Please help settle an argument

[JTScribe]

One of my friends is a junior danger ranger - IE, he's in high school, but he's in this police mentorship program and plans to become an officer.

He is completely set on the fact that if someone is pulled over with a handgun, it's completely fine for the officer to run the serial numbers on the gun.

I'm of the mind that once you've presented the LTCH, and even disarmed yourself for the officer's safety, any further action on their part would be considered a 4th Amendment violation, particularly if you don't consent to them searching your person or vehicle.

Is there a relevant Indiana statute or Supreme Court ruling that I can refer to?

 

[KW730]

The fourth amendment is relevant. This has been discussed ad nauseam here. No, it is not legal. Yes, it is done frequently. How will you know what they are doing in their car while you are sitting in yours?

Edit: Read through this thread https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...lf_defense/257722-being_stopped_by_a_leo.html

INGO members, one of them being an officer, discuss this in depth.

 

[JTScribe]

I am looking through that thread not but I cannot find the case explicitly referred to when folks are saying, "The courts have also noted that presentation (or now validation) of your LTCH should stop all further questions about your legally carried handgun."

 

[KW730]

I am looking through that thread not but I cannot find the case explicitly referred to when folks are saying, "The courts have also noted that presentation (or now validation) of your LTCH should stop all further questions about your legally carried handgun."

The discussion about your question starts on page seven. I guess I should have stated that. Yes, presentation of an LTCH is supposed to stop any questioning about the firearm. Officers are still allowed, as per SCOTUS, to temporarily seize a firearm for "officer safety" until their investigation is finished.

Edit: Just looked over that thread and I feel like the one I was thinking of had a lot more discussion. If that's not it, I can't find the one I was thinking of. I'm sure many other INGOers will be along here soon to start arguing though.

 

[JTScribe]

Yeah, I went through it . . . everyone seems pretty much in agreement but there's no particular cases I can throw at him.

 

[netsecurity]

I don't know if there is an IC, but I believe there is legal precedent from a court ruling that says after showing the LTCH all inquiries must cease.

 

[Aaron1776]

Running the numbers w/o a warrant would be a violation of privacy. This is why I don't show them my LTCH unless they ask for it specifically. It's none of their business what I have on my person so long as I am not committing a felony.

 

[SideArmed]

Read here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/243013-carry_legal_cases.html

Washington V State discussion.

And here: Indiana Code 35-47-14

Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm

So in short, tell your friend that if he takes someones sidearm, he better be very prepared to go in front of a judge and explain to him why he felt that person posed a danger to officer safety, after a LTCH was verified.

 

[mrjarrell]

I believe the case your looking for is Richardson v State.
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

and the Washington case, too
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

 

[stephen87]

Read Washington v State of Indiana. Also, Richardson v State of Indiana would probably be interesting for you.

ETA:: Beat on both of them.

 

[singlestacksig]

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf


"This is not one of them. And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson‟s
production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further question"

 

[netsecurity]

A better question would be why he thinks a licensed gun owner would have a stolen gun? It isn't like we need to go on the black market. To assume the gun might be illegal is like assuming my car is stolen, even though it has my plates on it--it just doesn't make sense. Guns are legal. Would he check my watch to see if it was stolen when you pulled me over?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I have the firearm in my possession legally and can legally carry it back to my car, then it requires no further manipulation to see the serial number and is not expanding the scope of the seizure. If I had to remove a grip or something, than yes, I am now increasing the scope of the search and seizure.

If the firearm is not legally in my possession, than any evidence gathered by running the serial number will be suppressed, regardless.

Ditto with a search warrant. If I find anything where an item I am legally searching for could fit, its fair game. If I'm looking for clothing used in a robbery but find a pound of weed in the closet, I don't have to ignore it. I cannot manipulate items that couldn't hold what I'm looking for, though. Depending on what I find I may have to go get a second warrant to seize it (if its unrelated to the original crime).

So, the question boils down to:
1) Am I legally allowed to be where I am?
2) Can I see the item in question from the place I legally am?
3) If manipulation of the item is required, do I have the legal authority for the seizure of the item. (Say I have a warrant for a Droid cell phone with a certain phone number. If I find a cell phone that's an Apple, I can't seize it or look at the contacts, etc. If I find a Droid I can turn it on to see if it has that particular serial number as the warrant grants me the legal authority for that manipulation, but I still couldn't look in messages or the like without a separate warrant).

 

[rockhopper46038]

Damn it. That black electrical tape is going to clash with the finish on my firearms.

 

[92ThoStro]

If I have the firearm in my possession legally and can legally carry it back to my car, then it requires no further manipulation to see the serial number and is not expanding the scope of the seizure. If I had to remove a grip or something, than yes, I am now increasing the scope of the search and seizure.

If the firearm is not legally in my possession, than any evidence gathered by running the serial number will be suppressed, regardless.

Ditto with a search warrant. If I find anything where an item I am legally searching for could fit, its fair game. If I'm looking for clothing used in a robbery but find a pound of weed in the closet, I don't have to ignore it. I cannot manipulate items that couldn't hold what I'm looking for, though. Depending on what I find I may have to go get a second warrant to seize it (if its unrelated to the original crime).

So, the question boils down to:
1) Am I legally allowed to be where I am?
2) Can I see the item in question from the place I legally am?
3) If manipulation of the item is required, do I have the legal authority for the seizure of the item. (Say I have a warrant for a Droid cell phone with a certain phone number. If I find a cell phone that's an Apple, I can't seize it or look at the contacts, etc. If I find a Droid I can turn it on to see if it has that particular serial number as the warrant grants me the legal authority for that manipulation, but I still couldn't look in messages or the like without a separate warrant).

So you are saying if you temporarily seize a gun for officer safety, and sit in your vehicle, you can also legally run the serial number because it required no further manipulation, it was in plain view.

Which is opposite of what everyone else said.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So you are saying if you temporarily seize a gun for officer safety, and sit in your vehicle, you can also legally run the serial number because it required no further manipulation, it was in plain view.

Which is opposite of what everyone else said.

If the gun is legally seized, yes. I've seen nothing to the contrary from either state or federal case law.

Most of what everyone else has been focused on is if the gun can be legally seized or not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Damn it. That black electrical tape is going to clash with the finish on my firearms.

Might work. The ATF has ruled that this doesn't constitute "obscuring the serial number" per federal code. I haven't looked into it at a state level, but can't think of anything off the top of my head that would prohibit it.

What you'd likely run into is a deliberate attempt to obscure the serial number as an indication that criminal activity is afoot. Given that the purpose of a serial number is so that a particular item can be identified, I don't think the court would say you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to conceal the firearm serial number, especially since permanently altering/obliterating/etc would be illegal. Courts often have different idea than me, though, so it would be interesting to see how case law would shake that out.

 

[KW730]

Might work. The ATF has ruled that this doesn't constitute "obscuring the serial number" per federal code. I haven't looked into it at a state level, but can't think of anything off the top of my head that would prohibit it.

What you'd likely run into is a deliberate attempt to obscure the serial number as an indication that criminal activity is afoot. Be interesting to see how case law would shake that out.

I would like to assume not, but when you run a serial number on a firearm, is there anyway that gets linked to the owner?

As for having it in your possession legally, I believe the usual rebuttal to that is that you have it for the sole purpose of your own safety and any checks for criminal activity would go beyond that.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Might work. The ATF has ruled that this doesn't constitute "obscuring the serial number" per federal code. I haven't looked into it at a state level, but can't think of anything off the top of my head that would prohibit it.

What you'd likely run into is a deliberate attempt to obscure the serial number as an indication that criminal activity is afoot. Be interesting to see how case law would shake that out.

I think I'd be willing to be the test case on that one. The penalty I would likely face if found guilty would be worth establishing case law making a serial number run during an otherwise mundane traffic violation a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

I'll still have to do a search for electrical tape in better colors, though.

 

[92ThoStro]

If the gun is legally seized, yes. I've seen nothing to the contrary from either state or federal case law.

Most of what everyone else has been focused on is if the gun can be legally seized or not.

I don't know how I feel about that. I know some people don't like it, or even think it is illegal, because it is invasive. Yet, what about checking people's licenses plates? We don't care, because it's our car, and we know it's not stolen, right? I see people on here, and many other forums posting their weapon's serial number all the time, asking how old it is, what make and model, etc. So obviously they don't treat it like a closely guarded secret such as a Social Security number. So why would they care if the number is checked or not to see if the gun is stolen?
I would be mad if an officer just disarmed me and told me he did so, in order to run the serial number.
But if they say they are going to take it for officer safety back to their car, it would probably be less painful... at least for our egos!

So do you ever disarm LTCH holders for "officer safety"?

It kind of makes me want to decide, to not want to inform.

Question that I will have to think about, and something I for sure will have to decide in the next few years. How many LEOs actually seize a firearm temporarily, just because they feel safer with it out of the other person's possession? You don't really hear about LTCH holders shooting at police officers during a traffic stop. If they were violent criminals, they would just shoot you as you approached the window, which I have seen videos of that happening before.
Do you honestly only seize the firearm for your safety, or sometimes is it, "wow, that guy is being a jerk, I better take is handgun"
For right now, I think I will not seize an LTCH holder's firearms during a traffic stop or encounter.
I guess that could always change later.