Good news is, I didn't get arrested today...

[Bunnykid68]

I shall be over to administer your belated curbstomping directly...

I call shotgun

 

[foszoe]

I guess no one reads my posts.

Hello and welcome to the forums! Glad you are here. Just wanted you to know that we have a separate forum for introducing yourself to the group! Perhaps a moderator can move your first post there as it would be more appropriate. Again welcome and enjoy your stay.

 

[92ThoStro]

Why so many posts about the temporary gun confiscation during the first part of the interaction before it was known LTCH was expired? I thought confiscation for officer safety, LTCH, or not, has been court backed?

I wouldn't hand it over willingly, I would not resist if it was taken though.

 

[Expat]

Why so many posts about the temporary gun confiscation during the first part of the interaction before it was known LTCH was expired? I thought confiscation for officer safety, LTCH, or not, has been court backed?

I wouldn't hand it over willingly, I would not resist if it was taken though.

If he had been less than cooperative as you recommend, I would guess the expired license would have been a bigger issue.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Why so many posts about the temporary gun confiscation during the first part of the interaction before it was known LTCH was expired? I thought confiscation for officer safety, LTCH, or not, has been court backed?

I wouldn't hand it over willingly, I would not resist if it was taken though.

I don't have a source handy at the moment but no, a cop does not have the authority to take your property without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime or meet the definition of dangerous person.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

If he had been less than cooperative as you recommend, I would guess the expired license would have been a bigger issue.

I think he was meaning confiscation with a valid LTCH.

Although I tend to agree with you do since he was in fact breaking the law of the land, however unconstitutional it may seem.

 

[92ThoStro]

I did not comment.on how he should have done it. I was commenting on an LEOs ability to temporarily seize your weapon during a traffic stop for officer safety on a valid LTCH. I recall the forum LEOs saying they can do it and have the courts approval. This was during the discussion we had on running.the serial numbers on a legally possessed firearm. BehindBI IIRC said an officer can seize a firearm for officer safety during a traffic stop. And as long as it does not go beyond the.scope of the encounter (serial in plain view) an officer.can check it.

So they can't say they are seizing it to run the numbers. But they can say they are holding it for the duration of the stop for safety. And then sit in the car and run the numbers. while they run your other info.

Although the same as you TF I do recall hearing something about an officer being required to show why he seized the legally possessed weapon and how the person was deemed potentially dangerous.

Get a lot of conflicting statements on INGO. But officers seize guns all the time every day and the only time I remember seeing the OP get out of it was when the officer said he was seizing.it to run the numbers. He then refused and asked for a supervisor who ultimately let him go on his way

Most cops don't seize or run numbers
But the ones that do seem to be able to.
I'm sure Kirk knows

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Although the same as you TF I do recall hearing something about an officer being required to show why he seized the legally possessed weapon and how the person was deemed potentially dangerous.

Most of these misconceptions are stemming from folks misunderstanding three different things. The short version is, for a non-seat belt only stop, the officer can confiscate the weapon for the duration of the traffic stop, LTCH or no.

One is they keep confusing a Terry stop and Terry pat with a stop for a known infraction and dealing with a known weapon. I've explained multiple times in multiple posts the differences.

The second is confusing IC 35-47-14, which deals with seizure AND RETENTION of weapons from potential dangerous individuals. Nothing in the law says you can ONLY seize weapons from dangerous people, only what needs to happen if you do seize and then RETAIN the weapon. This is commonly referred to as the Jake Laird law (and today is the anniversary of Laird's line of duty death) because guns were seized from a violently mentally ill person but with no legal way to hold them IPD had to return them to him, and he subsequently shot several officers, wounding many and killing Laird.

The third is case law specifically related to SEAT BELT ONLY stops vs other traffic stops. Per IC code seat belt stops are much more limited in their scope than any other stop. You can't ask consent to search, etc. Questions, searches, etc. that are perfectly legal on, for example, a speeding stop are not kosher on a seat belt stop, and some folks have not realized how narrow the court cases are and tried to apply those to non-seat belt only stops.

 

[Redhorse]

I did not comment.on how he should have done it. I was commenting on an LEOs ability to temporarily seize your weapon during a traffic stop for officer safety on a valid LTCH. I recall the forum LEOs saying they can do it and have the courts approval. This was during the discussion we had on running.the serial numbers on a legally possessed firearm. BehindBI IIRC said an officer can seize a firearm for officer safety during a traffic stop. And as long as it does not go beyond the.scope of the encounter (serial in plain view) an officer.can check it.

So they can't say they are seizing it to run the numbers. But they can say they are holding it for the duration of the stop for safety. And then sit in the car and run the numbers. while they run your other info.

Although the same as you TF I do recall hearing something about an officer being required to show why he seized the legally possessed weapon and how the person was deemed potentially dangerous.

Get a lot of conflicting statements on INGO. But officers seize guns all the time every day and the only time I remember seeing the OP get out of it was when the officer said he was seizing.it to run the numbers. He then refused and asked for a supervisor who ultimately let him go on his way

Most cops don't seize or run numbers
But the ones that do seem to be able to.
I'm sure Kirk knows

What does this mean? I have a revovler that I'm pretty sure is "unmarked" or whatever. It isn't anything bad that I know of, I got it at a gun show. Do I need to have it registered to my name or something since its my carry piece?

sorry, quick

 

[Hammerhead]

Most of these misconceptions are stemming from folks misunderstanding three different things. The short version is, for a non-seat belt only stop, the officer can confiscate the weapon for the duration of the traffic stop, LTCH or no. I'll address this shortly.

One is they keep confusing a Terry stop and Terry pat with a stop for a known infraction and dealing with a known weapon. I've explained multiple times in multiple posts the differences. Terry deals with a subject that is armed AND dangerous AND suspected of committing, having committed, or will be comitting a crime. Not a picking and choosing. A known infraction and a known weapon are only two of the three requirements.

The second is confusing IC 35-47-14, which deals with seizure AND RETENTION of weapons from potential dangerous individuals. Nothing in the law says you can ONLY seize weapons from dangerous people, only what needs to happen if you do seize and then RETAIN the weapon. This is commonly referred to as the Jake Laird law (and today is the anniversary of Laird's line of duty death) because guns were seized from a violently mentally ill person but with no legal way to hold them IPD had to return them to him, and he subsequently shot several officers, wounding many and killing Laird.

You're partially correct here. 35-47 14 is titled "Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm" however the title doesn't hold the legal power. 35-47-14-3 speaks first of the requirements laid out for police officers when SEIZING a firearm, without a warrant, before it is allowed to be retained. There is procedure that must be followed. The police are not the authority on which weapons to retain. You must be able to articulate that someone is dangerous in order to seize, not retain. Also, it doesn't say "potential dangerous" it says "dangerous". 14-2 even says that in order for an officer to get a search warrant for a firearm to be in the posession of a dangerous person, that the officer must swear that the person IS dangerous, not could be. What the law says is exactly that you can ONLY seize weapons from dangerous people. If you choose to pull the "officer safety" you'd better have proof of danger. State v. Washington says this exactly.

The third is case law specifically related to SEAT BELT ONLY stops vs other traffic stops. Per IC code seat belt stops are much more limited in their scope than any other stop. You can't ask consent to search, etc. Questions, searches, etc. that are perfectly legal on, for example, a speeding stop are not kosher on a seat belt stop, and some folks have not realized how narrow the court cases are and tried to apply those to non-seat belt only stops.

I'm going to suggest that you re-read the section of Richardson v. State that you're vaugely referring to in your third point. The court stated that for Mr. Richardson specifically, the seat belt stop prevented the officers further actions. They then go on to state that even if those circumstances weren't present, meaning the parameters of a seat belt only stop, the valid LTCH prevented any further questioning. This is not a narrow ruling. They make it quite clear that once a valid LTCH is presented (and verified) then then questioning stops. This means no running the numbers or any other actions.

I still don't understand how it is that this is still being misconstrued. The wording is quite clear. Being dangerous is a very important element in all of this.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I still don't understand how it is that this is still being misconstrued. The wording is quite clear. Being dangerous is a very important element in all of this.

Agree 100%. The fact remains that so very few people actually fight this that the police have been allowed to take weapons as they please and everyone has become accustomed to it.

The law needs to be CLEAR that you CAN take my weapon, not what prevents you from doing it. If you cannot articulate why I am dangerous since I have a perfect record and valid LTCH there is no just cause for seizing my weapon. Look up Washington since that stop and subsequent case law does not involve a seatbelt stop.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What does this mean? I have a revovler that I'm pretty sure is "unmarked" or whatever. It isn't anything bad that I know of, I got it at a gun show. Do I need to have it registered to my name or something since its my carry piece?

sorry, quick

No registration in Indiana, if the pistol was made prior to 1968 IIRC there is no need for a serial number but do not expect every LEO you encounter to understand that.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've explained it in depth in other threads. I can tell you is the screening prosecutors in Marion county agree with my assessment, as during the last big thread on it I ran it past several of them and they universally agreed with me. Case law may change it all tomorrow, but as of right now that's the accepted law.

**edited to add**

Like I've said in other posts, the law isn't like math. Even the facts are just opinions, and can be changed tomorrow as even the judges don't agree all the time. I can just tell you what my understanding is, and the fact that so far our local prosecutors and judges have applied it the way I've stated.

 

[Redhorse]

No registration in Indiana, if the pistol was made prior to 1968 IIRC there is no need for a serial number but do not expect every LEO you encounter to understand that.

I'm fairly confident it was made after 1968, what do I need to do so i don't get in trouble?

 

[rsklar]

So you are saying it is okay to lie to the police? And by okay, I mean is it legal?

There is a difference between telling a lie to the police in their official capacity in which you could be charged with obstruction and voluntarily making a statement or answering a question that you are legally obligated to answer.

Do you have a duty to inform a police officer that you are carrying a firearm concealed? No. If you are asked specifically if you have a firearm in the car and state No than you could be committing a crime - but ONLY if the officer had probable cause to think that you were illegally in possession of a weapon.

Now what happens when you state you do not have a weapon and you end up having to leave the vehicle and they find it... Can you be charged with a crime for lying to the police. The answer is NO because you have no duty to notify the officer that you have a firearm and there is nothing they can do other than not like it.

 

[rhino]

ummmmm......no

Um...no.

You guys apparently didn't have that opinion at that at that last party . . . we do have video.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I've explained it in depth in other threads. I can tell you is the screening prosecutors in Marion county agree with my assessment, as during the last big thread on it I ran it past several of them and they universally agreed with me. Case law may change it all tomorrow, but as of right now that's the accepted law.

**edited to add**

Like I've said in other posts, the law isn't like math. Even the facts are just opinions, and can be changed tomorrow as even the judges don't agree all the time. I can just tell you what my understanding is, and the fact that so far our local prosecutors and judges have applied it the way I've stated.

I agree 100% with the bolded portion, and it may just be rose colored glasses and a sliver of faith left in our justice system that my beliefs are the way they are but until I am proven wrong in court- I will continue to believe and spread the word that police are not justified without RAS to confiscate and retain your weapon for any length of time.

I'm fairly confident it was made after 1968, what do I need to do so i don't get in trouble?

Check the date code against the manufacturer's records. There WILL be some sort of stamping on the receiver somewhere that the factory or old book can date it for you. Basically if the serial number has not been visibly removed or altered you are in the clear.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

Update:

Got my weapon back today, will get my ammo tomorrow.

Timeline: 8/15 weapon was confiscated (See OP). Ten days later I went to Property room in City/County building, filled out paperwork, 4-1/2 weeks after that, they called this morning & said my weapon was ready for me to pick up. I am getting most of my ammo back (about 45 rounds) but I am assuming they might have shot a couple of them to do a ballistics test while they had it in their possession. I don't know if they used my rounds, but I would guess for safety reasons, & not knowing the age or condition of my rounds, they probably used their own stock ammo.

NOW THE REST OF THE STORY...I did not tell the rest of the story in the OP, because I did not know if any charges would be filed in the days following, & I did not know if Officer Howard had any say as to how long my weapon remained in the property room. She specifically told me that the property room would check with her before releasing it to me. That tells me that if I was a jerk at the stop, she probably would have told them to hold it longer than they did. My fear was if I told the whole story, she might see it or get wind of it and tell them to hold it longer.

OK, now that I've built it up, it's not that big of a deal. But I bit my lip so hard when I was relating the original story that I might have drawn blood!

After she came back and told me she was only going to give me a warning ticket for speeding in school zone, but was going to confiscate my weapon but not arrest me for it, she said "Unfortunately, now that I've pulled you over in a school zone with a firearm, YOU VE JUST COMMITTED A FELONY"! Keep in mind that we were on 38th Street, and I pulled over against the left turn lane in the median. Absolutely not on school property, but possibly within 1,000 feet of the school.

My freaking jaw dropped open, & I immediately said "I'm sorry, but you are wrong, I HAVE NOT committed a felony!". All 3 IMPD just sat there looking at each other like deer in headlights, and the she said "Yes you have, it's a felony to have a gun in a school zone". I said, "No, you're wrong. I can even have a firearm on my side, while I drive up to the front door of the school, as long as I am dropping off or picking my kids, as long as I am in the driver seat, and I don't get out."

Her response, in a defensive tone; "Well, how do you know that?!?". Again, I was flabbergasted. My response; "Because I take the responsibility of me carrying a firearm seriously. I educate myself on the laws of our state, and any state I travel to. Also, I spend a lot of time on a web forum called I.N.G.O., that has lawyers, police officers, and a lot of people just like me that want to know EXACTLY what the law is in relation to carrying, owning, & shooting firearms, and make a point of teaching other people as well." At that point, she just nodded her head and said nothing.

The funny part was, her "backup", Officer White, then eagerly asked, "So what are the rules about carrying at the airport?" I then proceeded to share the laws about carrying at the airport with him & his buddy, while she listened quietly.

How many years ago was it that Indiana changed the law about carrying within 1,000 feet of a school?? It just blows my mind that a seasoned veteran of the IMPD would be that clueless about firearm laws in her state. What if I didn't know she was wrong??

Oh yeah, and to answer the other question, NO she was decidedly NOT HOT.

 

[Bigtanker]

Glad it all worked out for you.

 

[lonehoosier]

I thought the 1000 foot rule was a federal thing not a state thing. Since you weren't a licensed person (because it was expired) and you had a loaded firearm on you did you not break the federal law?