Giving props to ISP

[cobber]

I will handle it a bit differently. The law is clear on when he can seize my weapon. I will get mine back AFTER the officer tries to explain to a judge why he seized my property without a warrant.

IC 35-47-14 is not about traffic stops. This is about "dangerous" individuals whose guns the police want to seize just because the individuals are...dangerous. But this is not the same as the Terry/traffic stop scenario, which does give the officer discretion based upon articulable facts.

Here we have a lone individual possibly driving erratically stopped by a trooper. Apparently at night?

If, given the facts and circumstances, the OP appeared to be armed and dangerous, THEN the trooper should have done a Terry patdown, as well as seizing the weapon he knew about. (I did not read that part about the patdown, though.) If the officer thinks the OP is dangerous (and not merely armed, which does NOT justify a Terry patdown), can he be sure the gun in the car is the only one?

The fact that there was not a patdown pretty much shoots down the 'danger' rationale. Sounds like this is part of the trooper's SOP when he encounters an LTCH holder.

 

[Cophgnsnuf]

I agree, and you said one other good point earlier, if it is seen, it wasnt conceiled good enough!

Read my opening statement, he saw my pink card, and asked if I was carrying. Do you think I'm going to lie to him and say no? I had to tell him where it was.

 

[ATM]

on a back ass county road it's dark besides his lights why would he have reason to do anything less than do what he feels is safe for him as well? ...

He is bound by law to doing less than whatever he "feels is safe for him" in some circumstances.

 

[ATM]

Read my opening statement, he saw my pink card, and asked if I was carrying. Do you think I'm going to lie to him and say no? I had to tell him where it was.

No, you didn't have to answer at all. You waived your right to remain silent on that question.

 

[long coat]

And do you really believe that there hasnt been anyone with thier LTCH that has committed a crime? Gave up thier rights? Give me a break!

Do you really believe that there hasn't been anyone with a badge committe a crime?

I don't know the LEO, so why should I trust him/her? Are they acting odd, drunk, on drugs or ??

 

[ryanbr]

Read my opening statement, he saw my pink card, and asked if I was carrying. Do you think I'm going to lie to him and say no? I had to tell him where it was.

Dont keep your pink card with your license, And it is never a good idea to lie, or let the officer find a surprise weapon, better all the way around!

 

[Hoosierdood]

Read my opening statement, he saw my pink card, and asked if I was carrying. Do you think I'm going to lie to him and say no? I had to tell him where it was.

LEO: Are you carrying?
OP: *Long, drawn out, awkward stare*
OP: Am I free to go?

You don't have to lie, but you definitely don't have to answer any questions either. We have this thing called the 5th Amendment, you know. Let him take care of the reason why he pulled you over, and you both get to go home safely.



ETA: Dangit, ATM. You're too fast.

No, you didn't have to answer at all. You waived your right to remain silent on that question.

 

[Hammerhead]

Dear Young Officer,

It doesn't matter how I or you "feel". You may enforce the laws of the State of Indiana. I support you in that cause. You may not violate the laws of the state of Indiana in performing your duty. If you have an articulable reason for feeling threatened, then by all means, temporarily take control of my weapon. But as a matter of routine, it is illegal.

That being said, if you pulled me over and you asked me for my weapon, I will have failed in keeping it concealed enough. I would then comply with your order, politely letting you know that I don't agree with your order and that it is not necessary for your safety. After our stop I will contact your department and file a complaint.

Why? What part of anything ever says you have to keep it concealed?

 

[Rookie]

IC 35-47-14 is not about traffic stops. This is about "dangerous" individuals whose guns the police want to seize just because the individuals are...dangerous. But this is not the same as the Terry/traffic stop scenario, which does give the officer discretion based upon articulable facts.

Here we have a lone individual possibly driving erratically stopped by a trooper. Apparently at night?

If, given the facts and circumstances, the OP appeared to be armed and dangerous, THEN the trooper should have done a Terry patdown, as well as seizing the weapon he knew about. (I did not read that part about the patdown, though.) If the officer thinks the OP is dangerous (and not merely armed, which does NOT justify a Terry patdown), can he be sure the gun in the car is the only one?

The fact that there was not a patdown pretty much shoots down the 'danger' rationale. Sounds like this is part of the trooper's SOP when he encounters an LTCH holder.

IC 35-47-14 pertains to seizure of weapons. If the officer feels I'm dangerous, for any reason (terry stop or not), he can seize my weapon without a warrant. Any other seizure requires a warrant.

 

[ATM]

ETA: Dangit, ATM. You're too fast.

...like a marsupial.

 

[jwfuhrman]

I have family and friends that LEO, and having grown up around that, and understanding that in reality, you really honestly as a LEO, don't have a flying fracking clue as to who you can trust and who you can't. It really truly is a very dangerous job, almost lost my dad once, but they had more than enough Deputies on for the night, and with a State Trooper being in town, he got off work early. Not 2min after he walked in the door, I heard on the scanner the dreaded shots fired officer down. My dad passed the Trooper as he was pulling someone over. Turns out the ****tard the trooper pulled over had it in his mind to kill the next Cop who pulled him over.

I have no issue with handing over with my license/registration/LTCH all at the same time. Majority of the time, if its in my center console, they just have me leave it there. I also have NRA stickers, FOP stickers from 2007-Present, and Indiana Sheriff Associations stickers in the back window of my Jeep.

 

[Roadie]

Let's see if I have learned anything on INGO...

"Officer, I don't consent to any searches at this time."

"Officer, am I being detained?"

 

[Roadie]

I have family and friends that LEO, and having grown up around that, and understanding that in reality, you really honestly as a LEO, don't have a flying fracking clue as to who you can trust and who you can't. It really truly is a very dangerous job, almost lost my dad once, but they had more than enough Deputies on for the night, and with a State Trooper being in town, he got off work early. Not 2min after he walked in the door, I heard on the scanner the dreaded shots fired officer down. My dad passed the Trooper as he was pulling someone over. Turns out the ****tard the trooper pulled over had it in his mind to kill the next Cop who pulled him over.

I have no issue with handing over with my license/registration/LTCH all at the same time. Majority of the time, if its in my center console, they just have me leave it there. I also have NRA stickers, FOP stickers from 2007-Present, and Indiana Sheriff Associations stickers in the back window of my Jeep.

We aren't talking about when the Officer walks up to the car, we are talking about AFTER the LTCH is verified.. apples and oranges

As a reality, once the LTCH is confirmed, the Officer SHOULD know that statistically, the person they just pulled over is among a demographic that is responsible for less than 1% of all crime, and less than 1/4 of 1% of all handgun homicides.

Logically, once the LTCH is verified, the LEO should be MORE at ease, but like many in this country, they have been brainwashed by the Brady crowds that citizens having guns is bad..

 

[Manan]

Why? What part of anything ever says you have to keep it concealed?

That's just how I roll.

 

[cobber]

IC 35-47-14 pertains to seizure of weapons. If the officer feels I'm dangerous, for any reason (terry stop or not), he can seize my weapon without a warrant. Any other seizure requires a warrant.

No, not if the officer "feels" you are dangerous, but if you are dangerous according to the statutory definition that applies to the court proceedings.
So what you appear to be saying is that the trooper violated IC 35-47-14 and thereby the law when he made a warrantless seizure of the weapon (though I'm puzzled how he thought the OP was 'dangerous') and did not subsequently submit a statement to a circuit or superior court justifying the seizure. So he either violated the statute, or the constitution.

Open question to all LEO's on the forum, when is the last time you temporarily seized a weapon during a Terry stop (but did not pat down the "dangerous" individual OR restrain him) and then decided to keep the gun and submitted a statement to the circuit or superior court in your jurisdiction "under oath or affirmation describing the basis for [your] belief that the individual is dangerous."

From what I read of the OP, had the trooper made such an oath or affirmation about the OP, such statement would probably have been perjury. Which would be another violation of the law. Best if the trooper had just run the license and registration and left it at that.

 

[Hammerhead]

Let's see if I have learned anything on INGO...

"Officer, I don't consent to any searches at this time."

"Officer, am I being detained?"

If it'd been learned yet, then there wouldn't be four hundred thousand threads on this topic.

Why must we feel happy when LEOs overstep their bounds, no matter their demeanor, or the lack of punishment?

 

[long coat]

I did a little looking for the number of LEOs killed and how, here is what I found.

During 2007, for the 10th year in a row, more law enforcement officers died in traffic-related incidents than in shootings.

This is only auto or gun, more than this died each year.

2006 auto 74 shot 54
2007 auto 83 shot 68
2008 auto 71 shot 39
2009 auto 51 shot 49
2010 auto 72 shot 61

So it looks like they need to stop pulling people over on the side of the road so they will be safe.

All this can be found here.
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund: Latest Memorial Fund Research Bulletin

 

[Dirc]

No, not if the officer "feels" you are dangerous, but if you are dangerous according to the statutory definition that applies to the court proceedings.
So what you appear to be saying is that the trooper violated IC 35-47-14 and thereby the law when he made a warrantless seizure of the weapon (though I'm puzzled how he thought the OP was 'dangerous') and did not subsequently submit a statement to a circuit or superior court justifying the seizure. So he either violated the statute, or the constitution.

Open question to all LEO's on the forum, when is the last time you temporarily seized a weapon during a Terry stop (but did not pat down the "dangerous" individual OR restrain him) and then decided to keep the gun and submitted a statement to the circuit or superior court in your jurisdiction "under oath or affirmation describing the basis for [your] belief that the individual is dangerous."

From what I read of the OP, had the trooper made such an oath or affirmation about the OP, such statement would probably have been perjury. Which would be another violation of the law. Best if the trooper had just run the license and registration and left it at that.

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

I wonder if that part would be enough to get the officer off in court.

 

[Manan]

I wonder if that part would be enough to get the officer off in court.

The officer would need to articulate (explain truth / facts) what exactly made him believe that the perp was dangerous. It can't be just that he "had a gun" or was a LTCH holder.

I give the benefit of the doubt initially to the LEO. But he has to back it up with some real facts, not bull.

 

[Hammerhead]

That's just how I roll.

And that's perfectly fine. However, just because you carry does not make it legally acceptable for a LEO to violate your rights or court decisions, no matter how you carry.