Getting Pulled over w/ Gun in car

[Michiana]

I have been driving since 1960 and have has two tickets, both for speeding. Over the years I have done a lot of driving for work and have driven in 44 of the 50 states. Some years I did 50,000 miles. I sometimes have a lead foot but usually try to go with the traffic; if everyone is going 75 in a sixty mile per hour zone so am I. It puzzles me when I read about all these traffic stops people discuss; drive right and you probably won't get stopped.


Over the years I have dealt with quite a few cops and have found all but one or two to be overly polite. I was always told you reap what you sow.

 

[NateIU10]

we’ll make it safe and then I'll check your permit and license and get on with the job at hand.

Does make it safe mean take the weapon and unload it? Isn't that just adding possibility that a ND could occur? I mean, they informed in a state with no requirement and if nothing else seems out of place or tingles your spidey sense, why take the gun?

 

[Roadie]

Does make it safe mean take the weapon and unload it? Isn't that just adding possibility that a ND could occur? I mean, they informed in a state with no requirement and if nothing else seems out of place or tingles your spidey sense, why take the gun?

Good question, I was wondering that as well.

How many times do you think a LEO has been shot by a citizen AFTER the LEO has the person's DL and LTCH in hand?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If I pull you over and you reveal you are carrying, I'll ask if you are licensed, if yes, we’ll make it safe and then I'll check your permit and license and get on with the job at hand.

Could you clarify what you mean by "make it safe" different officers have different takes on it, ranging from "where is it? Okay lets just keep it there." to disarming the citizen unloading the firearm and returning them separately at the end of the stop with instructions not to reload until their gone.

 

[JosephR]

Make it safe implies actively doing something to the firearm. I usually take "make it safe" to mean eject mag and round. I'm sure he's have said "keep it safe" if he meant leave it where it was.

 

[paddling_man]

I'm kinda hoping he misspoke. It would seem to me that ejecting the mag and unloading the chambered round, while standing next to car at night and fumbling with the flashlight at the same time... all with a handgun you're likely unfamiliar with... that doesn't seem overly safe.

Never tried it in practice, so I'm open to being mistaken.





Heck, I go through life "open to being mistaken."

 

[JosephR]

Well that is standard operating procedure AFAIK so if you think it's stupid to do then keep quiet about your gun until asked.

 

[JJ1962IND]

My experiance

I always keep my carry permit behind my DL and it is handed out the window with my registration and DL. The few times I have been pulled over and I have done this the LEO asks if there is a weapon in the vehicle and I tell them yes and where it is located. Sometimes they give me back my permit and state they don't need it. or they return to their commision and run me and return all my paper work and send me off, No other questions asked. Just out of respect for there job I do this and i hope it is appreciated.

Anyways thats my 2 cents on this subject.

JJ

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

One of my hobbies is reading Indiana Court of Appeals decisions. (No, I am not a lawyer, and yes, I am weird, thank you very much.) Here's an interesting one:

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05220909pdm.pdf

Highlights from the decision, courtesy of the Indiana Law blog:

Robert Richardson (“Richardson”) filed a motion to suppress evidence seized after he was initially stopped for a seatbelt violation. The Marion Superior Court granted Richardson's motion. The State of Indiana appeals and argues that the trial court erred in granting Richardson's motion. We reverse. * * * Traffic stops based upon a seatbelt violation are limited by the very statute that authorizes them. Pursuant the Seatbelt Enforcement Act, “a vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with [the seat belt] chapter.” I.C. § 9-19-10-3.1. The next sentence of this section limits police authority in such situations: “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.” * * *
In the present case, we have an admittedly valid initial stop for a violation of the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. Officer Eastwood did not exceed the permitted statutory limits of a seatbelt stop by asking Richardson for his license or registration. * * *
Here, after the initial seatbelt stop, Officer Eastwood noticed a very large, unusual object in Richardson's pocket. We do not think it unreasonable for her to have merely asked Richardson what this object was. We therefore conclude that Officer Eastwood's inquiry regarding the large, unusual object in Richardson's pocket did not exceed the scope of police behavior permitted under the Seatbelt Enforcement Act, Article 1, Section 11, or the Fourth Amendment. * * *
We acknowledge that the information Officer Eastwood received from headquarters was, in fact, incorrect. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State admitted that Richardson did not, in fact, have a prior felony conviction. Thus, Officer Eastwood's arrest of Richardson was ultimately improper. The question then becomes, should the evidence found as a result of this arrest, which was later determined to be improper, be suppressed under the exclusionary rule?
A similar question was before the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009). * * *
Here, as in Herring, a police officer was given information which led to the arrest of the defendant. In both cases, this information was later discovered to have been incorrect, and the arrest of the defendant was therefore improper. But, as in Herring, this is not enough, by itself, to justify suppression of evidence discovered as a result of the arrest. The mistake here, like in Herring, appears to have been a “police mistake” which was “the result of negligence . . . rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements[.]” 129 S.Ct. at 704. Without any indication that the police were reckless in maintaining their records or knowingly made false entries in order to justify false arrests, exclusion is not justified. See id. We therefore reverse the trial court's conclusion that the evidence seized as a result of Richardson's arrest was subject to suppression.

The case is the Marion County prosecutor appealing a suppression of evidence in a cocaine case and winning. The interesting part is the description of the traffic stop. Apparently there is at least one police officer on the IMPD force who doesn't bother to check the validity of gun permits, just whether you have a felony record. If you have a felony record, or are incorrectly listed as having one as in this case, she arrests you for possession of a gun by a felon. Having a gun permit in your hand that would not have been issued to you had you been a felon means nothing to her.

We talk a lot about how traffic stops go in the abstract. Here (in legal language) is how one actually went.

My opinion on the underlying issue: if you're pulled over under the seatbelt statute, you should only be investigated for seatbelt use period and nothing else because the seatbelt statute says so. Anything else, including "Is that bulge a weapon" is out-of-bounds. The court decided this one badly because they didn't want a cocaine user to go free and because they have the attitude that every armed citizen is a potential threat to the police and should be treated that way, law-be-damned.

And the law should not require you to wear a seatbelt, but that's an issue for another day.

 

[Boilers]

Can I just hand him a LIST of guns in the car? I'd hate to miss some.

 

[D.T.O.M.]

The first time I got pulled over the LEO asked if I had any guns or weapons on me? I said that my pistol was under my seat He then asked if I had a LTCH. I told him yes He said well leave it there do not make any sudden moves and give me your D.L. and permit So I did just that He gave me a warning and away I went Got home and saw my pistol was laying on top of the frig. But I have been pulled over two other times with a gun in my truck and I always inform them of that. I try to be as helpful and polite as possible if I in fact was breaking the law ( speeding) In my expriance it usualy helps! For what its worth !

 

[talshu]

I always tell the cop when he walks up that im packing and the three times i have been stoped they all thanked me and said have a nice day after they gave me a warning which i thought was pretty nice of them cause they could have given me a ticket for speeding

 

[chasekerion4]

Can I just hand him a LIST of guns in the car? I'd hate to miss some.

Maybe a professionally made spreadsheet with magazine capacities and everything?

 

[pftraining_in]

The case is the Marion County prosecutor appealing a suppression of evidence in a cocaine case and winning. The interesting part is the description of the traffic stop. Apparently there is at least one police officer on the IMPD force who doesn't bother to check the validity of gun permits, just whether you have a felony record. If you have a felony record, or are incorrectly listed as having one as in this case, she arrests you for possession of a gun by a felon. Having a gun permit in your hand that would not have been issued to you had you been a felon means nothing to her.

A person could be convicted of a felony and still have a valid handgun permit. Fours years or a lifetime is a enough time for someone to commit a crime. Also a court has to request the handgun permit be canceled and it takes time. Additionally if the handgun permit was issued in another county, other than Marion, it maybe impossible to research if the permit is valid until the next business day. A felony conviction supersedes a handgun permit even if it valid unless it is a traffic felony (habitual traffic violator or DUI Felony).

My opinion on the underlying issue: if you're pulled over under the seatbelt statute, you should only be investigated for seatbelt use period and nothing else because the seatbelt statute says so. Anything else, including "Is that bulge a weapon" is out-of-bounds.

Indiana believes in officer safety. Questions pertaining to officer safety are allowed. If her training and experience as an Officer lead her to believe the "bulge" was either a weapon or illegal substance, she has reasonable suspicion to believe it is. This allows her to investigate further.

The seatbelt statue limits the officer from extending the scope of the seatbelt stop with out reasonable suspicion, meaning that if she had not seen the bulge and ask to search the car she would have violated the seatbelt statue. This limitation only is valid on a seatbelt stop. The exemption does not apply if once the vehicle is stop another crime is discovered, smell of an alcohlic beverage or burning marijuana, drugs or paraphelnelia visable, etc. You can not get away with muder because you were stopped only for a seatbelt violation and you had a dead body in the back seat.

 

[Bill of Rights]

A person could be convicted of a felony and still have a valid handgun permit. Fours years or a lifetime is a enough time for someone to commit a crime. Also a court has to request the handgun permit be canceled and it takes time. Additionally if the handgun permit was issued in another county, other than Marion, it maybe impossible to research if the permit is valid until the next business day. A felony conviction supersedes a handgun permit even if it valid unless it is a traffic felony (habitual traffic violator or DUI Felony).



Indiana believes in officer safety. Questions pertaining to officer safety are allowed. If her training and experience as an Officer lead her to believe the "bulge" was either a weapon or illegal substance, she has reasonable suspicion to believe it is. This allows her to investigate further.

The seatbelt statue limits the officer from extending the scope of the seatbelt stop with out reasonable suspicion, meaning that if she had not seen the bulge and ask to search the car she would have violated the seatbelt statue. This limitation only is valid on a seatbelt stop. The exemption does not apply if once the vehicle is stop another crime is discovered, smell of an alcohlic beverage or burning marijuana, drugs or paraphelnelia visable, etc. You can not get away with muder because you were stopped only for a seatbelt violation and you had a dead body in the back seat.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't the felony conviction automatically invalidate the LTCH, due to the person no longer being a "proper person"?
Indiana believes in officer safety, you say. Are you saying that the legislature does so to the exclusion of the rights and safety of the taxpaying citizens?

I have yet to hear a valid reason why someone being a LEO makes his/her safety so much more important than mine. The simple fact is that it is not more important nor less so, but rather equally important. Unfortunately, as you indicated, the law does not seem to recognize that fact.

The simple presence of a firearm in my possession is no more cause for my arrest than it is for the arrest of the LEO who also has one.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Myrk]

I think the comfort factor works here, the time I got stopped I told the officer as he came up to the car, I was on my way to do some target shooting with dad and there were several handguns and rifles. He said to just stay still and do not move around until he came back, just got a warning and a thank you for being honest up front.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

A person could be convicted of a felony and still have a valid handgun permit. Fours years or a lifetime is a enough time for someone to commit a crime. Also a court has to request the handgun permit be canceled and it takes time. Additionally if the handgun permit was issued in another county, other than Marion, it maybe impossible to research if the permit is valid until the next business day. A felony conviction supersedes a handgun permit even if it valid unless it is a traffic felony (habitual traffic violator or DUI Felony).

A court does not have to request the ltch be revoked, the firearms division of the ISP can revoke it upon notification of the fact that they are not a "proper person" without a court order. ETA After thinking about it, most if not all of the reasons they would revoke the license would require a court order, but not necessarily one to specifically revoke, a court order(conviction or for alcohol or drugs having to seek treatment to avoid being prosecuted)

All IN LTCH are issued in Marion county, the application can be filed anywhere in the state where you live, but they are issued by the ISP in Marion.

And any felony including traffic, prohibits you from owning or carrying a firearm. DUI included. There is nothing in any of the laws of IN or FED that I have ever seen exempting certain felonies. If you have proof of that I know a person that would be very interested. ETA Excepting felonies where you were charged as a minor.

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

The issue with the officer's felony search is that the arrest commenced from an unreliable result. How can a person ever be arrested for felon in possession when the underlying felony could have been reduced to a misdemeanor, yet the database being consulted is less than 100% accurate as to when that has happened?

Indiana believes in officer safety. Questions pertaining to officer safety are allowed. If her training and experience as an Officer lead her to believe the "bulge" was either a weapon or illegal substance, she has reasonable suspicion to believe it is. This allows her to investigate further.

The seatbelt statue limits the officer from extending the scope of the seatbelt stop with out reasonable suspicion, meaning that if she had not seen the bulge and ask to search the car she would have violated the seatbelt statue. This limitation only is valid on a seatbelt stop. The exemption does not apply if once the vehicle is stop another crime is discovered, smell of an alcohlic beverage or burning marijuana, drugs or paraphelnelia visable, etc. You can not get away with muder because you were stopped only for a seatbelt violation and you had a dead body in the back seat.

I have a bigger bulge on my belt from my cellphone than from my gun. If seeing a bulge in my pocket or under my shirt allows the officer to widen the stop, then IC 9-19-10-3.1(a), purporting to keep seatbelt stops from becoming investigatory without cause, is useless.

Alcoholic beverage smell, marijuana smell, and dead bodies are all fairly reliable evidence of a crime. If such is in plain view (or sniff), then I can understand widening the stop. Bulges in my pocket or under my shirt are evidence of no crime whatsoever.

The appeals court actually referred to the questioning of the driver about the bulge under the shirt as "merely ask[ing]". Imagine it had gone like this...

OFFICER: What is that bulge in your pocket?
MOTORIST: None of your business.

Since she was "merely ask[ing]", that would have ended it, right? No, of course it wouldn't have. She was on a fishing expedition for bigger crimes as soon as she pulled him over, and once she saw the bulge she felt a tug on the line.

Seatbelt stops are clearly not supposed to be like that, no matter how much the appeals court has gutted the law.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...The appeals court actually referred to the questioning of the driver about the bulge under the shirt as "merely ask[ing]". Imagine it had gone like this...

OFFICER: What is that bulge in your pocket?
MOTORIST: None of your business.

Since she was "merely ask[ing]", that would have ended it, right? No, of course it wouldn't have. She was on a fishing expedition for bigger crimes as soon as she pulled him over, and once she saw the bulge she felt a tug on the line.

Seatbelt stops are clearly not supposed to be like that, no matter how much the appeals court has gutted the law.

"That bulge in my pocket? That's irrelevant."

Unless I'm mistaken, answering what it was or consenting to a search overrode the 4A. Any LEOs or attorneys out there care to comment?

Along the same lines, if the person does not lie but simply refuses to answer the question, would a search, in the absence of other evidence of a crime, would the 5A protect him/her from a 4A violation?

Put another way, at the present time, I have a bulge in my left front pants pocket (minds out of the gutter!! ) caused by my cell phone and a portable charger for said phone. If I was stopped for a traffic infraction, was asked that question, gave the above answer and was subsequently removed from my vehicle, cuffed and searched, would the officer doing so over my calm, polite protests of "Officer, I do not consent to any searches." be opening up either him/herself and/or his/her department to a false arrest charge? If my pistol was discovered (after I'd informed on exiting the vehicle) on my right side, thus, not where the LEO would see it, would it be admissible, presuming that I held a LTCH?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[pftraining_in]

I have yet to hear a valid reason why someone being a LEO makes his/her safety so much more important than mine. The simple fact is that it is not more important nor less so, but rather equally important. Unfortunately, as you indicated, the law does not seem to recognize that fact.

The State is not suggesting that anyone's life or safety is more important than anyone else. This a tool given to LE due there interactions with some people that are not upstanding citizens. You must understand that a majority of people that are stopped or interact with officers are strangers. The officer has no idea what your mental state is, if you just robbed the local 7.11 or you are a member of the church choir on your way to church after saving a bus load of orphans from drowning.

In other words, you can be a great guy but the officer has no way of knowing that. It is a fact of the job that you must threat everyone as they may harm you.

If I was stopped for a traffic infraction, was asked that question, gave the above answer and was subsequently removed from my vehicle, cuffed and searched, would the officer doing so over my calm, polite protests of "Officer, I do not consent to any searches." be opening up either him/herself and/or his/her department to a false arrest charge? If my pistol was discovered (after I'd informed on exiting the vehicle) on my right side, thus, not where the LEO would see it, would it be admissible, presuming that I held a LTCH?

If you are only being searched, even if handcuffs, you are not under arrest. You are being detained. Once handcuffed you are not free to go, but not under arrest. If you have committed a crime, say DUI, and are in possession of a handgun with a LTCH you have not committed an additional crime. In the above case the subject was in possession of narcotics, which being in possession of a handgun increases the level of the crime.

Indiana believes in officer safety, you say. Are you saying that the legislature does so to the exclusion of the rights and safety of the taxpaying citizens?

Everyone is law enforcement pays taxes, the same taxes as everyone else. Are they not granted the right to safety also?

Unless I'm mistaken, answering what it was or consenting to a search overrode the 4A. Any LEOs or attorneys out there care to comment?

Yes you have overrode the 4th amendment. However, if you consent to a search, you may remove the consent at anytime.

Along the same lines, if the person does not lie but simply refuses to answer the question, would a search, in the absence of other evidence of a crime, would the 5A protect him/her from a 4A violation?

If no probable cause or reasonable suspicion exist for the search, then yes if would be a violation of the 4th and 5th amendment.

Sorry if I missed anything.