Did Law Change? Unreal incident at clinic...

[cobber]

IC 5-14-3-5
Information relating to arrest or summons; jailed persons; agency records
Sec. 5. (a) If a person is arrested or summoned for an offense, the following information shall be made available for inspection and copying:
(1) Information that identifies the person including the person's name, age, and address.
(2) Information concerning any charges on which the arrest or summons is based.
(3) Information relating to the circumstances of the arrest or the issuance of the summons, such as the:
(A) time and location of the arrest or the issuance of the summons;
(B) investigating or arresting officer (other than an undercover officer or agent); and
(C) investigating or arresting law enforcement agency.
(b) If a person is received in a jail or lock-up, the following information shall be made available for inspection and copying:
(1) Information that identifies the person including the person's name, age, and address.
(2) Information concerning the reason for the person being placed in the jail or lock-up, including the name of the person on whose order the person is being held.
(3) The time and date that the person was received and the time and date of the person's discharge or transfer.
(4) The amount of the person's bail or bond, if it has been fixed.
(c) An agency shall maintain a daily log or record that lists suspected crimes, accidents, or complaints, and the following information shall be made available for inspection and copying: (1) The time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency.
(2) The time and nature of the agency's response to all complaints or requests for assistance.
(3) If the incident involves an alleged crime or infraction:
(A) the time, date, and location of occurrence;
(B) the name and age of any victim, unless the victim is a victim of a crime under IC 35-42-4;
(C) the factual circumstances surrounding the incident; and
(D) a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.
The information required in this subsection shall be made available for inspection and copying in compliance with this chapter. The record containing the information must be created not later than twenty-four (24) hours after the suspected crime, accident, or complaint has been reported to the agency.
(d) This chapter does not affect IC 5-2-4, IC 10-13-3, or IC 5-11-1-9.
As added by P.L.19-1983, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.39-1992, SEC.1; P.L.2-2003, SEC.24.

Especially under (c) above there should be a record.

If you want to pursue this further, you should look for a local attorney who knows the system.

 

[Scutter01]

The one officer was pretty civil with me and was not strutting **** like the Sergeant was (who I am complaining about the most at this point). He told me all of his opinions on my right to carry but said that I CAN'T carry openly. "Not only are you not tactical, but you just can't do it anyway, it's illegal". "This is a CONCEALED, CARRY, PERMIT". These words are resonating..and it hurts.

I'd be interested to know why he let a felon go. How incompetent was he, exactly?

 

[esrice]

how is it OK to detain people without cause and then not so much as a "sorry" afterword.

Obviously officers need to be able to temporarily detain someone in order to perform an investigation, even if its a quick one. And I'm fine with that.

But what if there was some sort of minor "penalty" for detaining someone who turns out to not be breaking the law?

An example:

Officers are dispatched to a MWG call. They arrive, detain the suspect, and find that he is a legal LTCH-holder. For the hassles they caused him, he gets a $10 restaurant gift card.

In the OP's case, after it was found that his LTCH was valid, and after it was found that OCing is legal, he could've been given a $10 restaurant gift card.

Obviously these gift cards would add up, and it might make the police Admin think twice about how quick they are to detain folks for silly things like OC.

There should just be SOME recourse, however minor, for honest and legal folks' interrupted day. Then these posted stories would at least end with ". . . then we headed over to Denny's for dinner!"

Just a thought. . . .

 

[Darral27]

I know we have more than a few LEO's on this board. Why do things like this happen so often? We can all get together and say to complain to the chief and whoever else but I know in the town I live it would mean nothing. LEO's who know the law need to help find a way to instruct those that do not. Incidents like this make them all look bad.

 

[long coat]

Just mail to the Records Department, and CC the Chief. You might also think about contacting the police merit board. Make sure they know you are making a formal request under IC 5-14.

I would leave the cc to the chief off, I would hate for your request to be lost when he found out what happened.

 

[b0r0b]

I'd be interested to know why he let a felon go. How incompetent was he, exactly?

Hahahah. Noting this for my chat with the Chief.

 

[cobber]

By the way, under IC 5-14-3 they have to respond to your request within 24 hours.

Send it certified mail, return receipt requested...

You will drive them nuts, and Sgt. Schultz will probably get a personal audience with the chief 5 mins. after your request arrives.

 

[9mmfan]

I know we have more than a few LEO's on this board. Why do things like this happen so often? We can all get together and say to complain to the chief and whoever else but I know in the town I live it would mean nothing. LEO's who know the law need to help find a way to instruct those that do not. Incidents like this make them all look bad.

 

[Lucas156]

Well I see you're not in jail and haven't been charged with anything so those cops can just kiss your ass.

 

[cobber]

Obviously officers need to be able to temporarily detain someone in order to perform an investigation, even if its a quick one. And I'm fine with that.

But what if there was some sort of minor "penalty" for detaining someone who turns out to not be breaking the law?

They can detain you if they believe criminal activity was afoot. However, they cannot enforce a law that does not exist.

 

[esrice]

They can detain you if they believe criminal activity was afoot. However, they cannot enforce a law that does not exist.

Which is exactly why he should have received a gift card!

 

[melensdad]

I normally don't advocate this, but I've thought long and hard before replying.


GET A LAWYER. MAKE THEM SQUIRM.


What they did to you was well beyond reasonable. They need to go to a re-education camp on how to treat honest citizens and they need to learn the law.

 

[Que]

I normally don't advocate this, but I've thought long and hard before replying.


GET A LAWYER. MAKE THEM SQUIRM.


What they did to you was well beyond reasonable. They need to go to a re-education camp on how to treat honest citizens and they need to learn the law.

He may be receiving a PM, soon.

 

[SirRealism]

What city did this happen in?

 

[Classic]

I've been thinking about this post and I guess I see some others are coming to the same conclusion I am. These incidents, the way TSA operates and the recent NYPD response to the demonstrators on wall street are all beginning to create in people some bad feelings toward law enforcement in general. LE has a tough job and deal with some of the worst people on the planet and so deserve huge respect. But we also shouldn't have to live in fear of being wrongly jerked around by agitated and misinformed officers.

 

[goinggreyfast]

He may be receiving a PM, soon.

That was my thought Que.

This is completely ridiculous! I am sorry this happened to you and your family. I'm thinking some public humiliation of Sgt Loser needs to take place. IMHO...

 

[Benny]

Wow, that OP could not be more jam-packed with officer fail. How can you be a law enforcement officer if you don't even know the ****ing laws? Everyone you spoke to should be fired. I know everyone makes mistakes, but when you are in a position of authority, you have to be held to a higher standard(sorry LEO, but it's true).

If an officer grabs ahold of you, and you didn't do anything illegal, can you sue him for assault?

LOL, that'll be the day.

I'd be interested to know why he let a felon go. How incompetent was he, exactly?

Pure gold.

 

[jeremy]

I'd be scheduling an appointment with the highest ranking police official in your jurisdiction. That's absolutely ridiculous.

This with one amendment for me, I would have my Lawyer doing the Majority of the talking...

 

[Kedric]

Like so many others have said... the fail, it goes beyond epic. The ridiculous and unprofessional conduct alone is mind boggling.

Keep us informed about this one.

I have also noticed the growing trend across the nation for LEO types to seem to over-react to situations a lot more frequently these day than in the past. Are they that in fear for their lives? Are there that many bullies employed by the various agencies? Or is it just that with everyone having a recorder that they are getting caught in the act more often? Not being a smartass, really trying to figure out what is going on.

 

[cobber]

This with one amendment for me, I would have my Lawyer doing the Majority of the talking...

If you are anticipating a suit, that is good advice. Probably true with respect to talking to the media as well. You want to get the high ground and keep it.

Re a request under IC 5-14-3, they have 24 hours to respond if you go in person or call, but one week to respond if you mail the request. You can start this process without an attorney.