Are You Staying in Jail?

[Bill of Rights]

But wait - if there's an exception in the new preemption statute for hospitals that have a secure correctional facility within the hospital (meaning that firearms can be legally prohibited there), how can there not be an exception for a JAIL??

Doesn't matter. There isn't. I would not object to a "lockbox" provision for penal facilities, but I would like to see it applicable to courtrooms as well. (that is, you can carry into the courthouse, but whether you carry into the courtroom is up to the judge. If you are not allowed to carry there, lockboxes must be provided for the use of the citizens.)

As the law stands now, though, I see no "jail" exception from the law. Look for our Democrat legislators to push for that change next session, now that it's come up, but Sen. Tomes has already said he will not favor the undermining of SEA 292 on his watch. (email I received today)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GuyRelford]

Doesn't matter. There isn't.

As the law stands now, though, I see no "jail" exception from the law.

Bill - as always, you are exactly right. But your answer, as right as it is, doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether you've committed a crime.

 

[jsharmon7]

Under the exceptions section of the applicable statute:

13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause (B).


This is my reasoning for thinking you're staying in jail. The OP mentioned metal detectors and law enforcement officers. I don't work in Indy and I don't work in a jail though, so I could be wrong.

 

[Bill B]

You would be jailed for trafficking with an inmate under IC 35-44-3-9:

b) Except as provided in subsection (d), a person who, without the prior authorization of the person in charge of a penal facility or juvenile facility knowingly or intentionally:
(1) delivers, or carries into the penal facility or juvenile facility
with intent to deliver, an article to an inmate or child of the facility;
(2) carries, or receives with intent to carry out of the penal facility or juvenile facility, an article from an inmate or child of the facility;
(3) delivers, or carries to a worksite with the intent to deliver, alcoholic beverages to an inmate or child of a jail work crew or community work crew; or
(4) possesses in or carries into a penal facility or a juvenile facility:
(A) a controlled substance; or
(B) a deadly weapon;
commits trafficking with an inmate, a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) The offense under subsection (b) is a Class C felony if the article is:
(1) a controlled substance;
(2) a deadly weapon; or
(3) a cellular telephone or other wireless or cellular communications device.

 

[GuyRelford]

You would be jailed for trafficking with an inmate under IC 35-44-3-9:

Bingo.

Which likely explains why there is no "jail" exception to the new preemption statute.

Well-played.

 

[ryknoll3]

Just because there is an exception SPECIFICALLY applied to hospitals with secure facilities does NOT mean that city councils can apply that exception willy-nilly to any jail they want. The exception was very specific in its wording.

I don't think you should be in/staying in jail.

 

[Silverado]

Under the exceptions section of the applicable statute:

13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
(A) metal detection devices are located at each public entrance to the building;
(B) each public entrance to the building is staffed by at least one (1) law enforcement officer:
(i) who has been adequately trained to conduct inspections of persons entering the building by use of metal detection devices and proper physical pat down searches; and
(ii) when the building is open to the public; and
(C) each:
(i) individual who enters the building through the public entrance when the building is open to the public; and
(ii) bag, package, and other container carried by the individual;
is inspected by a law enforcement officer described in clause (B).


This is my reasoning for thinking you're staying in jail. The OP mentioned metal detectors and law enforcement officers. I don't work in Indy and I don't work in a jail though, so I could be wrong.

Charged under what statute? This statute restricts local governments, and as far as I can see, does not provide for a criminal penalty for entering a unit that IS excepted from the preemption law.

 

[Bill B]

Bingo.

Which likely explains why there is no "jail" exception to the new preemption statute.

Well-played.

what do I win?

 

[jsharmon7]

Charged under what statute? This statute restricts local governments, and as far as I can see, does not provide for a criminal penalty for entering a unit that IS excepted from the preemption law.

I was wrong anyway. Like I said, I don't work in a jail. Good to know either way.

 

[Bill B]

This one reason I wouldn't carry into the Hammond PD, the jail is part of the building. IIRC, they even house some federal prisoners that are waiting trial there.

 

[Silverado]

Bingo.

Which likely explains why there is no "jail" exception to the new preemption statute.

Well-played.

What about the non-secure areas of the Marion County Jail? The entire building is not a "penal facility," as it houses the sheriff's department, administrative offices, and the crime lab, which is a separate government agency from MCSD. Or is it? Any case law on that?

 

[GuyRelford]

what do I win?

A free 10-visit pass to Eagle Creek Pistol Range. Seriously.

(That was not an easy answer - and I think most lawyers would miss it in the first analysis.)

 

[beararms1776]

I think to walk in there carrying at all (signs permitting or not) is a bbbbiiiiiiiiig mistake. I wouldn't even consider it. If one wants to carry in there, better get a badge.

 

[GuyRelford]

What about the non-secure areas of the Marion County Jail? The entire building is not a "penal facility," as it houses the sheriff's department, administrative offices, and the crime lab, which is a separate government agency from MCSD. Or is it? Any case law on that?

That's a great question and may create a good argument for why you shouldn't go to jail. The problem is with the word "facility," which generally has a broad meaning.

 

[serpicostraight]

this law and about 10 million others are a major problem. whatever happened to common sense? these technicalities are whats making criminals out of honest people. sure would be nice to see a brain cell every so often with the cops,prosecutors, and judges.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You would be jailed for trafficking with an inmate under IC 35-44-3-9:

Bingo.

Which likely explains why there is no "jail" exception to the new preemption statute.

Well-played.

Hold on there, Guy... As I read it, that's saying that if you bring it in with intent to deliver... You've very specifically stated that the hypothetical actor in the scenario has come up to the desk sergeant and stated his intent NOT to carry into the jail area. How could he be held under that statute? I can see if he entered the secure area without disclosing, expecting a lockbox back there he could use, but as written, this statute would prevent even a LEO from entering the building with a weapon on his person, expecting to use a lockbox to avoid entering the cellblocks armed.

'Splain it to me?

Bill

 

[GuyRelford]

I agree - but that's why I post these scenarios: to point out some "tricky" areas of Indiana law and keep my beloved fellow INGOers out of hot water.

 

[jsharmon7]

this law and about 10 million others are a major problem. whatever happened to common sense? these technicalities are whats making criminals out of honest people. sure would be nice to see a brain cell every so often with the cops,prosecutors, and judges.

I lost mine in a boating accident.

 

[Hazwhopper]

The "Parking Lot Bill" started on July 1, 2011. If I read it correctly, that it stated that only LEO's are allowed to inter any State facility's. And that even if you had a weapon in the car, that you are not allowed to have it there. But the spirit of the law sounds like it would prohibit someone from searching you or your vehicle without probable cause. So by him anouncing that he had a weapon with him, he couldn't even have it in the car, should he was given a chance to put in his car.
Am I close?

 

[GuyRelford]

Hold on there, Guy... As I read it, that's saying that if you bring it in with intent to deliver... You've very specifically stated that the hypothetical actor in the scenario has come up to the desk sergeant and stated his intent NOT to carry into the jail area. How could he be held under that statute? I can see if he entered the secure area without disclosing, expecting a lockbox back there he could use, but as written, this statute would prevent even a LEO from entering the building with a weapon on his person, expecting to use a lockbox to avoid entering the cellblocks armed.

'Splain it to me?

Bill

Great question! But there's no "intent to deliver" element to the part of the statute that we're talkng about. That's the problem with that pesky "or" just before the applicable provision.