Does LTCH = PC for entering vehicle ?

[Hammerhead]

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.

For Mr. Richardson, yes, his specific case and the questioning about the "bulge" was due to the seatbelt stop and the termination of any further questioning due to the specific nature and coding written in the seat belt law.

However, and I quote:

There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an “unusual bulge” will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

The INSC was very clear on their statement about the presentation of a valid (verified) LTCH being the end of all questioning about firearms.

The court, with the emphasis added (mine) puts it plainly that even if Officer Eastwood would have been able to go outside of the confines of the seat belt stop, the LTCH ends any firearms questioning. They have clearly made it unacceptable at any time to continue questioning about firearms once you produce your Larry and it is verified valid.

They also cite Washington in the Richardson decision.


In the case of the OP's son, once he is removed from the vehicle and thus the "danger" (let's ignore the initial Larry sighting for the moment) just like Washington, the LEO has no "officer safety" concerns and thus has NO PC or RAS to enter the vehicle to "secure" the firearm.

IANAL, but I will echo the advice to the OP - get a lawyer on the phone, pronto. I happily recommend Guy, or Kirk for someone local. Or both. And do not talk about this anymore.

 

[Destro]

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.

Juse because it's from Michigan does not mean it does not apply. And you are making assumptions based on hearsy about the situation. Washington is not a blanket

 

[Destro]

Washingtonwas about suppression of evidence, it does not even touch the qualifiedimmunity aspect. Where some of you guys get off thinking there's going to besome kind of payday is beyond me. Maybe watch a few more episodes of SVU?

 

[dusterboy49]

Washingtonwas about suppression of evidence, it does not even touch the qualifiedimmunity aspect. Where some of you guys get off thinking there's going to besome kind of payday is beyond me. Maybe watch a few more episodes of SVU?

If there was an illegal search that violated the 4th Amendment, it could give rise to a lawsuit in Federal Court for the violation.

 

[Denny347]

I can see the "officer safety" aspect. However, once the driver steps out of the vehicle, the "officer safety" aspect is satisfied.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your son should contact an attorney.

One question, did PUPD say this was a "policy"?

 

[Denny347]

Your son should contact an attorney.

An attorney in Lafayette as well....hmmm, who should he contact

 

[Whosyer]

I can see the "officer safety" aspect. However, once the driver steps out of the vehicle, the "officer safety" aspect is satisfied.

This was exactly my thinking. Driver has pink card. Driver answers officers question about location of firearm. Driver exits vehicle, is at rear of vehicle, with 2 officers. Firearm is inside center console of vehicle. Where's the threat to officer safety? When my son spoke to the shift supervisor, he said it's their "policy" to "always secure the firearm". Sounds like the officer was just acting on the Chiefs personal beliefs, ( I'm assuming the Chief sets policy) and not acting out of actual concern for his safety. I don't know exactly where Chief Cox stands on non students 2A rights, but his stance on Campus carry has been quoted in the press. He is adamantly against. Something to the affect of " adding firearms to the mix of young men and women , and the availability of alcohol, will only lead to an increase in violence on campus". He may , or may not have a valid point. My only question is, why not crack down on the illegal? ( underage consumption) instead of opposing the legal ( licensed carry) ? Anyway, back on topic, sounds like the Officer was following policy. Even though the policy is illogical, and possibly illegal. Sounds like the bone to pick is with the Chief. On a side note, the second officer on the scene is an LT. He was in agreement with the first officers actions.

 

[Caleb]

Your son should contact an attorney.

One question, did PUPD say this was a "policy"?

x2

 

[Whosyer]

Your son should contact an attorney.

One question, did PUPD say this was a "policy"?

Yes. Shift supervisor said it is policy to secure the firearm. Son is still waiting on a reply from Chief Cox. ( sent him a lengthy email that evening) I am anxious to see if he responds, and if he will put in writing, that this is policy.

 

[Whosyer]

Another side note. Officer never asked for son to remove pink card from wallet and present it. He just saw it when son was getting DL out, and started asking questions about firearms. " you have a gun? What kind? Where is it? Step to rear of vehicle."

 

[Destro]

I can see the "officer safety" aspect. However, once the driver steps out of the vehicle, the "officer safety" aspect is satisfied.

easy one...."...defendent noted there was a handgun in the center console, I asked Mr. John Doe to step out of the vehicle so I could secure the weapon, after securing the weapon, I instructed the subject to return to his vehicle for the duration of my investigation for saftey due to traffic"

 

[stephen87]

Washingtonwas about suppression of evidence, it does not even touch the qualifiedimmunity aspect. Where some of you guys get off thinking there's going to besome kind of payday is beyond me. Maybe watch a few more episodes of SVU?

You're absolutely right, the Washington ruling DID suppress evidence, but it also created case law which states that once a suspect is removed from the firearm "officer safety" is satisfied and taking possession of the firearm, in everyday circumstances not extenuating circumstances (read warrants, felon, etc), becomes an illegal seizure. This is based on MY reading of the case, IANAL.

I can see the "officer safety" aspect. However, once the driver steps out of the vehicle, the "officer safety" aspect is satisfied.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Your son should contact an attorney.

One question, did PUPD say this was a "policy"?

Who should he contact, Kirk? Do you recommend anyone?

 

[Whosyer]

Your son should contact an attorney.

One question, did PUPD say this was a "policy"?

I have already forwarded contact info for both you and Guy.

 

[Denny347]

easy one...."...defendent noted there was a handgun in the center console, I asked Mr. John Doe to step out of the vehicle so I could secure the weapon, after securing the weapon, I instructed the subject to return to his vehicle for the duration of my investigation for safety due to traffic"

Maybe, I'm no lawyer...but I see both sides of this issue. I look forward to a court ruling that puts this debate to rest once and for all.

 

[darinb]

Definetly not right and officers had no right to search.

 

[Whosyer]

easy one...."...defendent noted there was a handgun in the center console, I asked Mr. John Doe to step out of the vehicle so I could secure the weapon, after securing the weapon, I instructed the subject to return to his vehicle for the duration of my investigation for saftey due to traffic"

He did have him return to seat. Then returned firearm , minus mag, when he returned DL.

 

[armedindy]

its sad that people have to remember a sequence of "to do's" when interacting with police just to attempt to protect their civil liberties...

 

[Hammerhead]

its sad that people have to remember a sequence of "to do's" when interacting with police just to attempt to protect their civil liberties...

#1 - Don't answer questions.
#2 - Smile and blow kisses
#3 - Don't answer questions.

 

[Sgtusmc]

its sad that people have to remember a sequence of "to do's" when interacting with police just to attempt to protect their civil liberties...

Well said.

edit: And it's not because we're criminals, it's because bad things continue to happen to good law abiding citizens in these situations.