Had a deputy sheriff bust my chops...

[360]

I don't know if I have ever done this, but

IBTL

 

[vitamink]

I will start by admitting that I have not read through this entire thread and I don't mean to hijack but...

I was a Marion Country Sheriff's Deputy for 8 years. I was forced into a merger with IPD in January 2007, against my wishes (and IPD's) in a supposed effort to eliminate the "duplication of services". Thank you very much Sheriff Frank Anderson and Mayor Bart Peterson. Initially the Sheriff was given control over the newly formed Indy Metro P.D. as a reward for going along with Peterson's B.S. plan but Mayor Greg Ballard and the city county council changed that and took that power away from him shortly after Ballard was elected.

The Sheriff didn't like having his new toys taken away from him so he has spent the past three and a half years burning through your tax dollars hiring new "deputies", police cars, guns, radios and uniforms to put men in brown back on the street to duplicate the services he was so eager to eliminate before. What the OP experienced is a small part of the problem.

The "Deputy" you encountered today has likely not been to the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy, nor has he likely completed equivalent training. Based on the caliber of the civilian employees the current administration was hiring before the merger I would be surprised if he is capable of successfully completing the ILEA basic course. Instead these "deputies" are out patrolling the streets and writing tickets. They're not sufficiently trained and they're going to get themselves and/or taxpaying citizens hurt in the process.

The city county council should have cut Sheriff Anderson off at the knees by slashing his budget a long time ago but instead they've continued to pass larger and larger budgets since the merger. Wouldn't it make sense that if he Sheriff no longer has to maintain a fleet of 400 patrol cars and pay the salaries for 400 merit deputies he wouldn't need as much money? Blame your local politicians, if you live in Marion County tens of millions of your tax dollars are being wasted to unnecessarily employ deputies who have little training and no area of responsibility.

This is true. Keep in mind that the deputies in marion county have arrest powers as IMPD however have had not near the same level of training/schooling nor any equipment/paperwork to do said arrest. Their primary responsibility is serving papers (evictions etc) and jail/court. As Phylodog said, the sheriff is trying to branch out with these untrained individuals to start taking enforcement actions. The deputies often call out IMPD to fix their goat ropes that they create by attempting to be the police and failing miserably. I recommend contacting a supervisor and letting him know what was up. Its unfortunate you didn't get arrested so you can sue Frankie J to get back 500,000$ worth of our tax money last year that went to buy fully outfitted dodge chargers....to stick an eviction notice on your door REALLLLLY FAST

 

[fwacfred]

Check this out.

Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

 

[sj kahr k40]

A whole number of individuals don't believe that the law as presented here tonight, compels one to obey it.

Oh well......the Ron White theory of human behavior just has been proven once again.

Just so you know I was referring to Joe's post, not to any of your posts JBusch

 

[sj kahr k40]

When LE calls for backup, or otherwise respond to assistance from an on scene officer, the responding officers generally don't make a habit of questioning the facts of the scene that they arrive. Quite simply, they not only rely, but trust the dispatch information is correct.

As such, their good faith along with established law of Terry, purported their actions upon their arrival.

The Deputy was under the belief that open carry was a violation of the law. While we know this is in fact wrong, this is a common misconception among not only LE, but a large number of Indiana residents that include a number of attorneys.

I agree that a "no reason" stop if wrong. However, even a mistake of law by LE is viewed as "reasonable" by the courts. I don't entirely agree, but it is what it is, as determined by SCOTUS.



You're equating my education, understanding and knowledge of the subject, with my personal opinion. I'm still not fully understanding why you're doing such, but can speculate that you may be doing so emotionally, instead of rationally.

"Good faith" is a determination made upon it's contest before the bench. If individual LE would use such in a manner that doesn't meet the legal standard established, then such would result in the usual findings and consequence that you are likely to be already familiar.

IMO you are stating your opinion of the way you would like the law to read.

I read it differently, I'm not attacking you just disagree with your opinion.


I'm also going to have to disagree with LE relying on dispatcher information, I've been on lots of ride alongs and I would say from my experience the dispatcher info is right less then half the time.

 

[IndySSD]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBusch8899
A whole number of individuals don't believe that the law as presented here tonight, compels one to obey it.

Oh well......the Ron White theory of human behavior just has been proven once again.

Just so you know I was referring to Joe's post, not to any of your posts JBusch

Sadly this statement pretty much just cements JBusch8899's statement in his post.

BTW JBusch I love me some "Tater Salad".

 

[sj kahr k40]

Sadly this statement pretty much just cements JBusch8899's statement in his post.

BTW JBusch I love me some "Tater Salad".

pointing out that he misconstrued my post and took it out of context cements the statement in his post? please explain

JBusch's posts are about a lawful stop, I'm pointing out why I think this was an unlawful stop therefore his posts are really irrelevant. Terry stops are only relevant in a lawful stop.

As the OP wasn't arrested it dosen't really matter but my point is that IMPD handled this poorly, the IMPD officers once they knew their was no reason for the stop should have terminated it, instead they disarmed and called in for warrants.

Stuff like this where LEO's back other LEO's when they are in the wrong is a big reason why I don't trust cops very much.

 

[signut49]

I agree with you. Check out the deputy's pic on facebook. Page 9 of this thread. Make sense now? Shouldn't profile, but...................

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Check this out.

Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! This type of information (case law) is what we all need to be armed with. +1

It seems to me the OP remained calm and tried to educate the officer. Some will not take this well. Others will be okay with it if you are respectful.

I think trying to keep the conversation so that it is not argumentative is the hardest but most important thing to do. Stand your ground, but stay calm.

Trying ONLY to get the officer in trouble seems like simply revenge to me, and frankly I can understand this sentiment. But trying to educate without creating an “us vs them” atmosphere is much more constructive.

I really would file a complaint if only to educate.

Mistake occur all the time. There is no liability, criminal or civil, attached to good faith mistakes by LE.

Acting NEGLIGENTLY is NOT in good faith. Ignorance of the laws you swore to uphold is negligence. It could easily be proven that the officer did not act as any other reasonable person within the same industry under similar circumstances.

In the search case you posted the mistake was not that of the deputies. They acted in good faith. I believe the deputy above DID NOT act in good faith nor (if the facts are correct) did he have reasonable suspicion that a crime was being, or about to be committed.

One thing I am curious about: Some of you mentioned that he "complied and consented" and therefore has no complaint. He was given orders by a group full of authority figures with all sorts of weapons attached to their bodies, FROM 2 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, who we all know will not hesitate to turn you into a pretzel if you don't comply. Fear and intimidation can certainly play a role here.

One last thing about officer safety:

As a commercial pilot I can tell you mistakes are made every day at the airline level. It used to be that a captain could just say "I did it for safety." OMG! SAFETY! HE DID IT FOR SAFETY! The whole thing would be dropped. But the industry started looking at these "SAFETY" issues a little more closely. One can no longer simply cry "SAFETY" and get away with breaking the rules without very specific information.

The same seems to be true in LE. (Based on case law) The cry of "OFFICER SAFETY" has been cried so often, lawyers and judges are scrutinizing this claim like never before... and the resulting rulings, overturns, and dismissals have risen rapidly. Simply crying officer safety may win you the day, but will likely not stand up in court unless there is specific REASONABLE information. Chances are, the entire incident was on video. Claiming reasonable suspicion and/or officer safety may be kind of hard to defend in this case.

I love all the armchair lawyering! It gets me thinking and causes me to look for the facts. Trying to find RELEVANT case law can be challenging. I think these discussions help us think about and plan how WE would react in a similar situation.

 

[OEF5]

Ok I've read most of this thread and I'll give my

1. Deputy was out of line.
2. IMPD was called by the Deputy
3. IMPD shows up, asks for basic informaiton, secures the gun, checks the gun and indiviual

Now, had IMPD just showed up and seen the LTCH and released the OP they are making a mistake. Like it or not, in situations like this you never know what you will find. The OP could have been a wanted Felon with a Bogus LTCH and known the laws and been on his way to commit a Murder. (just saying) How often have you heard on a traffic stop that there is more charges than just speeding? All the time, drug busts, rolling meth labs, stolen vehicls, warrants for arrest in and out of state. Lets face it, if an Officer doesn't at least run a name on any interaction they are not fullfilling thier duty to us or the state, they are here to protect us even if sometimes you don't think they are.

Now the OP was being a responsible legal citizen complying with IMPD. I agree he didn't have to comply with the Deputy, however if he had not what could have happened, the Deputy pulls his service weapon in front of his kids in public and starts shouting commands? I think that the OP did all of the right things, I also think that IMPD did all of the right things. As stated earlier the Deputy is uniformed and 100% wrong.

I guess my point is, there is no reason for any of us to be upset with IMPD for doing the job we as tax payers are asking them to do. No where in any of the OP's posts did he say that IMPD treated him bad, or with disrespect so why should we disrespect them in performing thier job?

 

[PeaShooter]

... thats what they are here for, to make us safe...

SCOTUS has ruled on this before. Police are not responsible for our protection. Their job is not to make us safe, it is to enforce the law.

2. A police officer has the authority to stop and detain anyone

No they don't. Only if they belive that a crime has been committed.

 

[level.eleven]

I may be incredibly naive on this subject, but isn't this problem something that can be easily addressed with a department wide memo, email, mini-training session, etc, ?

It happens everyday in the private sector. A policy isn't being followed through on correctly so management sends out a memo and a supervisor is responsible for making sure his team is aware of it. Either by simply signing off or having a little pow-wow.

We see so many LEO's ignorant of OC/CC law (duh, we are on a gun board), hear wild tales of made up code, and have first hand accounts of these happenings, it would seem like LE isn't actually interested in disseminating the correct information to its officers. The two areas that stick out me just from reading the news are firearm laws and photography/video laws. It just seems like LE isn't concerned with making right on the issue.

Maybe I am really oversimplifying the scenario. I just see quite a bit in the private sector and don't understand why it can't also apply to the public sector.

+1 for the OP for keeping cool.
+1 to Phyldog for the department information. I read something very similar to this recently on Abdul's blog. Hearing it right from the horses mouth adds confirmation.

 

[Scarnucci]

Now, had IMPD just showed up and seen the LTCH and released the OP they are making a mistake. Like it or not, in situations like this you never know what you will find. The OP could have been a wanted Felon with a Bogus LTCH and known the laws and been on his way to commit a Murder.

Hrmm, letting someone who has not committed a crime, and nobody has any reason to suspect of committing a crime go on their way and be about their business is a mistake? I thought it was an aspect of freedom.

So the police can walk up to anyone in the gas station, initiate an interrogation and decide to run a check on them just to see if they are a felon? Do you think felons (who cannot have LTCH anyways) are going to be printing up counterfeit pink cards? If someone is on their way to commit murder, would they allow themselves to have a check run on them and be disarmed?

Now the OP was being a responsible legal citizen complying with IMPD. I agree he didn't have to comply with the Deputy, however if he had not what could have happened, the Deputy pulls his service weapon in front of his kids in public and starts shouting commands? I think that the OP did all of the right things, I also think that IMPD did all of the right things. As stated earlier the Deputy is uniformed and 100% wrong.

You are forgetting the fact that the entire incident was unwarranted and unnecessary. The Deputy was ignorant and itching for something. Needed his ego stroked? I dunno. The OP was made to feel nervous (who wouldnt be when a cop starts in on you out of the blue.) He complied and gave up more info that I would have. At least he got to go about his evening like a good citizen. I prolly woulda ended up in the clink. (But I'm married to a lawyer so I would HOPE she would get me out quickly...depends on her mood I guess)

 

[E5RANGER375]

SCOTUS has ruled on this before. Police are not responsible for our protection. Their job is not to make us safe, it is to enforce the law.

then they need to take the false advertising off their cars: "to protect and serve"

they are the ones who claim it themselves. might as well put: "to dick over and oppress" on their cars.

 

[308jake]

I'd raise some serious H@&* for harrassing you and being ignorant of the law.

 

[308jake]

then they need to take the false advertising off their cars: "to protect and serve"

they are the ones who claim it themselves. might as well put: "to dick over and oppress" on their cars.

They are more concerned about Operation Lick It or Ticket.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I got as far as page 3 reading these & decided to kick in my two cents; my apologies if someone else said this.

There are darned few ILEA-trained Deputies on the MCSD; most of them transferred to IMPD at the consolidation. Most likely, the person who detained you was a "Special Deputy" who got the minimum state-mandated 30 hours of training required to perform law enforcement functions. Special Deputy training, at least when I qualified in 1999, doesn't really emphasize how limited is the knowledge imparted to the Special Deputy in comparison to an ILEA student. It was sort of understood that the new Special Deputy would "soak up" relevant knowledge in the course of his duties. I will also say that I was taught, at that time, the LTCH was - in fact - a CCW permit. The MCSD Sergeant who taught the course (long since retired) specifically spoke of walking up to civilians in public and berating them for carrying openly. I don't know if State law concerning handguns has changed since 2005 (the last year I was a Special Deputy), but that impression was still being reinforced in the limited amount of SD training given to MCSD employees when I was there.

To sum up: MCSD Special Deputies have long been undertrained for working on the streets, and at least some of the information they are given during their training is faulty. In my experience (worked as a SD for MCSD part-time for 6 years) most of the young ones, and many of the older ones don't have the common sense to come in out of an acid bath.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Also just a note for those of us that live outside of Marion County:

The MCSD Special Deupties' authority stops at the Marion County line. THEIR side of the county line.

-J-

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Also just a note for those of us that live outside of Marion County:

The MCSD Special Deupties' authority stops at the Marion County line. THEIR side of the county line.

-J-

also i believe their authority stops off the job site they are tasked to. they cant initiate a traffic stop, etc