SWAT raid at friend’s house in Nevada What happened next

Have you ever been stopped by police in Nevada and questioned their actions? It’s a common concern, as many are unsure if their rights are being infringed. Understanding the law is crucial to effectively handle such situations. This article delves into a key court decision to illustrate how legal challenges can be addressed.

Situation

Specific Situation

In Nevada, there was a person involved in a legal problem after being charged with having drugs to sell. What happened was, this person and another friend went to a house. At that house, the police, specifically a SWAT team, were there with a search warrant. When they knocked on the door, police told them to come inside. The friend went in, but the person we’re talking about tried to run away. The police caught him, put him in handcuffs, and searched him. During the search, they found methamphetamine, which is a type of illegal drug. This discovery became a big part of the court case.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The person who was caught, called the appellant here, believed his rights were not respected. He argued that the police didn’t have a good reason, or “reasonable suspicion,” to stop him. According to him, they should have told him his Miranda rights, which are rights like staying silent and having a lawyer, before asking him questions about weapons or drugs. Because the police didn’t do these things, he said that the evidence they found should not be used in court.

Defendant’s Argument

The other side, which is the State of Nevada, said the police were right in what they did. They explained that when officers are doing a search for drugs, they need to be careful and sometimes have to stop people to make sure everyone is safe. They believed the officers were following standard procedures to ensure their safety and to find out if any crimes were happening.

Judgment Outcome

The court decided in favor of the appellant. They said the evidence from the search should not be used. The court found that the police didn’t have enough reason to stop him, which violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Also, since they didn’t read him his Miranda rights before asking questions, the evidence was not allowed. The court changed the original decision and allowed him to take back his guilty plea. This was recorded as case number 33729.

Solution

Immediate Actions

If you find yourself in a similar situation, the first thing to do is stay calm. It’s important to remember your rights, such as the right to remain silent. You don’t have to answer questions without a lawyer present. If you believe your rights are being violated, try to remember as many details as possible about what happened because this will be useful later.

Filing a Motion

If you think the police didn’t follow the rules, you might need to file a motion to suppress the evidence. This means asking the court not to use certain evidence because it was obtained illegally. It’s a complex process, so having a lawyer is very helpful. They can write the motion and present your case to the court, explaining why the evidence should not be used.

Negotiation and Settlement Strategies

In some cases, it might be possible to resolve the issue without a full court trial. Your lawyer can negotiate with the prosecutor for a plea deal, where you might confess to a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence. This can be a good option if the evidence against you is strong, but always discuss the pros and cons with your attorney before deciding.

FAQ

What is suppression?

Suppression means keeping certain evidence out of court because it was obtained in a way that violated someone’s rights. If the police didn’t follow legal procedures, the evidence they find might not be allowed in court.

What are Miranda rights?

Miranda rights are the rights police must inform you of if you’re arrested. They include the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer. If the police don’t tell you these rights, the things you say might not be used against you in court.

What does “reasonable suspicion” mean?

Reasonable suspicion is when police have a good and clear reason to think someone is involved in a crime. It can’t be just a feeling; it needs to be based on facts or evidence.

What is the Fourth Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution. It protects people from unfair searches and taking of property by the government. It means police need a good reason, and usually a warrant, to search you or your belongings.

What is NRS 171.123?

NRS 171.123 is a law in Nevada that lets police stop and question someone if they think the person is involved in a crime. This law is similar to the Fourth Amendment but specific to Nevada.

What is a “pat down”?

A pat down is a quick search by police to check if someone has weapons. It’s usually done if the police think someone might be armed and dangerous.

What does “articulable” mean?

Articulable means the police can clearly explain why they thought someone was involved in a crime. It’s not enough to just have a feeling; they need specific reasons.

What is custody?

Custody means being held by the police. If you’re in custody, you don’t feel free to leave. It’s important because it affects when your Miranda rights should be read to you.

What is a plea bargain?

A plea bargain is when you agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge to get a lighter punishment or to have other charges dropped. It’s a deal made to avoid a trial.