Dennys Not So Great

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ted

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2012
    5,081
    36
    Just placing someone in handcuffs goes beyond detainment and qualifies as arrest.

    Didn't I read that it is permissible under Terry?

    Gallegos v. City of Colorado Springs
    "A Terry stop does not automatically elevate into an arrest where police officers use handcuffs on a suspect or place him on the ground. Police officers are authorized to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of a Terry stop."

    People of California v. Osborne
    United States v. Stewart

    All cases where handcuffing during an investigative detention was reasonable.

    In re Carlos M. 220 CA3 372,385 (1990)
    “The fact that a defendant is handcuffed while being detained does not, by itself, transform a detention into an arrest.”

    United States v. Acosta-Colon
    "Officers engaged in an otherwise lawful stop must be permitted to take measures—including the use of handcuffs—they believe reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm, or to safeguard the security of others."

    Haynie v. County of Los Angeles
    "A brief, although complete, restriction of liberty, such as handcuffing, during a Terry stop is not a de facto arrest, if not excessive under the circumstances.”

    US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)
    The allowable scope of an investigative detention cannot be determined by reference to a bright-line rule; "common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria."

    United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985)
    When police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion
    ...
    Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.

    United States v. Maguire
    The use of handcuffs to address legitimate officer safety concerns during a Terry stop or investigative detention does not transform that detention into an arrest

    Bruzy and Riordan v. Trooper Joyner, et. al.
    Troopers received a report of a possible gunshot fired from a vehicle. The vehicle was the subject of a high risk stop and the occupant (Bruzy) was handcuffed. Her fiance, Riordan, was traveling in a separate vehicle and stopped ahead of the scene. He was also detained and handcuffed, despite not being party to the original complaint. They filed a lawsuit and the court ruled that the detention and handcuffing were lawful measures taken in response to reasonable, articulable suspicion, and no "full blown arrest" occurred.
     
    Last edited:

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    Of course, its may be just as easy for the police in Indiana to ID them for 24 hours.
    IC 35-47-2-24
    Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
    Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
    (b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
    As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.
    If it takes them 24 hours to "ID you" as a thin excuse to illegally arrest you without probable cause, then they are open to a civil rights lawsuit:

    IC 35-47-11.1-5
    Civil actions concerning political subdivision violations
    Sec. 5. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
    (1) declarative and injunctive relief; and
    (2) actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation.
    As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

    IC 35-47-11.1-7
    Civil actions; recovery of damages, costs, and fees
    Sec. 7. A prevailing plaintiff in an action under section 5 of this chapter is entitled to recover from the political subdivision the following:
    (1) The greater of the following:
    (A) Actual damages, including consequential damages.
    (B) Liquidated damages of three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees.
    (2) Court costs (including fees).
    (3) Reasonable attorney's fees.
    As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.
    Triple attorney fees, all court costs, attorney costs, declarative and injunctive relief. Yes, there are quite harsh penalties for an officer deciding to ignore your valid LTCH and just deciding to "haul you in".
     

    Ted

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2012
    5,081
    36
    If it takes them 24 hours to "ID you" as a thin excuse to illegally arrest you without probable cause, then they are open to a civil rights lawsuit:

    Triple attorney fees, all court costs, attorney costs, declarative and injunctive relief. Yes, there are quite harsh penalties for an officer deciding to ignore your valid LTCH and just deciding to "haul you in".

    ID = Immediate Detention.....aka mental hygiene law.

    IC 12-26-4

    IC 12-26-4
    Chapter 4. Immediate Detention

    IC 12-26-4-1
    Law enforcement officers; authority to apprehend, transport, and charge an individual with a mental illness

    Sec. 1. A law enforcement officer, having reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has a mental illness, is dangerous, and is
    in immediate need of hospitalization and treatment, may do the following:

    (1) Apprehend and transport the individual to the nearest appropriate facility. The individual may not be transported to a
    state institution.
    (2) Charge the individual with an offense if applicable.

    As added by P.L.2-1992, SEC.20. Amended by P.L.40-1994, SEC.55;
    P.L.99-2007, SEC.129
     

    Vince49

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 13, 2010
    2,174
    38
    Indy urban west.
    Whatever floats your boat.

    "Can" is not the same as "allowed". If they invent a reason to arrest you, you should be filing a civil rights lawsuit. "Taking you into the station" is an arrest.

    Creating a public disturbance? Intimidating a LEO while they are performing their duties? Or a host of other nuisance charges that they can use. IANAL or a LEO but many of my family and friends are and I do know they can jamb you up and make you a temporary guest of the Sate until a Judge sorts it out and I have seen them do it on several occasions. It is not something that, (at least the ones I know) like to do but they are human not Saints and have bad days just like the rest of us and sometimes the fuse is a little short. So I guess if you have a day with nothing else to do and don't mind spending it in the lockup go for it. :D
     

    rockhopper46038

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    89   0   0
    May 4, 2010
    6,742
    48
    Fishers
    I think I made several posts how I hate it when people test the patience of cops on camera to prove a point when my cop buddies told me they really can just take you into the station

    I'd be more concerned that my friends were willing to arrest someone and take them downtown not for any suspected crime, but because they grew annoyed at a citizen who knew the law and their rights. A citizen In Indiana is required to show their LTCH if an officer asks them to prove they are carrying legally. An officer is required to go away, annoyed or not, once a citizen has done so and there is no RAS to detain them further. I'd only be guessing at which of these two actions are least often complied with.
     

    CathyInBlue

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    ... haul your butt into lockup and take possession of your weapon and the rest of your property until you PROVE before a judge you had a valid LTCH at the time of your arrest.

    IC 35-47-2-24 does not reference a judge. Just the prosecutor, and when said prosecutor is presented with the evidence (your LTCH), his hands are tied and there will be a butt load of more paperwork for them to file to return your sidearm to you and expunge your record.

    If more people refused to be bullied by the police to "prezent zee papers pleez!", we could fill the jails and grind prosecutors' officers to a halt.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,635
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    IC 35-47-2-24 does not reference a judge. Just the prosecutor, and when said prosecutor is presented with the evidence (your LTCH), his hands are tied and there will be a butt load of more paperwork for them to file to return your sidearm to you and expunge your record.

    If more people refused to be bullied by the police to "prezent zee papers pleez!", we could fill the jails and grind prosecutors' officers to a halt.

    Guess where you show that LTCH to a prosecutor at? In court, before a judge...
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    95,233
    113
    Merrillville
    OC gatherings/protests on private property are great but be sure to get permission from the property owner/manager first or it could be an embarassing situation.

    If they ask us to leave, we just quietly and politely leave. No tresspassing.
    And, leave a no gun no $ card.

    Don't see the embarrassment.
    Thanks for the advice though. Been following your posts for a while. You're on my "pay attention to" list.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,635
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    If they ask us to leave, we just quietly and politely leave. No tresspassing.
    And, leave a no gun no $ card.

    Don't see the embarrassment.
    Thanks for the advice though. Been following your posts for a while. You're on my "pay attention to" list.

    You don't now, but who is to say they politely ask you to leave before they call the cops? Who knows what they will tell the 911 operator on the phone, then what they write down to give to the dispatcher, then what they dispatcher radios out to the units and what notes they put in the case folder for the computer in the squad car, then what the cops say to each other after arriving on scene but before locating you...

    Ever play 'Telephone?'

    Trust me on this one, it is bad enough being in a public place where you have an absolutely legal right to be there. Put it on private property and there are more risks of pitfalls. Did you read the St. Mary's thread? Private property. The Zoo? Public property.

    Get the picture? ;)



    P.S. Thanks for the compliment.
     

    Bunnykid68

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 2, 2010
    23,515
    83
    Cave of Caerbannog
    Trying to eat at Denny's in Gary.Officer comes up and asks for my permit.I just say, OK but you really can't do that.he informs me he is an officer and sure can.I said I had no problem showing him my liscense and I did say he was violating my rights as I got it out.I hit record on my phone.he continued to lecture me.left and came back with 6 swat guys he was ith and told me management wanted me out.so I said OK.he continued to tell me I was wrong,threatening to arrest me.calling me Perry mason.he basically said they would find a way to arrest me if I did not cove it up.at this point I was pretty beat down.covered it and left.they followed me for several miles.

    If he has this on tape would that not be clear proof of SB 292 being violated?
     
    Top Bottom