+1 State Trooper, -1 state Trooper

[Bang-bang]

I do know for a Fact, that most LEOs that have asked for my sidearm, do NOT like they response "I'll let you have my Pistol, if I can keep your Pistol here for my Safety..."

LOL , you would have to have BIG ones, most dont like funny haha stuff

 

[Rookie]

LOL , you would have to have BIG ones, most dont like funny haha stuff

Or partially brain dead.

In Jeremy's case, I'll let you decide...

 

[EvilBlackGun]

It only takes the ONE ...

... Officer Krispy-Kreme to foul up a good day!

^This^ Make sure you have some kind of audio recorder device running too. Something tells me that it won't be well received. <snip> Some even get more agitated when you start talking about IC and rights instead of just keeping your mouth shut and following their commands.

I'm not saying that all LEOs would react in a negative manner but there is always that chance. Hopefully they would react in a professional manner and not take it as a personal challenge to their authority.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Where is the best point to ask ...

... for the LEOs cop-license, and take a picture of it and the LEO, and ask the LEO to state audibly their name, department, etc., while writing it down? Wouldn't we expect compliance since we have ourselves complied? Why /why not? EBG

I think to make him feel totally safe you could offer to get in the trunk with the holstered firearm still on your hip.

 

[SideArmed]

I admire this approach...have you ever tried it? I'd be curious as to how it was recieved and handled.

I haven't had to put this theory into practice fotunately. I find it's easier to just not get pulled over. But thanks to the wonderful folks on this forum, I have been able to educate myself on indiana law and have been shown the error of my past encounters, and have been able to re think my position on traffic stops. I used to be "Mr Better-To-Comply Guy", but know now how bad that could have turned out.

I will always be pleasant and return respect as nessasary, but no more complying with unlawful demands or requests.

 

[DadOfFour]

Here’s the code (thanks, Rookie)… it looks to me as if we can simply refuse to accept the firearm back and the LEO will have to then explain to the court why he took the gun away from us.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537. IC 35-47-14-3 Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous. (b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). 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. (c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

The bold part scares me. What if the court decides that Officer Safety concerns = you being potentially dangerous? The way I read it if the court rules against you you don't get your gun back. Or, God forbid, the Officer fudges the details a bit, "The subject was moving around within the vehicle as I approached, the subject acted in a verbally aggressive manner." You "moved" in the vehicle while breathing, therefore his statement is not perjury; you're failure to comply with his order (lawful or not) could be construed as aggressive by an Officer used to complete compliance, therefore again not perjury. Now in the eyes of the court it's not so cut and dry, and by the way, it's gonna be your word against his. If my gun is taken I'd rather get it back right there on the side of the road then risk having some liberal limp wristed judge decide that I was dangerous and let them keep my gun.

 

[iChokePeople]

The bold part scares me. What if the court decides that Officer Safety concerns = you being potentially dangerous? The way I read it if the court rules against you you don't get your gun back. Or, God forbid, the Officer fudges the details a bit, "The subject was moving around within the vehicle as I approached, the subject acted in a verbally aggressive manner." You "moved" in the vehicle while breathing, therefore his statement is not perjury; you're failure to comply with his order (lawful or not) could be construed as aggressive by an Officer used to complete compliance, therefore again not perjury. Now in the eyes of the court it's not so cut and dry, and by the way, it's gonna be your word against his. If my gun is taken I'd rather get it back right there on the side of the road then risk having some liberal limp wristed judge decide that I was dangerous and let them keep my gun.

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The bold part scares me. What if the court decides that Officer Safety concerns = you being potentially dangerous? The way I read it if the court rules against you you don't get your gun back. Or, God forbid, the Officer fudges the details a bit, "The subject was moving around within the vehicle as I approached, the subject acted in a verbally aggressive manner." You "moved" in the vehicle while breathing, therefore his statement is not perjury; you're failure to comply with his order (lawful or not) could be construed as aggressive by an Officer used to complete compliance, therefore again not perjury. Now in the eyes of the court it's not so cut and dry, and by the way, it's gonna be your word against his. If my gun is taken I'd rather get it back right there on the side of the road then risk having some liberal limp wristed judge decide that I was dangerous and let them keep my gun.

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

Exactly. It is not as simple as 'he said, she said' here. It must be verifiable cause by the court to seize your weapon.

 

[SideArmed]

The bold part scares me. What if the court decides that Officer Safety concerns = you being potentially dangerous? The way I read it if the court rules against you you don't get your gun back. Or, God forbid, the Officer fudges the details a bit, "The subject was moving around within the vehicle as I approached, the subject acted in a verbally aggressive manner." You "moved" in the vehicle while breathing, therefore his statement is not perjury; you're failure to comply with his order (lawful or not) could be construed as aggressive by an Officer used to complete compliance, therefore again not perjury. Now in the eyes of the court it's not so cut and dry, and by the way, it's gonna be your word against his. If my gun is taken I'd rather get it back right there on the side of the road then risk having some liberal limp wristed judge decide that I was dangerous and let them keep my gun.

And to further add to what iChokepeople & TF said, the officer is going to have to explain why they felt the need to continue inquiring about firearms after a valid LTCH was presented.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

And to further add to what iChokepeople & TF said, the officer is going to have to explain why they felt the need to continue inquiring about firearms after a valid LTCH was presented.

Actually IF the LEO went with the 'dangerous person' story Richardson wouldn't apply since there would be reason for further inquiry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Actually IF the LEO went with the 'dangerous person' story Richardson wouldn't apply since there would be reason for further inquiry.

And if you are dangerous they might as well call back up and arrest your ass.

 

[SideArmed]

Actually IF the LEO went with the 'dangerous person' story Richardson wouldn't apply since there would be reason for further inquiry.

True, hadn't thought of that.

But if they are unable to articulate an officer safety issue, then......

 

[iChokePeople]

And if you are dangerous they might as well call back up and arrest your ass.

I tend to think a LEO would have a hard time selling 'imminent danger' after checking your license and reg, verifying LTCH, having a constitutional discussion with you on the side of the road for 15 minutes, making no effort to call for backup, etc... But I'm neither a Lawyer nor a LEO.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

And if you are dangerous they might as well call back up and arrest your ass.

Being dangerous in the legal sense is not automatically a crime so arrest is not necessary. The understanding is IMO for a Terry Stop of an unkown and seemingly dangerous individual who MIGHT be possessing weapon with which he can or could harm himself or others.

A valid LTCH holder legally armed with his handgun obviously does NOT fall in line with this scenario. In fact I would think it would be pretty hard to be considered legally 'dangerous' and hold a valid LTCH without it being voided for not being a 'proper person.'

Very interesting stuff.

Hey BTW does anyone have any statutes for 'officer safety' as defined by what parameters they can control their contacts to insure their safety? Federal or Indiana Code or case law would be appreciated with much reppage.

 

[Rookie]

I don't think it exists...

Not being sarcastic, I think it's too subjective to accurately define.

 

[StreetStrip01]

Interesting to hear how the refusal of the gun back would play out....

 

[Jack Burton]

Very interesting stuff.

That's why I believe that if we get just two or three instances of this happening it will put a stop to it across the state. If the LEOs know they have two choices... going into court and admitting they had no reason to seize the firearm... or going into court and perjuring themselves with an obvious-to-a-stupid-person lie... they will pick the third and best choice.

 

[looney2ns]

Here's an easy solution to all of this. Obey the laws and don't get pulled over. Easy Peasy.
I am simply amazed at the number of times people post about getting pulled over here on INGO.
I'll go duck now. Let the flaming begin.

 

[Rookie]

Here's an easy solution to all of this. Obey the laws and don't get pulled over. Easy Peasy.
I am simply amazed at the number of times people post about getting pulled over here on INGO.
I'll go duck now. Let the flaming begin.

Sounds great on paper, doesn't it?

Watch the "don't talk to police" video and you'll hear the officer state that sooner or later any police officer will find a "legitimate" reason to pull you over if they want to bad enough.

For example, a guy I know got pulled over the other night. Reason for stop? He had his interior light on. The officer stated that was the reason but admitted he was fishing for drunk drivers.

 

[iChokePeople]

Here's an easy solution to all of this. Obey the laws and don't get pulled over. Easy Peasy.
I am simply amazed at the number of times people post about getting pulled over here on INGO.
I'll go duck now. Let the flaming begin.

... Because speeding or failing to signal or leaving your interior light on will logically lead to trampling our rights. Duh. Why don't people get that?!

If that cat in canton hadn't been out late at night, officer Harless would not have been forced to set him straight like that.