"Wire Fraud isn't illegal," police investigator tells me (with a straight face).

Today I was preparing to file a Citizen's Arrest at Walmart, but dropped by the police station first. 

Outside the station I ran into an officer, and asked if an investigator was on duty. John Hecimovich said he was the Investigator, then told me he already read my email. I was a little surprised, not just because he recognized me from my writing, but because nobody has actually responded to any of my many emails. He surprised me by telling me he had actually read my email. 

After complimenting my eloquent writing skills, Investigator Hecimovich told me that he saw nothing illegal, then stated as a true fact that "Wire Fraud" is not a crime, but a civil matter. He cited his 30 years of law enforcement to bolster his Best Judgement that Fraud is not illegal.

It is difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with somebody "gaslighting" you. When that person has a firearm they can use with impunity, it becomes very intimidating when they refuse to do the job they get paid for. 

When I followed up by defining Wire Fraud, outlining the false pretenses and explaining the online claims contradicted, Hecimovich stubbornly insisted none of that was illegal. He called my smoking-gun proof "hypothetical" and "speculative", and merely my "opinion". When I reminded him that Wire Fraud was a serious Federal felony, he kept repeating that Wire Fraud was merely a civil matter, and not illegal. And since Hemovich had already decided no crime had been committed, he apparently saw no need to Investigate. Which is sort of his job title...

Investigator Hecimovich was very polite, almost friendly, while insisting that Wire Fraud isn't illegal. He looked me in the eye and said it with a smile!

Now, I realize that local cops enforce state laws, and not federal, but ignorance of the law is no excuse - not even for a police officer.

Just like Walmart manager Tonio, Investigator Hecimovich could not admit I was correct. Whenever I offered definitive proof, both simply said, "Nuh-uh!" And while I can understand Tonio's motivation to lie, I'm baffled why a police officer would decline following up on allegations of a high-tech crime ring. Baffled why he kept arguing with me about the definition of Wire Fraud, why he kept insisting Fraud is not illegal.

When I told Investigator Hecimovich that I was planning a Citizen's Arrest, he didn't "refuse" to (in so many words), but kept stating as a true fact that no crime had happened. That is not the police officer's job, telling a citizen no crime had happened, but to obey the law. The law that is written, not laws the officer imagines. 

Now, it would be different if he had pointed out that federal felonies are beyond his jurisdiction, and thus beyond his power of arrest, but Hecimovich simply wasn't going to follow the rule of law. While he never explicitly stated his refusal, he simply kept deflecting each time I mentioned it, insisting that nothing illegal had occurred. Again, that is not a police officer's job to prevent a citizen from effecting their arrest. 

Nevada Revised Statute clearly states the provisions of a Citizen's Arrest, which I met:

      NRS 171.126  Arrest by private person.  A private person may arrest another:

      1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the person’s presence.
      2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the person’s presence.
      3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and the private person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Nothing in that statute allows a police officer to refuse that arrest request. In fact, doing so seems a lot like Obstruction of Justice. 

But I have a feeling that Investigator Hecimovich will simply claim that Obstruction or Racketeering are not illegal, as well. In fact, part 3 makes that arrest mandatory - "reasonable cause for believing" a felony occurred. "Gross Misdemeanors" are also subject to Citizens Arrest, under part 1, but only if the police officer feels like doing his job.  

Hecimovich simply refused to provide the "honest services" my taxes pay for, having law enforcement obey NRS 171.126. In fact, another statute in that same subsection explicitly gave me the right to summon his assistance:

NRS 171.132  Person making arrest may summon assistance.  Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as the person making the arrest deems necessary to aid him or her therein.

While making a false Citizen's Arrest would expose me to a civil lawsuit or even criminal charges, that's placed entirely upon the head of the citizen calling for arrest. Any police officers would be completely immune from liability, while the arresting citizen would be completely liable. 

Now, why on earth would an officer refuse to administer a Citizen's arrest? What possible explanation could there be? Gosh, that's a tough one to figure out. Right?

Inquisitive readers should ask Investigator Hecimovich (jhecimovich@rsic.org - (775)785-8776. 

The answer might astound you!