+1 muncie PD

[Rookie]

And there it begins.....it doesn't matter if you have the LTCH, they obviously are running them due to the recent thefts. You could purchase a stolen firearm via private party and not even know. If I were in their shoes I would do the very same thing.


It sounds like a conversation the nightshift k9 seargent (back when I did ridealongs with MPD) would have had with you, but the majority of MPD night shift officers are the best ones they have. Always loved riding with them


Also, thank you OP for a good review of them, they were good people when I was around them, and I'm sure those same people are still good


Edit: However, I would have given you a sheet of paper claiming to be a ticket for being a Pat's fan.....just to be funny

Whatever the reasoning doesn't excuse violating your rights. They want to seize your weapon because they believe you're dangerous, IC 35-47-14 covers that. Anything else requires a warrant.

 

[Yamaha]

now I remember why I stopped coming around here.....sad to see you're still not banned like the others

 

[Rookie]

To clarify, the OP gave up his rights, so the officers couldn't have violated his rights. If he would have refused, then the officers would have had a choice to make. Simply running it to see if it's stolen would require a warrant.

 

[Rookie]

now I remember why I stopped coming around here.....sad to see you're still not banned like the others

Really?

I never was banned.

Sorry if you don't care for reality.

 

[bassplayrguy]

The only question I ever have is why do the police feel it necessary to check the serial numbers on my firearm? Sure, there were some guns stolen in Muncie. So what? What makes the officer think my gun is one of the stolen ones? Especially if I have an LTCH.

I have asked some of my police officer friends this same question. Most of them tell me it is just department policy. I then ask them why they don't check my cell phone to see if it is stolen. Or why they don't check the ham radio in my car to see if it is stolen. Or why they don't check the 800 mhz radio I have in my car to see if it is stolen. I usually don't get an answer to those questions. I then ask them why the mere possession of a firearm makes them think it is stolen. Usually, the answer is, "It's just department policy".

This is why I NEVER tell them I a carrying. None of their business.

 

[Yamaha]

To clarify, the OP gave up his rights, so the officers couldn't have violated his rights. If he would have refused, then the officers would have had a choice to make. Simply running it to see if it's stolen would require a warrant.

And simply refusing is enough, if the officer wants to deal with it, to hold you until a warrant is had. Ever had a vehicle towed until they had a warrant to search it if you refuse? Same difference. I have been there before.

And to clarify, I guarantee why it was asked for to run the numbers, was not officer safety. I guarantee it was over the stolen firearms already mentioned in this thread. I've had issues with things you post before, many more so than most people on here. I miss the old days on here....

I must forget that to people, internet is SRS BUSINESS these days

 

[Rookie]

And simply refusing is enough, if the officer wants to deal with it, to hold you until a warrant is had. Ever had a vehicle towed until they had a warrant to search it if you refuse? Same difference. I have been there before.

And to clarify, I guarantee why it was asked for to run the numbers, was not officer safety. I guarantee it was over the stolen firearms already mentioned in this thread. I've had issues with things you post before, many more so than most people on here. I miss the old days on here....

If the officer has enough to get a warrant, I'll happily wait for him to obtain one. I never mentioned officer safety, so I'm not sure where you are headed.

And sorry if my posts offend you. I call it as I see it.

 

[xM3RC1L3SS1x]

That could've gotten ugly real fast. Sounds like he was a nice guy.

 

[Benny]

now I remember why I stopped coming around here.....sad to see you're still not banned like the others

Seriously? It's sad to see that he knows his rights?

There is definitely something sad in your post, but it has nothing to do with Rookie.

 

[Hammerhead]

And simply refusing is enough, if the officer wants to deal with it, to hold you until a warrant is had. Ever had a vehicle towed until they had a warrant to search it if you refuse? Same difference. I have been there before.

And to clarify, I guarantee why it was asked for to run the numbers, was not officer safety. I guarantee it was over the stolen firearms already mentioned in this thread. I've had issues with things you post before, many more so than most people on here. I miss the old days on here....

I must forget that to people, internet is SRS BUSINESS these days

Simply refusing is enough to qualify for a warrant being issued by a judge? Really? Without any PC or RAS? Good luck with that.

"I'm sorry judge, the suspect is saying I can't search him or his vehicle. Will you please give me legal permission to do so?"

"Why, officer, do you need legal permission to search this suspect and their vehicle? What have they done?"

"Well, your honor, they are carrying a firearm and refusing a search."

"Officer, have they done anything actually illegal? Do you think they've committed a crime or are about to?"

"The driver of the vehicle forgot to put the new registration sticker on their license plate."

"Is it registered properly otherwise?"

"Yes."

"Then what's the legal reason you need the warrant?"

"The suspect is carrying a firearm, and I want to run the numbers to see if it was one of the ones stolen recently."

"Is the suspect properly licensed?"

"Yes."

"Are they being cooperative?"

"Yes."

"So what exactly is your reasoning?"

"I want to run the numbers and they're refusing a search."

"You're wasting my time, officer."

Oh, and if an officer tows your car, they're required to inventory the contents. This doesn't require a warrant, but it doesn't always mean anything found is admissible. Any officer that "tows your car until a warrant is obtained" is probably going to lose that argument too. They still have to have PC or RAS to do so. Refusing a search is not PC or RAS for a search.

You can bet that the officer asked, and ran the numbers because of stolen firearms. Or is it because he admitted to be drinking? Or is it because of that dreaded officer safety? Or was it because the officer didn't know that he had no legal reason or ability to do so, and asked hoping that the OP would "cooperate" and give up his rights? Heck, it could be any number of reasons the officer asks that question. Point is, the officer can ask all he likes. Doesn't mean you have to answer. Doesn't mean you have to comply. Doesn't mean you have to "cooperate."

The legal carry of a firearm is NOT PC or RAS for a search, seizure, or look-see to run the numbers. Especially after a valid LTCH is presented.

My LEO dad always told me to be respectful of LEOs. He told me to be cordial, be succinct, and to keep calm, cool and collected. He never once told me I ever had to "cooperate", answer questions, or give up anything.

And the reason I'm putting "cooperate" in quotes is because one can be cooperative, i.e. handing over a DL and registration or LTCH politely when asked, and still not "cooperate," i.e doing everything the officer asks because he's an officer and he says so.

 

[Hammerhead]

And there it begins.....it doesn't matter if you have the LTCH,

The IN Supreme Court would disagree with you.

I'm not sure what I began. Was it speaking about my rights? Was it affirming that I get upset when LEOs overstep their bounds?

I don't think I bashed the OP. I didn't say anything about this specific LEO encounter or what the OP should or should not have done. I don't think I bashed LEOs, or the LEO in the OP. Shouldn't everyone be upset when LEOs overstep their bounds?

Or was it wrong of me to state my opinion in a manner that also informs the reader that I know my rights?

But please, enlighten me to what I "began." Perhaps I just don't see your point of view.

 

[AndersonIN]

We've had multiple thefts of hats of late so we're stopping anyone with a hat on and asking them to take them off so that we can inspect them to see if they were stolen.

No we don't have a description of who stole the hats and no you weren't doing anything wrong, Yes we do understand that it is legal for you to wear a hat.............But please be a good SHEEP and take off your hat and hand it to me! It will make me much happier.

Baaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaa herrrrrrrrrrrrrrre's mmmmmmy guuuunn I mean haaaaat!

 

[IndyGunner]

I dont know what everyone is getting so angry about. I gave up my right and let him disarm me. If I wasnt with my girlfriend (who was the only one that could have been in trouble here) I would have told him to get a warrant. I traded being disarmed for 5 minutes to save her several tickets/fines/etc and myself countless minutes/hours of waiting on them to get or not get said warrant. Im sure they wouldnt, but I doubt he would have let HER go.

Also, as I said before, he was very nice/polite. I honestly dont believe he disarmed me because he felt like he was in danger. Im not sure what his motive was, and it doesnt matter. I made a judgement call based on the situation and everything worked out well for everyone involved. The end.

 

[Hammerhead]

You did what you thought was prudent given the current situation. You were able to get away with a minimum of discomfort. The end to your encounter was positive. For the record, I'm glad it worked out for you.

It's not this encounter that's a problem. It's any encounter that a LEO feels the need to disarm a law abiding citizen for any reason that's a problem, at least in my opinion.

 

[AndersonIN]

I agree with Hammerhead. It kinda sets a tone with this and other LEO's that OH, it's OK to disarm a law abiding citizen when I FEEL THE NEED! Not all of us want to turn over our rights that easily and then the LEO thinks we're the trouble maker for not being willing to bend over.

Sorry, no one is angry. Just would handle it different! If you want it to be the end after you have handled it the was you think best then I would suggest NOT PUTTING IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM! Just a thought!

Keep Carrying!!!

 

[IndyGunner]

It's not this encounter that's a problem. It's any encounter that a LEO feels the need to disarm a law abiding citizen for any reason that's a problem, at least in my opinion.

I agree with you 110% on that. It is unfortunate and as I said in post #1, I wasn't happy about it.

Encounter wise, if my girlfriend had not been the one in the hot seat, I would have most certainly refused.

 

[IndyGunner]

I agree with Hammerhead. It kinda sets a tone with this and other LEO's that OH, it's OK to disarm a law abiding citizen when I FEEL THE NEED! Not all of us want to turn over our rights that easily and then the LEO thinks we're the trouble maker for not being willing to bend over.

Sorry, no one is angry. Just would handle it different! If you want it to be the end after you have handled it the was you think best then I would suggest NOT PUTTING IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM! Just a thought!

Keep Carrying!!!

I agree. Its sad, thats the way it is with some LEOs today... but he wouldnt have been able to "bend me over".... he could have taken it out on her, though.

Not sure what putting it on a forum has to do with anything. SHOUTING IS ALSO UNNECESSARY.

have a good one

 

[ckcollins2003]

EdBean, I for one fully respect your decision to let the officer run the numbers and do his job. You made it easier on him and he returned the favor by not issuing a citation to your girlfriend. It also showed him that not all people with firearms are going to be dickheads or criminals.

You complied to what you thought at the time was best for everyone involved and in my opinion that is much more mature and respectful than doing what some people say they "would have done".

Best of luck to you since your thread about a good experience has somehow managed to get turned into a middle school pissing contest...

 

[Smokepole]

The only question I ever have is why do the police feel it necessary to check the serial numbers on my firearm? Sure, there were some guns stolen in Muncie. So what? What makes the officer think my gun is one of the stolen ones? Especially if I have an LTCH.

I have asked some of my police officer friends this same question. Most of them tell me it is just department policy. I then ask them why they don't check my cell phone to see if it is stolen. Or why they don't check the ham radio in my car to see if it is stolen. Or why they don't check the 800 mhz radio I have in my car to see if it is stolen. I usually don't get an answer to those questions. I then ask them why the mere possession of a firearm makes them think it is stolen. Usually, the answer is, "It's just department policy".

Because they know that is a debate that they cannot win.

 

[protias]

No, I don't get mad if a LEO asks to take my gun to run the numbers. The reason is reasonable, and they can ask anything they like. I get mad when the LEO ignores the fact that my valid LTCH ceases any further questioning, including disarming me and running the numbers. Sorry that my rights trump the unnecessary (and potentially illegal) search of my legal firearm.

And now you have a "gun crime" firearm. Once the serial is put into the system, it never gets erased and the liberals love to use those numbers.