CCW Run in with LEO

[finity]

I'll jump in here. The encounter was consensual so how about this. I see a guy in the gas station with a gun poking out of his waistband. I can engage him in a conversation. How about if I just asked him if he had a permit. His reply could determine if this consensual encounter turns into something else. If he smiles and says yes...question answered. If he hesitates, or otherwise acts like he is trying to think of something to say, maybe I need to see the LTCH.

I can see how, by phrasing it in "friendly" terms, it doesn't come across as a threat.

In another scenario though this could be seen as a definite problem, at least to me.

Let's say a cop sees a guy in a car sitting in a car in a parking lot but something just doesn't "feel" right (= I see a guy in the gas station with a gun poking out of his waistband). He can walk up to him & engage him in conversation (= During the course of the stop I can engage him in a conversation.) He just asks him if he can search the vehicle (= How about if I just asked him if he had a permit.). His reply could determine if this consensual encounter turns into something else. If the guy smiles and says yes...question answered. If he hesitates, or otherwise acts like he is trying to think of something to say, maybe the cop needs to see the search the vehicle because he is acting like he 'has something to hide'.

This sounds like a fishing expedition to me in both scenarios. Just because someone asserts their rights by denying the officers request to search his vehicle does not equal probable cause to search the vehicle anyway. If so then throw away the 4A as it's useless.

I think it has been stated here also that the mere act of carrying a gun by itself is not PC to think a crime is being commited. Wasn't everybody up in arms (pun intended) over the sherrif in Wisconsin stating that even though it is legal to OC that he would make it painful for anybody OCing in his jurisdiction? Isn't this the exact same thing?

Asking the right questions and measuring the responses will probably go farther in finding bad guys as well as minimize possible complaints.

I'm sure there isn't a single person alive that hasn't done something, anything, that could get them in legal trouble. Wouldn't it be safe to say that if the officer (or you) approached ANY person asking the right questions would eventually lead to an investigatory stop & potential charges being filed? This is not how our system of government is supposed to work. You're supposed to have PC or at least articulable suspicion (or whatever the phrase is - which to me even that isn't enough to possibly infringe rights but alas the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me) BEFORE stopping someone.

 

[finity]

I am not sure I agree with probability making reasonable suspicion. The only reason I say this is that I have read plenty of course cases where if an officer testifies that they do a certain action all the time, the courts have weighed that against cases where an officer has testified that only in one or two cases they may take an action.

So are you trying to say that if an officer does something enough, unconstitutional or not, & gets lucky most of the time, he should be allowed to continue the said unconstitutional practice because he is getting results?

If he stops all people with pink skin, say, to frisk them because he ALWAYS stops people with pink skin & has found that 30% carry illegal weapons should he then be allowed to continue to stop all people with pink skin for no other reason than their skin color?

Again, I couldn't find any ruling, and I do think that the courts would rule in the favor of LEOs. Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a crime. An officer seeing someone carrying a handgun would likely be enough for the officer to have reasonable suspicion to stop the person and question them. I really wish I could find a case where someone argues this, but so far I haven't.

http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/richmond_carry/Doc%2011%20Consent%20Order.pdf

& it has been held by the SCOTUS that there is no "firearms exemption" easing the rules for a valid "Terry Stop".

The carrying of a weapon may or may not be treated the same. I don't think it will, but it could depend on each individual case. For example, if an officer continues to stop people carrying, and 100% of them are legal, then in a case where a person carrying legally gets stopped for carrying, and that stop turns into something else, I could see the courts ruling that given the officer's testimony that all the people he ever stopped carrying a handgun were legal, he needed something more than just seeing the person carrying a gun. On the flip side, if an officer stopped ten people in his career, and all ten were carrying illegally, then maybe the courts would say that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the permit holder.

My main focus right now is the % of people that carry and how many are legal vs. illegal. The numbers alone make carrying a gun totally different from driving on the street. Like I said, if you see a person walking down the road with a handgun in their waistband, there is somewhere between a 10%-20% chance they are legal vs. someone just randomly driving down a public street, that chance bumps up to at least 90%, if not more.

You’re confusing statistics here, I think.

Every person can be in 2 states in regard to handgun possession: either they are carrying or they are not. Every person has a random 50% chance of either state.

Every person who carries a handgun in IN can also only be in two distinct states: either they have a LTCH or they don’t. Either way it is the same 50% chance of either state.

The first person that is stopped has a 50% chance of being armed & if armed has a 50% chance of being illegal. That would be a 25% random chance that someone is carrying illegally.

You use the statistic that only 10% of the people in IN are licensed to carry. First if every person carried all the time you could say that a LEO would find that with a large enough sample the numbers would approach 90% of people carrying illegally but each individual person or each individual stop would still only be a 50% chance that the person would be illegal. The first person has a 50% chance of being illegal. If he is then the to the LEO the illegal percentage he has seen is 100% (even though we know it is really 90%). If you keep doing this you may find the first 1000 people you stop to be illegal. Just because the first 1000 people stopped were illegal (100% rate) doesn’t mean that the next person stopped is going to be illegal. They still have the same 50% probability of being legal as the first person did.

As a matter of fact the chances of the next person being illegal actually goes down. Say you start out with 1500 people who all carry & 90% are illegal. As you find the illegal ones the relative percentage of the legal ones increases until (after you get lucky enough to find all the illegal ones first) the probability of finding a legal one is 100%.

The above assumes that every person is carrying, though, & you stop every person to check them. Outside of that the probabilities get complex. Do you have stats on the total number (or percentage) of people who actually carry, legal or otherwise? Maybe legal carriers outnumber illegal ones. That would instantly shoot down your probability analysis theory.

My point is you can’t use simple statistics to say that any one person is legal or not. I would venture to say that a person who OC’s is more likely than not to be legal barring any other indication to the contrary (you know, having PC or articulable suspicion). The mere presence of a gun does not indicate one way or another the likely hood of the person carrying illegally no matter what the LEO’s past experience has been.

 

[finity]

If asked if you have a LTCH answer, dont be offened or assume that your rights are being violated. Be proud that you have this right and that you are a minority. As we all know minorities are picked out and scrutinised. We need to educate AMERICA.

We are not a minority of people who have the right to carry. Everybody (with certain exceptions) has the right to carry but the state feels the need to infringe on that right. We are only a minority of people who have asked the state for permission to exercise our right. Is that really something to be proud of?

 

[HandK]

VUPDblue Where are you!!!!! For God Sakes, Where are the Mods when you need them???? THis has been beat todeath!!! If you walk away with your gun and the Cop walks away with his life, Its a good day !!!

 

[1032JBT]

VUPDblue Where are you!!!!! For God Sakes, Where are the Mods when you need them???? THis has been beat todeath!!! If you walk away with your gun and the Cop walks away with his life, Its a good day !!!

This was beat to death quite a few pages ago if not after about 10 posts, but yes, I agree this thread needs to be closed. Anyone else that wants to discuss (aurgue) this topic further should open a new thread for it since this was no ever the OP's intent in posting his story. If you don't want to open a new thread for it.......zip it because this thread jack has gone on too long and I am to blame just as much as anyone else.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Or as the statement I made to my 9YO just about 14hrs ago:

If you have an issue with everyone, then maybe the issue lies with you and not everyone else. I'm not saying anyone else has an issue, but I can say that I am polite and respectfull until I'm not treated nice and respectfull AND the situation then calls for me to not be respectfull or nice. If either one of you would like to meet a nice Fishers cop, then pm me and we will set something up, if not that's fine too just try not to lump us all together into the bad group without at least trying. Besides, you would get to meet another INGO member and I would be happy to show off my toys. Just trying to make things as right as i can.

That can be true also. And I'd be glad to meet you when I'm down in that area. I'll shoot you a PM next time I'm going to be down around Indy. If you'd like shoot me a PM next time your going to be in the Monticello/Lafayette area, I'll be glad to buy you the beverage of your choice. And I'm sure most of the Fisher PD are nice cops. The majority of LEOs I've ran into have been decent, polite and respectful.

 

[deadsquirrel]

Or as the statement I made to my 9YO just about 14hrs ago:

If you have an issue with everyone, then maybe the issue lies with you and not everyone else. I'm not saying anyone else has an issue, but I can say that I am polite and respectfull until I'm not treated nice and respectfull AND the situation then calls for me to not be respectfull or nice. If either one of you would like to meet a nice Fishers cop, then pm me and we will set something up, if not that's fine too just try not to lump us all together into the bad group without at least trying. Besides, you would get to meet another INGO member and I would be happy to show off my toys. Just trying to make things as right as i can.

i'm sorry for the blanket stereotyping of fishers cops. i know most are probably great people and pleasant to deal with. i appreciate your invitation and might have to take you up on that sometime soon when i am not so busy once again i apologize and would love to meet a nice cop who loves guns like i do

 

[XDs4me]

We are not a minority of people who have the right to carry. Everybody (with certain exceptions) has the right to carry but the state feels the need to infringe on that right. We are only a minority of people who have asked the state for permission to exercise our right. Is that really something to be proud of?

I never said that that we as people are a minority. I simlpy stated that as people who have asked and been granted this right are a minority.

 

[Indy317]

So are you trying to say that if an officer does something enough, unconstitutional or not, & gets lucky most of the time, he should be allowed to continue the said unconstitutional practice because he is getting results?

I am not "trying to say" anything. I am point out a fact that when I read appeals court rulings, they have made comments about actions officers have taken in the past in similar situations. Sometimes they point out that so and so officer testified that he/she _always_ ask "Do you have any weapons?" other times they point out an officer testified they rarely ask a question.

I don't really have an opinion one way or another, just saying the courts look at these things, sometimes in a narrow view, sometimes with a wider view, before issuing _their_ rulings on constitutionality.

The other parts of your message were just my ideas. You actually provided me with what I wanted: A few state case laws which discuss this issue. I just read the one from Indiana and it is somewhat different than just a mere citizen carrying a handgun.

 

[SootKing]

I'm not a LEO and I don't always stand up for them. But have you ever thought that the reason you run into the jerks(minority) and not the decent ones is because the jerks go out of their way to be jerks? There might be a handful of them on the force that will hassle you for oc or exposing while cc or will pull you over for going 3 mph over the limit etc.. Those are the ones you'll interact with, not the majority that will glance and go their own way. Thats why it seems that the majority are jack booted thugs when its not that way in reality.

ETA IBTL

thats a good way to put it, considering i have seen cops pull people over for that crap like 5 over the limit, yet seen people fly past cops doing 50 over and not get pulled over but i would like to take u up on that offer sometime fpd...i would like to meet a fishers cop and get their side of things

 

[jstwrit]

Good Police Work

I like how the officer(s) handled it. Keep in mind we maybe missing some unknown facts like the LEO's observed his out-of-state plate. I wouldn't expect a LEO to see or think he/she saw a firearm and not check into it. With a LTCH we are what 10% of the population? And some of those don't ever carry. Remember it's legal for you to carry if you're licenced and illegal if you're not. They should check. imo. .

 

[Joe Williams]

I like how the officer(s) handled it. Keep in mind we maybe missing some unknown facts like the LEO's observed his out-of-state plate. I wouldn't expect a LEO to see or think he/she saw a firearm and not check into it. With a LTCH we are what 10% of the population? And some of those don't ever carry. Remember it's legal for you to carry if you're licenced and illegal if you're not. They should check. imo. .

And this is the kind of appeaser attitude that nearly destroyed our right to carry at all, which we are just starting to make strides to recover. IMHO, of course. On what possible basis should we be expected to surrender our civil rights simply because we choose to exercise another Constitutional right?

 

[Beau]

Someday they will get it Joe.

 

[1032JBT]

Someday they will get it Joe.

Don't worry, we have thought the same thing only for different reasons

 

[Beau]

Don't worry, we have thought the same thing only for different reasons

LOL

 

[hotfarmboy1]

I for one don't see a problem with how the LEO handled the situation and hope he's the guy that I run into if I'm ever in a CC-LEO interaction. He saw a gun and walked outside to ask the CC guy if he had a permit and to check the permit.

Before anyone gets too angry at me for praising the situation, keep in mind that I personally don't think there should be a need for a permit to exercise a right like the 2A. That said, I'm also of the belief that I need to try hard to follow the laws that ARE on the books and work to get the ones changed that are silly. Right now, the law says that it is illegal to carry without having a valid LTCH on our person (which is why we all have them...right???). I don't think it should be that way, but it is and we all know it.

Most people don't carry (ok, outside of all of US of course!), so I think that a LEO seeing a gun will typically catch his attention (not exactly like seeing someone drive). Would one LEO on the scene have approached the guy? Who knows. With three on the scene, I would think it unlikely that all of them would blow it off and assume he had a permit.

According to the OP, the LEO was polite and asked to see the permit, checked it out and told the CC guy to have a good day. In fact, the CC guy and the OP felt good enough about it to post it as good news. We've had so many posts lately about VERY negative LEO encounters that I was very happy to see this one on INGO. In this case, the whole encounter lasted a few minutes, was polite (not accusatory or hostile per the OP) and both parties walked away happy with the outcome. In most situations, that would be pretty much ideal.

I guess the LEO could have yelled "gun" when it flashed and tackled the guy to the floor while the other two drew on him, but thankfully these guys didn't overreact.

Again, I'm a huge believer that the LTCH should be unnecessary in the first place. I just recognize that it IS the law for now and I think the OP report was about as positive of an encounter as could be expected...unless the LEOs (all three of them) blew it off and didn't check at all. Keep in mind that it IS a crime to carry without a valid LTCH on your person. With that as a given, I have a hard time faulting the LEO for politely asking to see it. He didn't disarm the guy, unload his weapon or read him the riot act for no good reason. He just asked to see the license and walked away after finding out the guy had a valid permit.

I'd rather not be checked at all (rather it not even be necessary to have permits), but if I have to get checked...I want this LEO doing the checking! to him and also the the CC guy for keeping it from turning into an argument over what the LEO can and can't do. Those never end well.

I agree totally! You hit the nail on the head. I don't really think we should have to have a permit to carry. But since we do, I don't see a problem with a LEO asking politely to see your LTCH and check if its all good after seeing you have a gun. At least he was polite and respectful about it, as most Madison county officers are. IMO if it happened to me, I wouldn't be upset. I'd be able to understand where he was coming from, he's just being careful. If I were in his shoes I prob would of done the same thing. This is why anytime I'm pulled over, I hand the officer my LTCH with my license and treat them with respect. Most of the time if you are straight with them, and show them some respect. They will do the same.

 

[whitewolf68]

Glad to know there are decent LEO out there that are not trying to be super cop. Most of the LEO here is Toledo and on the State Highway Patrol are just that, super cop wanna be's.

 

[Beau]

I agree totally! You hit the nail on the head. I don't really think we should have to have a permit to carry. But since we do, I don't see a problem with a LEO asking politely to see your LTCH and check if its all good after seeing you have a gun. At least he was polite and respectful about it, as most Madison county officers are. IMO if it happened to me, I wouldn't be upset. I'd be able to understand where he was coming from, he's just being careful. If I were in his shoes I prob would of done the same thing. This is why anytime I'm pulled over, I hand the officer my LTCH with my license and treat them with respect. Most of the time if you are straight with them, and show them some respect. They will do the same.

Yes, unfortunately we have to spend money to exercise a right that should be free. However, just because we have to have a license does not mean that would should be required to provide papers at the whim of LE. This is the same as being pulled over for no other reason than to see if you posses a valid drivers license.

I really disagree with the "he's just being careful" comment. Being careful of what? So he verified that a person jumped through the necessary hoops to be able to exercise their rights. What did this action do other than waste a citizens time? Because LE checks an LTCH does this mean that the person carrying is in no way going to not commit a crime? No. All it does is verify that the person jumped the hoops and paid the fees.

Bottom line. A person peaceably carrying a firearm does not give RAS that a crime is being committed. How can LE articulate that they believe a person is carrying without the proper license? Being forced to provide LTCH just because LE wants to see it should be considered an illegal search. Having your firearm confiscated, serial numbers ran, and returned disassembled is thuggery at its finest.

 

[jstwrit]

And this is the kind of appeaser attitude that nearly destroyed our right to carry at all, which we are just starting to make strides to recover. IMHO, of course. On what possible basis should we be expected to surrender our civil rights simply because we choose to exercise another Constitutional right?

Thanks for an insightful response to my post. I liked it and get what you said. Belittling comments like "Someday they will get it Joe" don't. I'm slow, but try to be open minded.

 

[SootKing]

wow thats a change...ive run into some real ******** cops and only a handful of nice ones. good to hear they are some out there ... most likely because i drive a loud smokey p pumped 24v cummins...whenever i get pulled over they seem to make up rules on the fly.