Okay, I always thought Washington v. State said a LTCH ended all questions regarding a handgun and Richardson v. State said a bulge is not RAS. However, someone PMed stating otherwise. Now others say they feel the same way I do. Someone care to explain? Here's the PM.
In Richardson, the suspect had a bulge that was spotted when he was pulled over for a seat belt violation. The INSC ruled that the officer shouldn't have overstepped the seat belt law, because it's very specific about what happens when you're pulled over for seat belt violations. She questioned the bulge and Richardson replied that it was his firearm, he had a valid LTCH (4 year). She attempted to verify the validity of the LTCH three times, but couldn't do basic math. The issue date was obscured but the expiration date was three years away. Because she didn't or couldn't properly verify the LTCH, she remove him from his truck, took his firearm, and searched the truck where she found his cocaine. He became combative and fought with two officers during his "arrest."
The local court ruled in his favor, the appeals court ruled in the prosecution's favor, and the INSC ruled in Richardson's favor, tossing the search, cocaine, handgun charge, and everything else but the assault on the officers, only saying that a lower court would have to rule on that.
The summary went on to state that even if the circumstances weren't subject to the seat belt stop, that the presentation of the valid (verified) LTCH ends any further questioning into firearms.
In Washington v. State, Mr. Washington was pulled over for some vehicle infraction. He admitted that there was a firearm in the vehicle and also had a LTCH. The firearm was under the seat, so he was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and sat on a curb. The officer(s) searched the vehicle because of the gun (officer safety BS) and found some dope. The appeals court ruled that the officer safety aspect wasn't a valid reason to search the vehicle when he had been removed from the "danger" and officer safety wasn't a factor anymore. His conviction was tossed.
So here's the summary. Richardson says valid LTCH stops questioning to firearms. Washington says no danger, no officer safety problem. When I've discussed this with the resident lawyers here on INGO, we've also included Terry v. Ohio (i.e. Terry stops) with this as Terry states that you must be armed and dangerous, and that there must be evidence that you have, are, or will be committing a crime to stop and frisk you. Add on the fact that in order to seize a weapon without a warrant, a LEO must be able to go in front of a judge and articulate that you were a danger (IC 35-47-14-3). Let's add in IC 35-47-11.1-3 where LEOs as agents of a political subdivision can't make up or enforce any laws, rules, or local ordinances about the carry of your firearm.
In Richardson, the suspect had a bulge that was spotted when he was pulled over for a seat belt violation. The INSC ruled that the officer shouldn't have overstepped the seat belt law, because it's very specific about what happens when you're pulled over for seat belt violations. She questioned the bulge and Richardson replied that it was his firearm, he had a valid LTCH (4 year). She attempted to verify the validity of the LTCH three times, but couldn't do basic math. The issue date was obscured but the expiration date was three years away. Because she didn't or couldn't properly verify the LTCH, she remove him from his truck, took his firearm, and searched the truck where she found his cocaine. He became combative and fought with two officers during his "arrest."
The local court ruled in his favor, the appeals court ruled in the prosecution's favor, and the INSC ruled in Richardson's favor, tossing the search, cocaine, handgun charge, and everything else but the assault on the officers, only saying that a lower court would have to rule on that.
The summary went on to state that even if the circumstances weren't subject to the seat belt stop, that the presentation of the valid (verified) LTCH ends any further questioning into firearms.
In Washington v. State, Mr. Washington was pulled over for some vehicle infraction. He admitted that there was a firearm in the vehicle and also had a LTCH. The firearm was under the seat, so he was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and sat on a curb. The officer(s) searched the vehicle because of the gun (officer safety BS) and found some dope. The appeals court ruled that the officer safety aspect wasn't a valid reason to search the vehicle when he had been removed from the "danger" and officer safety wasn't a factor anymore. His conviction was tossed.
So here's the summary. Richardson says valid LTCH stops questioning to firearms. Washington says no danger, no officer safety problem. When I've discussed this with the resident lawyers here on INGO, we've also included Terry v. Ohio (i.e. Terry stops) with this as Terry states that you must be armed and dangerous, and that there must be evidence that you have, are, or will be committing a crime to stop and frisk you. Add on the fact that in order to seize a weapon without a warrant, a LEO must be able to go in front of a judge and articulate that you were a danger (IC 35-47-14-3). Let's add in IC 35-47-11.1-3 where LEOs as agents of a political subdivision can't make up or enforce any laws, rules, or local ordinances about the carry of your firearm.
