Seizure of firearms at traffic stop

[Steeler]

Ok let me get this straight. Does IC 35 47 14 make it illegal for a leo to remove a handgun from your vehicle during a traffic stop? This assuming officer has been shown your ltch.

 

[CX1]

Depends on if they can articulate that you are 'dangerous' and a Judge believes them.

If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual

 

[rnmcguire]

I don't believe the above legal definition is applicable to a roadside stop. This would be more in line with a person arrested for something and his firearms are confiscated. A police officer should have probable cause that a law has been broken in order to legally search your vehicle. Possession of firearms by a legal person is not probable cause.

 

[Steeler]

So I guess the question is, would an officer during a routine traffic stop be justified in removing youre handgun from the vehicle knowing you are legally possessing it? Or does the code not apply to this situation for the sake of "officer safety".

 

[Rookie]

No, he would not. There are a few exceptions (IC 35-47-14-3, Terry stop, search after arrest) that he would not need a warrant.

 

[aikidoka]

I think one would have to assert their rights to cover themselves otherwise it would be a said they consented?

 

[Rookie]

Yup

 

[KLB]

Huh? You are saying someone has to actually say they do not consent to a search or they do? That does not sound right.

 

[Rookie]

I'm saying you need to make it clear that you're willing to stand up for your rights.

 

[Double T]

The don't tread on me slogan applies to every right, not just firearms.

 

[rw496]

Huh? You are saying someone has to actually say they do not consent to a search or they do? That does not sound right.

No. It is pretty well established consent has to be knowing and voluntary not simply the absence of active objection.

 

[Indy317]

There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.

 

[Rookie]

What would give you the legal justification?

 

[KG1]

There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.

Does'nt he have to articulate why he felt the need to take possession of the "deadly weapon" being lawfully carried absent any reason other than it's a deadly weapon?

 

[jeremy]

There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.

Are you going to take my Vehicle Keys away from me as well.
Or how about my Hand Tools...
Or the Bow and Quiver...
Or how about my Knife...

Last I knew three out of those four items were responsible for more deaths a year than Firearms...

 

[Jack Burton]

There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.

did you know that not all our laws come from "rulings"? Some actually come from the legislature, where they are passed and signed by the governor. This is such a law. If he takes the firearm then he must articulate to a judge just why, in specifics, he felt there was danger to his life. That is the law.

 

[rw496]

did you know that not all our laws come from "rulings"? Some actually come from the legislature, where they are passed and signed by the governor. This is such a law. If he takes the firearm then he must articulate to a judge just why, in specifics, he felt there was danger to his life. That is the law.

Yeah, but all interpretations of what was meant by the law comes from rulings. It looks like many people are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. You say cops can't according to the law; some say cops can according to the law. Until the courts say stop it's gonna keep on happening.

 

[Rookie]

Yeah, but all interpretations of what was meant by the law comes from rulings. It looks like many people are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. You say cops can't according to the law; some say cops can according to the law. Until the courts say stop it's gonna keep on happening.

Cops can according to which law?

 

[Jack Burton]

Yeah, but all interpretations of what was meant by the law comes from rulings. It looks like many people are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. You say cops can't according to the law; some say cops can according to the law. Until the courts say stop it's gonna keep on happening.

Those of us who state that cops legally can't also tend to quote specific laws and court rulings. Those that say that cops can generally quote themselves and their feelings about what should be right.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Those of us who state that cops legally can't also tend to quote specific laws and court rulings. Those that say that cops can generally quote themselves and their feelings about what should be right.

Feelings just dont matter