2 LTCH holders arrested

[CX1]

5A would apply, but I can't think of any crime associated with identifying oneself. One doesn't have a right to remain silent of their name....as one's name isn't a crime....unless its Rookie.

Officer: "Hello we are here to serve a warrant for James Peavy. Are you James Peavy"

James Peavy:"Ummm..."

Would IDing one's self as James Peavy lead to arrest in that situation? Wouldn't that be providing witness against one's self?

Seems identity could be confirmed by asking known associates of James Peavy if this person was in fact him. No need for Mr. Peavy to surrender any rights.

 

[CarmelHP]

So, they were arrested for Contempt of Cop, which is a cop applying a bogus charge not for any actual violation of law, but because the cop's feelings were hurt. Absolute nonsense.

 

[Jeremiah]

Failing to aid an officer is a crime?

Well add that to the list of laws that need changed.

 

[KG1]

So, they were arrested for Contempt of Cop, which is a cop applying a bogus charge not for any actual violation of law, but because the cop's feelings were hurt. Absolute nonsense.

I agree that it was a bogus application of the law that they were arrested for.

 

[Jeremiah]

God do I want Arizona type carry laws. You should not be able to be stopped for carrying a fire arm.

 

[Indy317]

Driver's License - only if driving

Somewhat right, but not totally:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

assisted opener is fine

Folks keep telling themselves this. Fact is, it wouldn't surprise me if the "switchblade" knives some are arrested with are in fact "assisted" opening knives. The law is clear enough:

IC 35-47-5-2
Knife with blade that opens automatically or may be propelled
Sec. 2. It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to manufacture, possess, display, offer, sell, lend, give away, or purchase any knife with a blade that:
(1) opens automatically; or
(2) may be propelled;
by hand pressure applied to a button, device containing gas, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife.

Some of the "assisted" knives I've seen easily fit this definition. Most propell the blade to some extent. The only question then is "is the button, device, spring, etc" on the handle. I once saw a knife where the switch/button was actually part of the blade.

 

[Compatriot G]

Somewhat right, but not totally:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.



Folks keep telling themselves this. Fact is, it wouldn't surprise me if the "switchblade" knives some are arrested with are in fact "assisted" opening knives. The law is clear enough:

IC 35-47-5-2
Knife with blade that opens automatically or may be propelled
Sec. 2. It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to manufacture, possess, display, offer, sell, lend, give away, or purchase any knife with a blade that:
(1) opens automatically; or
(2) may be propelled;
by hand pressure applied to a button, device containing gas, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife.

Some of the "assisted" knives I've seen easily fit this definition. Most propell the blade to some extent. The only question then is "is the button, device, spring, etc" on the handle. I once saw a knife where the switch/button was actually part of the blade.

I believe "propel" refers to knives that actually "propel" the blade. The Soviets used to have knives that would actually "shoot" the blade out from the handle.

 

[Rookie]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think what they were charged with is a bit of a stretch. Sounds more like contempt of cop.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

i mean the LEO's are NOT here just to make our life's difficult, believe it or not.

Unless it falls under the category of heckler's veto which several on INGO have been subject to.

 

[Rookie]

Kirk, do you know of any case law that applies to what they were charged with?

 

[actaeon277]

Somewhat right, but not totally:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
....

name, address, and date of birth; or

seems like name, address and date of birth is fine.

 

[Ted]

Officer: "Hello we are here to serve a warrant for James Peavy. Are you James Peavy"

James Peavy:"Ummm..."

Would IDing one's self as James Peavy lead to arrest in that situation? Wouldn't that be providing witness against one's self?

Seems identity could be confirmed by asking known associates of James Peavy if this person was in fact him. No need for Mr. Peavy to surrender any rights.

There is nothing within your scenario that would lead James Peavy to self incrimination, and meets the Pedigree exception to Miranda.

"Routine questions about a suspect's identity and marital status, ordinarily innocent of any investigative purpose, do not pose the dangers Miranda was designed to check; they are rather the sort of questions normally attendant to arrest and custody." United States v. Gotchis, 803 F.2d 74, 79.

 

[Rookie]

You do have the right to remain silent, that is, say nothing at all.

 

[Ted]

You do have the right to remain silent, that is, say nothing at all.

This is true.....as far as self incrimination is concerned. It isn't applicable to much else.

 

[Rookie]

In any situation, you have the right to keep your mouth shut. It may not stop you (assuming you're James Peavey) from getting arrested though.

Clarification:

With any action there is a consequence.

 

[2A_Tom]

IC 35-44.1-3-3
Refusal to aid an officer
Sec. 3. A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.126-2012, SEC.54.

 

[KG1]

IC 35-44.1-3-3
Refusal to aid an officer
Sec. 3. A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.126-2012, SEC.54.

Yes we know. I believe Ted already posted it.

 

[Ted]

In any situation, you have the right to keep your mouth shut. It may not stop you (assuming you're James Peavey) from getting arrested though.

Clarification:

With any action there is a consequence.

WIKI (Yeah, I know. But it was easy). Miranda: Exceptions

Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.[54] The three exceptions are (1) the routine booking question exception[55] (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception.[56] Arguably only the last is a true exception–the first two can better be viewed as consistent with the Miranda factors. For example, questions that are routinely asked as part of the administrative process of arrest and custodial commitment are not considered "interrogation" under Miranda because they are not intended or likely to produce incriminating responses. Nonetheless, all three circumstances are treated as exceptions to the rule. The jail house informant exception applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.[57] The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.[58] The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.[59]

54. ^ The statement of the defendant is admissible when offered by the state as substantive evidence of guilt as an adimission of a party opponent. This exception or exemption from the hearsay rules is not available to the defendant — the defendant must resort to some other exception if he attempts to offer his own statement into evidence. Further if the defendant is successful in offering his own statement as substantive evidence, then the defendant is the hearsay declarant and the state can impeach the defendant as it would any other witness including te use of potentilly devastating evidence of prior convictions.
55.^ See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
56.^ New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)
57.^ See Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
58.^ Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
59^ New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655 (1984).

 

[2A_Tom]

Somewhat right, but not totally:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.


Some times i womder if we get in the habit of not analyzing what we read.

BTW inmo Failure to assist an officer goes to French common law incorporated into English common law. Hue and Cry

Hue and cry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hoosierdood]

The real question - as it applies to all of us here (and to be honest, it concerns me greatly) is:

If I am stopped while doing nothing illegal (assuming that I am not operating a motor vehicle), and it is discovered that I am carrying a firearm (whether OC or CC), and I DO comply and show my LTCH... can an officer still charge me with "Failure to assist" if he continues to ask for further identification and I refuse?

I understand that IC 34-28-5-3.5 states that I am only required to identify myself if I am suspected of an infraction or ordinance violation, but isn't the whole "Failure to Assist and Officer" somewhat arbitrary at best? Couldn't an officer charge you with that for refusing to comply with just about ANY request?