• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

flagellum

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
384
Location
North Las Vegas, NV
So first to preface, Open Carry is not present in this story. I just think you guys might be interested.

Last night I went downtown to Freemont Street. I went out and about and had fun with some friends. Since I was drinking, I chose not to drive home and got a ride, leaving my vehicle at the Four Queens parking Garage. Today, I got a ride from a friend and had him drop me off at Freemont so that I could recover my car. It's been quite a while and I lost my ticket, so I pull out some cash to pay the meter people upon my exit. I get to the gate and this is where things go bad.

When I tell them I did not have my ticket they tell me if I do not have it I must pay the maximum amount and that I must produce my drivers license and vehicle registration for them to inspect. I decline. They told me that it is required, and that they would refuse to open the gate unless I provided the information. I refused to cooperate only offer to pay the full amount of which I owed and nothing else. After holding up traffic for quite a while, I backed my car up and pulled into the parking spot.

After talking to three different security officers, I had no luck on convincing them that they did not have the right to hold me on their property against my will. I told them if they wanted to trespass me that was fine I would be more than glad to leave the property. They came back with a rebuttal, that they were not keeping me on their property, but merely my car. Obviously this was not acceptable to me and I told them they should get Metro then because I was staying with my vehicle up until the point that they let myself and my vehicle off their property. (Of course in retrospect, I should have initiated contact with metro were they to be contacted)

After a long wait metro finally arrives. They ask me the situation and I try to explain it the best I can, although I am extremely nervous and flustered. I was asked a rapid series of questions about if I was drunk or high and for what reason I have to not produce personal information if I had done nothing wrong. I was asked if I was carrying a firearm (I was carrying concealed) and I declined to answer.

The discussion I had with the officer was long and drawn out. I do not think he felt I was being reasonable in my conviction to refuse to provide personal information to security staff. Eventually he asked me to identify myself. I asked him if that it was required by law that I must do so. He said that since he was conducting an investigation that I must do so. this didn't sound right to me, but I cooperated with him, and stated my full name, birthdate, place of birth and SSN as he requested of me. Presumably he went back to his cruiser and ran my information to see if I was a criminal or if I had lied to any of his questions.

Nearing the ending of this ordeal he informed me that this was in essence a civil matter, and that if he chose too, he could drive off and that If I wanted my car back from them my only real recourse would be to sue them. While it certainly seemed to me that it was criminal that 4 Queens was detaining my property on their property without my consent, I do not think that anything in criminal law specifically stop them from doing this to me.

At this point I realized I was more or less **** out of luck, and the best I could really do at this point is hope that this officer, as a mediator, could convince 4 Queens security to release my property. I produced my drivers license to the police officer and he told them he had every reason to believe that I was in fact the lawful owner of my car. This satisfied the private security, though unsurprisingly they trespassed me as well, and despite my will against it (at least as far as I know) my full name was provided to 4 Queens security. I payed my fare and drove home.

Here is the questions that I have. Did the Four Queens have the right to detain my personal property? Of course they claim that by pressing the ticket button that I agreed to all the terms and conditions of the facility and than in and of itself is a contract. This is absurd of course, as it is entirely probable that the lawful owner of a car would exit the facility without had pressing the button or even seeing those signs at all. (Example: Let my friend drive my vehicle downtown. I go to pick it up. I would lawfully be trying to reclaim my property without having even engaged in their "Pseudo-contract" by pressing a button.)

While I am pleased with the way the officer handled the situation, I am curious if I was required to produce my personal information during his initial request for it. I wasn't about to argue that right then and there.

Anyhow if you have any feedback I would love to here it. I don't like the behave like an ******* but of course I have a strong interest in defending my rights.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Excellent question!

Are there any signs in the parking area about the terms of parking there?

Signs or no, there very well may be implied waivers involved if you CHOOSE to park in their secured area.

While cops are most certainly not experts on the law, his stating to you that your recourse was to sue them, and they he could not force them to release your property until their terms were met may very well be correct.

PLEASE keep us posted.

So, when you refused to answer whether or not you were armed, how exactly did that go?
 
Last edited:

flagellum

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
384
Location
North Las Vegas, NV
Excellent question!

Are there any signs in the parking area about the terms of parking there?

Signs or no, there very well may be implied waivers involved if you CHOOSE to park in their secured area.

While cops are most certainly not experts on the law, his stating to you that your recourse was to sue them, and they he could not force them to release your property until their terms were met may very well be correct.

PLEASE keep us posted.

So, when you refused to answer whether or not you were armed, how exactly did that go?

Does anyone know of any guidance of what legally constitute a contract? I would be surprised to find that being in the presence of a sign would fulfill the requirements.

As for the first contact, it went something like this:
Police Officer, as well as posse of 4 security guards walk towards me as I stand beside my car. For one of the first few questions he asked he said, "Do you have any weapons on you"(Or some variation of this) and I replied with, "I am declining to answer that question." Immediately after that he said "Come with me" and walked me to the street outside the presence of the security guards. He knew I was not required to answer that question and I think for him he became aware at that point what my intentions were. While initially he may have thought I was a thief or on drugs or something I think it was then he knew my disobedience was because of my willingness to defend my rights to the fullest extent that I could. He never requested to search or disarm. Since he ran my info he must have known I had a CCW at least and that I was likely carrying, if not certain by identifying traces of my weapon printing through my clothes.
 
Last edited:

flagellum

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
384
Location
North Las Vegas, NV
eh, its a free country ... maybe get a default .. guys seems to think he deserves $$

Dude, I'm the OP. Where did you get the idea that I want to get money from people? Nothing in my post says or implies that, only that it is to be understood that this is solely a civil issue.
 

40S&W

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
28
Location
Lake Stevens Wa
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.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I was asked if I was carrying a firearm (I was carrying concealed) and I declined to answer.

NRS 202.3667  Permittee to carry permit and proper identification when in possession of concealed firearm; penalty.
1.  Each permittee shall carry the permit, or a duplicate issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.367, together with proper identification whenever the permittee is in actual possession of a concealed firearm. Both the permit and proper identification must be presented if requested by a peace officer.
2.  A permittee who violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of $25 for each violation.

So, apparently it is lawful to decline to answer??? I've never given that question much thought.
 

flagellum

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
384
Location
North Las Vegas, NV
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.

I'm aware of the reasoning behind the policy. In no way am I implying that it doesn't make practical sense. Checkpoints, wire-taps and domestic surveillance are also in everyone's "best interest", the argument is whether or not they are lawful. My purpose is to question whether or not that have the authority to enforce this policy, good intentions or not. If I invite guests to my home or business, Do I have the right to keep control of property they brought with them if I feel they haven't met my terms, that they did not explicitly agree too? That is the underlying question of which I am unaware of the answer.
 

Bmeierholtz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
60
Location
Nevada
I don't think they have the authority to just let someone leave in a car without them at least showing that they own the vehicle. Let's say if you had provided proof that the car belonged to you, then maybe the entire situation could have been avoided. Could it be that by asking for an identity they were tying to ascertain ownership of the vehicle? As to the amount they tried to charge you, I think it is common for one to pay max unless they can prove otherwise.
Just my two cents worth.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
So, apparently it is lawful to decline to answer??? I've never given that question much thought.

Thank you for posting the law. Yes, I would agree that it was lawful to decline to answer, at least certainly in the manner in which he did so.

But if the officer had reason to believe that he was carrying concealed, and asked to see his permission slip and ID, then he would have been required to produce them.

I think the officer was pretty decent. He didn't push the issue, and once he identified him, there was no longer a need to ask for a carry permit even if he then knew he was carrying.
 

flagellum

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
384
Location
North Las Vegas, NV
I don't think they have the authority to just let someone leave in a car without them at least showing that they own the vehicle. Let's say if you had provided proof that the car belonged to you, then maybe the entire situation could have been avoided. Could it be that by asking for an identity they were tying to ascertain ownership of the vehicle? As to the amount they tried to charge you, I think it is common for one to pay max unless they can prove otherwise.
Just my two cents worth.

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.
 
Last edited:

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
So, apparently it is lawful to decline to answer??? I've never given that question much thought.

Seems of the officer knew he was concealed then that law comes into play.

Edit. Never mind I see Mac said the same thing. Broke my own rule of not reading all the way.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...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.

Actually, I might disagree. For a parking lot with free public access, like the one at Wal-Mart, your point applies. But for a parking lot with a guarded entrance/exit, perhaps not. When you entered the parking lot, did you have to stop at the gate and get an entrance ticket? This may have expressly or implicitly (depending on signage and laws) been the same as your Costco scenario.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Thank you for posting the law. Yes, I would agree that it was lawful to decline to answer, at least certainly in the manner in which he did so.

But if the officer had reason to believe that he was carrying concealed, and asked to see his permission slip and ID, then he would have been required to produce them.

I think the officer was pretty decent. He didn't push the issue, and once he identified him, there was no longer a need to ask for a carry permit even if he then knew he was carrying.

It appears, only to avoid a civil infraction.


Concealment is a crime. A valid permit provides exception. Having the permit invalidates the crime, but not presenting it (or not having it with you) isn't a crime. It is a civil infraction, if I am reading the statute correctly.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
It appears, only to avoid a civil infraction.


Concealment is a crime. A valid permit provides exception. Having the permit invalidates the crime, but not presenting it (or not having it with you) isn't a crime. It is a civil infraction, if I am reading the statute correctly.

I see your point.

I'd not thought of it in terms of refusal to cooperate before, only in terms of losing one's wallet for the day or something like that.

In a matter of refusal (at this point we are assuming the police officer has a lawful order), might there be a more serious charge involved?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I see your point.

I'd not thought of it in terms of refusal to cooperate before, only in terms of losing one's wallet for the day or something like that.

In a matter of refusal (at this point we are assuming the police officer has a lawful order), might there be a more serious charge involved?

Good question. Given that failure to present id and permit isn't a criminal act, how can there be a more serious charge?


Now, specifically, if not replying to an 'are you armed' question, what would lead to the question of 'permit and id.'
 

turborich

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2012
Messages
176
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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.
 
Top