Does LTCH = PC for entering vehicle ?

[mrjarrell]

Indiana vs Richardson is specific to seatbelt stops. Seatbelt stops are their own area of law because of the following IC code:

IC 9-19-10-3.1
...However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter...

OP was stopped for speeding.

While Richardson may not apply, Washington certainly does. The cops exceeded their authority and should be slapped down. Hard.

 

[Sgtusmc]

Indiana vs Richardson is specific to seatbelt stops. Seatbelt stops are their own area of law because of the following IC code:

IC 9-19-10-3.1
...However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter...

OP was stopped for speeding.

Let me ask you this. If I'm stopped and asked to get out, and with key fob still in hand simply push my button to lock the car would it require a warrant to then search my vehicle even if the window was still down somewhat? Could the officer simply grab the keys out of my hand or pocket and gain entry or reach through my window to unlock my car? I have an understanding to a certain degree of search and seizure but I don't want to bias your response.

I could see simply putting your keys in your pocket might set the officer off thinking you could be going for something thereby creating exigent circumstance in the officers mind and following through with detainment and a thorough search of the vehicle.

 

[Destro]

This ^^^^ Read the case here on our website: Legal

Washington v. State of Indiana

MICHIGAN v. LONG

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

 

[Birds Away]

What the LEO are saying is that if they want to take your weapon, they will.

 

[Destro]

What the LEO are saying is that if they want to take your weapon, they will.

Whatever it takes to make the world a safer place!

 

[Sgtusmc]

What the LEO are saying is that if they want to take your weapon, they will.

Of course they're going to do what they want to do. It just seems absurd for a weapon to not be in view, giving the officer no reason to believe he's in immediate danger, until he sees a pink card in a wallet. What about all the perps WITHOUT pink cards? I guess out of sight, out of mind stands true.

 

[netsecurity]

Even if he was on campus, where their policy is against having guns, does admitting to having a gun justify a police search? I wouldn't think so, since it is not illegal, but i hear about searches for weapons on campuses all the time.

OP should contact Guy Relford, Constitutional Attorney, of Tactical Firearms Training, and decide how to proceed from there. Maybe GR will chime in here...

http://www.relfordlaw.com

 

[Que]

Is "New 231" on campus? If so, the question must be asked if the campus police are there to keep law and order or uphold campus policy? However, if he's a student and it was on campus, I'm sure they will notify the administration.

 

[stephen87]

MICHIGAN v. LONG

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

Did you read what you wrote? First of all, MICHIGAN. Not related to Indiana. Second of all, "roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect." Why do I point this out? LEOs removed the son from the vehicle. No suspect within range of the firearm means RAS for "officer safety" goes out the window. Washington v State applies here. Go read it and let me know what you think.

 

[wolfman]

I am not a big "my rights were violated" type of person. But if this was what happened then I agree the officer was in the wrong. I am all for officer safety, but simply removing the occupant from the vehicle would have allowed for that. Also there was no reason to believe that a person with an LTCH or even one that has a gun poses a threat. The most dangerous activity in that exchange has officer butter finger handling an unfamiliar weapon in public.

While I agree the officer was in the wrong a lawsuit will not go anywhere. There are no "damages" and what attorney is going to work for free. I don't have the money to throw at an inconvenience such as this and neither do most other people. SO the result is individual officers can pretty much do whatever there leadership will allow them to do. (I bet that will make some people mad!)

Maybe we need to start a fund somewhere to pursue a good lawsuit.

Need to run this one past Guy Relford, and see what he says.

 

[cubbetm]

Happen to know the officers names? I have to drive on the new 231 and would prefer not to have this happen to me.

 

[stephen87]

If you ARE pulled over, just start yelling "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!" over and over.

 

[Whosyer]

MICHIGAN v. LONG

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

"Suspect" had LTCH. "Suspect" said "It's in the center console". "Suspect" was at rear of vehicle with another officer. Please explain how the above applies?

 

[Whosyer]

Is "New 231" on campus? If so, the question must be asked if the campus police are there to keep law and order or uphold campus policy? However, if he's a student and it was on campus, I'm sure they will notify the administration.

Not a student. Works second shift. On his way home. 231 is a State Highway. Officer was parked at entrance to Purdue Airport. Son was actually on State Road 26 by the time they lit him up.

 

[Caleb]

Forget talking to anyone. Lawyer up, immediately. LTCH is not grounds for search. Upon presenting it, all questioning regarding the firearm must cease.

x2


....give them an inch, they will make a damn mile of it!

 

[Kutnupe14]

So OP, you were not there, and were told this correct?

 

[Whosyer]

So OP, you were not there, and were told this correct?

You are correct. And I know my son pretty well. He doesn't embellish. He doesn't have an attitude towards LEO. As a matter of fact, he is a volunteer fireman and first responder. He works with LEObfrom 2 counties, on a regular basis. Friends with most of them. No axe to grind. PUPD shift supervisor told him it's their policy to always "secure the weapon". Regardless of circumstance. Sounds like their policy violates Washington.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are correct. And I know my son pretty well. He doesn't embellish. He doesn't have an attitude towards LEO. As a matter of fact, he is a volunteer fireman and first responder. He works with LEObfrom 2 counties, on a regular basis. Friends with most of them. No axe to grind. PUPD shift supervisor told him it's their policy to always "secure the weapon". Regardless of circumstance. Sounds like their policy violates Washington.

No, if it went down the way you say, it's clearly a violation... and I've know officers who have "attempted" to do the exact same thing (but I happened to be around and didn't want to be named in that lawsuit). I don't know your son, and if you say he's telling the full story, that's good enough for me.

 

[CathyInBlue]

While Michigan V Long was a SCOTUS case, and might seem at first blush to supercede Washington, Long was 1983. Washington was 2010. I'm quite certain the ICA was cognizant of it when they issued Washington, which, being a more local jurisdiction than federal, has the effect of narrowing Long drasticly, at least as far as LEOs operating within the state of Indiana is concerned.

Good try though, reaching all the way back in the archives to my elementary school years, though.

Also take note of US V Black (2013) out of the 4th circuit.

 

[Old_grunt]

Even if he was on campus, where their policy is against having guns, does admitting to having a gun justify a police search? I wouldn't think so, since it is not illegal, but i hear about searches for weapons on campuses all the time.

OP should contact Guy Relford, Constitutional Attorney, of Tactical Firearms Training, and decide how to proceed from there. Maybe GR will chime in here...

The Law Offices of Guy A. Relford

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^