2 LTCH holders arrested

[Ted]

Indiana recognizes all other issued licenses, but they have to abide by Indiana state law while here. As for verifying their validity, if that's what you're getting at. I would imagine it's similar to checking out of state driver's licenses.

I am already aware that Indiana will honor/recognize a LTCH or equivalent from not only other states, but from other countries. Though not all such issuing entities have 24 hour availability.

I am fully aware that out of state license holders must abide by Indiana laws, but can Indiana police instantly check on my MI license if I just claim to be licensed? I just assumed they would have a hard time.

Not all CCWs/LTCHs/etc are computerized......and not all states offer 24 hour phone verification.

 

[griffin]

Anyone wanna hel me out on this? It seems like it would be a way to try to teach a lesson.

I hate to reference a thread I just referenced, but the police in the Michigan case of Sean Combs did just this. They charged him with everything they could figure might fit to see what stuck: obstruction of a police investigation (failure to produce ID, not legally required in MI, and the judge asked the prosecutor how she could prosecute him for something he was not required by law to do, and immediately threw it out before it ever got to the jury), brandishing (brandishing a firearm is defined as waving it about in a threatening or menacing manner), and disturbing the peace (the police were never summoned, no citizens complained, 911 was never called).

The police just threw as many charges at him as they could find to see if any of them would stick.

None did.

I would hope people who get falsely arrested would begin to sue police departments and individual officers with 42 USC 1983 violations, but I don't see that happening very often.

Maybe an attorney could weigh in on what it would take to be successful.

 

[griffin]

Not all CCWs/LTCHs/etc are computerized......and not all states offer 24 hour phone verification.

So if I am ever stopped in Highland or Shererville or Hammond or anywhere else I typically OC in IN I will produce my MI CPL 'cause I don't want to spend the night in the pokey.

 

[Prometheus]

Why he charged them with refusal to aid instead of obstruction is beyond me though. Anyone wanna hel me out on this?

Obstruction is pretty specific (yes and vague too), I don't see how refusing to speak to an officer about a alleged crime YOU are committing could be considered obstructing. Doubly so because what he was doing wasn't a crime.

I think it's like disorderly conduct charges in most states. It's so vague, you can make almost any situation technically fit the bill.

I think this will either be thrown out or 'time served'. I don't see it going anywwhere.

On the switchblade charge... if he actually had a switch blade, what a maroon. If it was a assisted opener...

Well lets just say I'd love to see them classified as switch blades... maybe then we can have that B.S. law actually repealed when bubba-Joe-six pack finally gets riled up.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Assisted opening such as you describe is fine, fully automatic (I.e. push button open) is illegal, stupid law, but still the law as of now

Is it true police, fire, EMS are allowed to have them?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Is it true police, fire, EMS are allowed to have them?

I don't see an exemption in the IC for them however most of the internet stores will still ship you one anyway if you prove your status as one. Also active duty military are listed along with emergency services.

 

[Ted]

I don't see an exemption in the IC for them however most of the internet stores will still ship you one anyway if you prove your status as one. Also active duty military are listed along with emergency services.

Up in Lake County..... ala Gary, Crown Point, Merrillville, Hobart .....Switchblades are regularly sold to anyone and everyone at gun shows, while the cops look the other way.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Up in Lake County..... ala Gary, Crown Point, Merrillville, Hobart .....Switchblades are regularly sold to anyone and everyone at gun shows, while the cops look the other way.

Granted but the question from Hoosierdoc I was answering was if it was legal for them to possess one. It is not AFAIK.

 

[Ted]

Granted but the question from Hoosierdoc I was answering was if it was legal for them to possess one. It is not AFAIK.

I was only attempting to provide a bit of insight that while the police don't enforce the sale provision of the IC, they'll certainly take advantage of the IC in regard to the possession of a switchblade in this particular case.

As such, I'm sure that a lot of people walk around with them and aware by LE doing so. Hypocrisy....and selective enforcement at its [STRIKE]best[/STRIKE] worst.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I was only attempting to provide a bit of insight that while the police don't enforce the sale provision of the IC, they'll certainly take advantage of the IC in regard to the possession of a switchblade in this particular case.

As such, I'm sure that a lot of people walk around with them and aware by LE doing so. Hypocrisy....and selective enforcement at its [STRIKE]best[/STRIKE] worst.

Merely having dumb pointless laws like this on the books is bad enough but when you add in the selective enforcement that really steams me.

 

[Ted]

Merely having dumb pointless laws like this on the books is bad enough but when you add in the selective enforcement that really steams me.

I'm with you there, brother.

 

[2A_Tom]

I can think of a way for the officer to charge these guys with refusal to aid a police officer and not failing to produce a LTCH.

Say I was stopped for carrying and failed to produce my LTCH. The officer then makes a legit arrest, searches me for transport, discovers I have my LTCH on me and just didn't want to show him. If the officer were to let me go, he feels I think I can get away with not complying so he charges me with something he feels will stick. Why he charged them with refusal to aid instead of obstruction is beyond me though. Anyone wanna hel me out on this? It seems like it would be a way to try to teach a lesson.

I hate to reference a thread I just referenced, but the police in the Michigan case of Sean Combs did just this. They charged him with everything they could figure might fit to see what stuck: obstruction of a police investigation (failure to produce ID, not legally required in MI, and the judge asked the prosecutor how she could prosecute him for something he was not required by law to do, and immediately threw it out before it ever got to the jury), brandishing (brandishing a firearm is defined as waving it about in a threatening or menacing manner), and disturbing the peace (the police were never summoned, no citizens complained, 911 was never called).

The police just threw as many charges at him as they could find to see if any of them would stick.

None did.

I would hope people who get falsely arrested would begin to sue police departments and individual officers with 42 USC 1983 violations, but I don't see that happening very often.

Maybe an attorney could weigh in on what it would take to be successful.[/QUOTE

This is the epitome of Jack Booted Thugary. If you have no VALID chargve just make something up and hope it sticks.

I have a permanent record because I was with a guy who was driving drunk. Those with hin were told to walk home. I stood close by waiting for them to leave (I had locked the keys in the c,ar an wanted to retrieve them before I left ) and the MP's told me they would arrest me for interfering with an arrest. I said go aheadx and arrest him, I just don't wast to leave his car here with the keys in the ignition. The next thing I knew I was in hadn cuffs. I was released to my Company and never heard another word, until about three years later, when I was nearly refused a TS securith clearence. The charge (drunk and disorderly, I admit when I was young I was a drunk, but I was the happy quiet type) filed without my knowlege and with no disposition is on the police blotter forever.

That is the point of not identifying yourself whben you are stopped without RS. ONCE you ID your self it goes into the police report that you never see, your name is in the system and may come up to bite you some time in the future.

 

[2A_Tom]

This should be called the JBT Statute.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...zoi1BQ&usg=AFQjCNElUXsj8IsPL7G-uh8LIZubg5yfwg

Thanks for the reference, Griffin.

 

[Ted]

This should be called the JBT Statute.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...zoi1BQ&usg=AFQjCNElUXsj8IsPL7G-uh8LIZubg5yfwg

Thanks for the reference, Griffin.

The FBI is charged with its enforcement.

FBI — Color of Law

 

[Markedup]

IC 35-47-2-24

I read that as failure to produce it will lead to me being charged and then I will be forced to produce it to prosecution. At which point the charge will be dropped. So one way or another I will need to prove that I have it no?

(I am not a lawyer and my inturpretation of the IC could be entirely wrong)

I do not read into the IC that force will be used.

Mark

 

[Rookie]

You're right, no one will FORCE you. However, if you want to avoid a felony conviction, you're going to have to willingly show your ltch.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You're right, no one will FORCE you. However, if you want to avoid a felony conviction, you're going to have to willingly show your ltch.

Most of the time it would be a misdemeanor.


IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies
Sec. 23. (a) A person who violates section 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, or 16 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates section 7, 17, or 18 of this chapter commits a Class C felony.
(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense. (d) A person who violates section 22 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior conviction of any offense under this subsection or subsection (c), or if the person has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.16-1984, SEC.20; P.L.140-1994, SEC.9; P.L.17-1997, SEC.7.

 

[Rookie]

I didn't feel like typing misdemeanor...

 

[cg21]

i would be armed if i was picking up trash there too

 

[Bill B]

Imagine this. Cop asks person a what's your name, the person is silent as is his right. The cop then asks, what is your friends name. When the person is still silent, viola, failure to aid an officer charge.