Coming soon to a crapping-on-the-4th-amendment Supreme Court near you!

[ryknoll3]

From New Mexico's Supreme Court:

Court expands police right to take guns from cars - NewsTimes

 

[ryknoll3]

Wonder how soon until we have a similar ruling from the IN Supreme Court?

 

[G_Stines]

Well, they said that they could take possession if it was in plain sight. So if you happen to be CC, after you inform them, and show them your permit, you have no further obligation to show them anything pertaining to your firearm. That's how I read it.

 

[mrjarrell]

From the many reports we've seen here on INGO, it's a relatively common occurrence here in Indiana already. NM just had a court rule that they could do it. Officer safety is nonsense and is leading us down a road we'll not be coming back from.

 

[ryknoll3]

From the many reports we've seen here on INGO, it's a relatively common occurrence here in Indiana already. NM just had a court rule that they could do it. Officer safety is nonsense and is leading us down a road we'll not be coming back from.

I know it happens quite often here, but I'm sure eventually it'll be challenged, and given the IN SC's recent contempt for the 4A, I would expect that they would come down on the side of LEO and allow seizure. At that point our 4A right is gone.

 

[Coaster]

What am I missing here? If this guy is a convicted felon wouldn't the firearm already be illegal? If I were standing outside the car with two or more people inside I would not be very comfortable with a firearm lying within reach.

 

[femurphy77]

I don't agree with the "for the officers safety" argument as a catch-all to allow siezure of a legally owned weapon. I don't see that this ruling "tramples" the 4th amendment, the problem as I see it is the word "Unreasonable". That word is by its nature, going to have different meanings to different people. Unfortunately it is a subjective word and I don't have the slightest idea what the founders meant or implied when they used that word. Just throwing this out there, can anybody enlighten this further?

 

[GuyRelford]

Ya'all should read Washington v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), which held that once a driver presents a valid LTCH and admits to the presence of a firearm in the vehicle - and is otherwise cooperative with the officer - no further search of the vehicle for the firearm is allowed. The key is that officer couldn't establish a basis for a reasonable belief that either 1) the driver was engaged in illegal activity (other than the basis for the traffic stop); or 2) that the driver presented a danger to the officer. Absent one of those factors, the basis for a "Terry" search did not exist. See http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What am I missing here? If this guy is a convicted felon wouldn't the firearm already be illegal? If I were standing outside the car with two or more people inside I would not be very comfortable with a firearm lying within reach.

Yes him possessing a firearm would be illegal(the firearm itself wouldn't most likely be illegal), but the officer didn't know that at the time and from the article didn't feel they posed any threat other than there was a firearm there.

Under this ruling, law abiding people in that state can be disarmed in violation of the 4th without any other reason than they have a gun.

Ya'all should read Washington v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), which held that once a driver presents a valid LTCH and admits to the presence of a firearm in the vehicle - and is otherwise cooperative with the officer - no further search of the vehicle for the firearm is allowed. The key is that officer couldn't establish a basis for a reasonable belief that either 1) the driver was engaged in illegal activity (other than the basis for the traffic stop); or 2) that the driver presented a danger to the officer. Absent one of those factors, the basis for a "Terry" search did not exist. See http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf.

I've read it, and I would guess most of the people posting in this thread have also. Or at least heard about it and read a synopsis of it.

But it is an appeal court ruling and the supreme court can over turn it. Heck the appeals court itself can overturn it I believe. Read the recent supreme court decision about having no right to resist an officer making and illegal entry. They referenced IN appeal court and USSC rulings that stated that it is a right, and said that times have changed.

 

[GuyRelford]

But it is an appeal court ruling and the supreme court can over turn it. Heck the appeals court itself can overturn it I believe. Read the recent supreme court decision about having no right to resist an officer making and illegal entry. They referenced IN appeal court and USSC rulings that stated that it is a right, and said that times have changed.

The law can always change, obviously. My point was simply that we currently have a positive case on the books.

 

[ryknoll3]

The NM Supreme Court has an "interesting" take on Terry v. Ohio. They basically find that the requirement that there be a reasonable suspicion that the subject be armed and dangerous is satisfied simply by the subject being armed. According to them, because the subject is armed, they can be presumed to be dangerous.

Terry does not require certainty on the part of the officer that a suspect is armed and
dangerous in order to conduct a limited protective search; rather, it requires only that the
suspect “may” be armed and dangerous. 392 U.S. at 30. Critically, in this case, the gun was
visible to the officers during the traffic stop, and thus the officers were certain that
Defendant had access to a firearm. Additionally, neither the Defendant nor the driver was
restrained, and thus the risk that one of them would access the firearm was especially potent.
Under such circumstances, Officer Blevins could constitutionally remove the firearm from
the vehicle because he possessed a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts
which warranted him in believing that Defendant was “armed and thus posed a serious and
present danger to [his] safety.” Mimms, 434 U.S. at 112; see Terry, 392 U.S. at 21

Also, they found that a seizure during the stop isn't an unlawful seizure because it's brief.

This officer safety reason really scares me. They've given a TON of discretion to the officers under officer safety and "exigent circumstances" to basically relegate the 4A useless. They want in your house? All they have to say is they "heard a suspicious noise" or "thought you were disposing of evidence" and they have the right to enter, which you may not resist.

 

[Hammerhead]

You also have to remember State v. Richardson. That was a INSC ruling.

 

[ryknoll3]

I just wonder if State v. Richardson will be interpreted more narrowly because it was a seatbelt stop, which has stricter rules than a standard moving violation stop.

 

[serpicostraight]

I just wonder if State v. Richardson will be interpreted more narrowly because it was a seatbelt stop, which has stricter rules than a standard moving violation stop.

the cops will just do what they always do and lie.

 

[jbombelli]

the cops will just do what they always do and lie.

So the cops right here on INGO who have said in very clear terms that they don't disarm people during traffic stops were lying when they said that, and they'll compound that lie by lying about it later too?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The law can always change, obviously. My point was simply that we currently have a positive case on the books.

Very true and while Richardson and Washington are beneficial, mostly after the fact for types like me, I believe a statute on this issue (when police can hold onto the pistol(s)) would be most helpful.

All this roadside gun handling makes me uneasy and especially since I have seen the muzzle of one of my own pistols.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm kinda torn on the issue. I don't think that removing a firearm from the person of an individual is justified without a legit reason to do so. I also believe that if weapon is properly stored (ie rack, case, box) that it should be removed either. Now if It's placed on the floorboard, dash, etc of a vehicle in plain sight, I would consider that fairly odd (odd as in bad guys who have or are about to commit a crime do this), and would look to obtain the weapon.

I'm thinking the court was too broad in it's decision.

and on thinking on it some more, I would probably have the person very slowly exit their vehicle and provide their permit.

 

[Pocketman]

... All this roadside gun handling makes me uneasy ...

I makes a whole lot of us uneasy.

 

[youngda9]

Every single day our freedoms are eroded...little by little, bit by bit.

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

Why is it always assumed that a citizen with a gun is a criminal and a LEO with a gun is a Saint? Also, why is the LEO's safety of more concern than a citizens safety? I would venture to say, and this is purely a geuss, that there are more citizens with LTCH's(or other state equivalents) than there are LEO's. With that theory in mind, why do I see so many "Officer's acting inappropriately and currently under investigation" in the news and no "Legally carrying citizen under investigation of wrongdoing" reports? Obviously, the LEO's are under more scrutiny but still you would think that there would be more balance if us legal gun toting citizens were really such a threat.

If I'm totally off base then please let me know, this is just my personal observation.