in the vehicle. If the vehicle is a motorcycle, trailer or semitrailer, the owner shall carry the certificate in the tool bag or other convenient receptacle attached to the vehicle.

2.  The owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall, upon demand, surrender the certificate of registration or the copy for examination to any peace officer, including a constable, or a justice of the peace or deputy of the Department.

3.  No person charged with violating this section may be convicted if the person produces in court a certificate of registration which was previously issued to him or her and was valid at the time of the demand.

[Part 10:202:1931; A 1947, 453; 1943 NCL § 4435.09]—(NRS A 1969, 139; 1983, 1030; 2009, 3014)

http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-482.html#NRS482Sec255

 

[MAC702]

I agree. The cops would have known the registration was in force. It would probably have been a non-issue.

But this whole issue has certainly raised some questions to which I still haven't seen official legal answers, which is not to say they are readily discernible.

 

[countryclubjoe]

A contract was created, the contract was honored by both YOU OP and the security firm/casino.

I see no breech of contract on either side.

One question, OP had someone found your ticket and drove of in your car what legal remedies would you be seeking?
Who would those remedies been direct at?

TIA

CCJ