I Had a Discussion With a Friend...

[Somemedic]

She happens to work for ISP. She had previously worked for a municipal agency before going to state and has been with their patrol div for some time.

She is also current military and has had a LTC for a long time. Pro gun to a degree.

I began by asking if she had a moment to text but we eventually called (it WAS easier) and I asked what the SOG for doing a stop and the driver has an OLN that comes back with a lifetime or current LTC. She confirmed that your drivers license is coupled with your HG license btw... she stated that when she has made these stops in the past that most drivers report they have a weapon and usually tell the officer where it is in the vehicle. On occasion she has secured the weapon and on occasion she has told the driver to leave the weapon, where ever it is, alone and not to reach for or bring it out. Some drivers have asked her if she wanted to run it even. The situations were different and she stated she had done what she felt made her comfortable and safe.

So I purposed to her that what if a fella didnt feel comfortable handing over his weapon and that he politely refused? She stated that may not be a good option.

So I continued with quoting her a few IC codes and asked that she research them and discuss it with her legal guy and to please get back to me.

IC 35-47-11.1
IC 35-47-14

and said look at the findings in some case law... Namely:

Indiana vs Richardson
Indiana vs Washington

I will give it a couple of days and then send her a text and see what her thoughts are about disarming a driver who is legally carrying. Shes been very cool about getting back to me in the past when I have had questions. She also asked about the website. I think we would welcome her input.

 

[cobber]

You might ask her, in passing, what other items she lawfully seizes without an articulable threat to safety, reasonable suspicion, probable cause or a warrant?

This procedure is probably lawful somewhere in the US, and maybe police are reading those cases during their training.

This 'bleeding over' of police practices from one jurisdiction to another is fairly common; some officers just don't get that: 1) federal case law is not relevant if the Indiana courts have formed their own doctrine, and 2) other states' case law is not relevant at all, unless adopted by the Indiana courts.

 

[vitamink]

I think her argument could be sound if you ask for examples. She says on occasion she has secured a weapon and on occasion she hasn't. That would lend you to believe that it was only when she felt an issue with safety. In IN v Wash. the officer had nothing more than a traffic stop for headlights however detained the driver and got the gun under his seat (finding his marijuana).

For your trooper friend, In a case where your headlights aren't on, she may not bother you. Her doing a traffic stop under the same circumstances as In v Wash plus some variables might change her mind. She stops you for your headlights, you tell her you have a gun, and she smells alcohol on your breath... that might cause her to fear for her safety as she may not wish to approach a man with a gun that she is likely to arrest for dui. I believe the courts would rule in her favor assuming she articulated that.

I'd ask for examples of when she takes the weapons as often times "legally carrying" can be followed by "while drunk driving", "while having a traffic warrant", "while unaware that my crazy ex wife has a protective order against me" or "while my cousin has reported this car stolen as i didn't bring it back to him on time". All of those are common things to run into while on traffic stops, so if she says sometimes yes and sometimes no, the sometimes yes's may fall into the above categories. I'd ask her to be more specific

 

[vitamink]

also, i'd tell her that you're about to post her response on an internet gun forum. A casual text conversation between friends on any topic is different than a research thesis and may not translate well.

 

[dusterboy49]

I was stopped the other day for speeding in a local Town. I didn't say anything about having a weapon in my vehicle to the officer. He ran my DL and gave me a verbal warning. I will not offer the info that I have a firearm with me.

 

[rugertoter]

You know, really, it would not bother me that much if the police wanted to TEMPORARILY disarm me - if it made them feel less threatended, so be it. The key word here is temporarily. As long as I got my gun and ammo back without an issue, then all is well. JMHO.

 

[shibumiseeker]

You know, really, it would not bother me that much if the police wanted to TEMPORARILY disarm me - if it made them feel less threatended, so be it. The key word here is temporarily. As long as I got my gun and ammo back without an issue, then all is well. JMHO.

Good for you. It bothers the hell out of me. My right to go home at the end of the day is just as important as their right to go home at the end of the day and if I am not presenting a threat then they should not be disarming me without reason other than to make them feel more comfortable. The last thing I need is someone else unfamiliar with my weapon and how it is secured handling it and placing me or them in danger doing so.

 

[AndersonIN]

You know, really, it would not bother me that much if the police wanted to TEMPORARILY disarm me - if it made them feel less threatended, so be it. The key word here is temporarily. As long as I got my gun and ammo back without an issue, then all is well. JMHO.

Baaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[eldirector]

It really wouldn't bother me is the police confiscated my gun, knife, wallet, car keys, tire iron, fire extinguisher, etc... if it made them FEEL more safe. Heck, they can go ahead and search my car for anything they want, if it makes them feel good. Who needs those pesky rights, amendments, and laws anyway? They just get in the way of making other people feel better.

 

[mtgasten]

It really wouldn't bother me is the police confiscated my gun, knife, wallet, car keys, tire iron, fire extinguisher, etc... if it made them FEEL more safe. Heck, they can go ahead and search my car for anything they want, if it makes them feel good. Who needs those pesky rights, amendments, and laws anyway? They just get in the way of making other people feel better.

lol +1

 

[Mr. Habib]

It really wouldn't bother me is the police confiscated my gun, knife, wallet, car keys, tire iron, fire extinguisher, etc... if it made them FEEL more safe. Heck, they can go ahead and search my car for anything they want, if it makes them feel good. Who needs those pesky rights, amendments, and laws anyway? They just get in the way of making other people feel better.

You forgot about volunteering for a cavity search, too. I mean, after all, if you're going to have your rights gang raped at the side of the road, you may as well give them their money's worth.

 

[rw496]

Good for you. It bothers the hell out of me. My right to go home at the end of the day is just as important as their right to go home at the end of the day and if I am not presenting a threat then they should not be disarming me without reason other than to make them feel more comfortable. The last thing I need is someone else unfamiliar with my weapon and how it is secured handling it and placing me or them in danger doing so.

What you see as threatening and what the cop who doesn't know you sees as threatening may be two different things.
The Indiana Courts seem to weigh officer safety more heavily than any individual interests. Here is a short excerpt from Tawdul v. State.
"It is clear under the rationale of Mimms and Wilson that the movements of occupants of a vehicle which is legitimately stopped may be subject to control by the police officer conducting the stop, even though the officer has no suspicion that the individuals have been involved in criminal behavior. This rule is dictated by the public's strong interest in officer safety during potentially dangerous traffic stops when balanced against the minimal intrusion on privacy interests of the driver and passengers.
On the other hand, officers need to act with a ittle common sense and not mess with ordinary citizens for no reason. Sounds like the Trooper has it right. Sometimes you do sometimes you don't.

 

[AndersonIN]

You forgot about volunteering for a cavity search, too. I mean, after all, if you're going to have your rights gang raped at the side of the road, you may as well give them their money's worth.

 

[eldirector]

You forgot about volunteering for a cavity search, too. I mean, after all, if you're going to have your rights gang raped at the side of the road, you may as well give them their money's worth.

Well, my wife has claimed my "gaseous intestinal discharge" could be classified as a WMD, so I guess you are right.....

Of course, if the goal is to make the LEO comfortable, then they should stand well up-wind. Its not like a "Dutch Oven" can be disarmed anyway.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Well, my wife has claimed my "gaseous intestinal discharge" could be classified as a WMD, so I guess you are right.....

Of course, if the goal is to make the LEO comfortable, then they should stand well up-wind. Its not like a "Dutch Oven" can be disarmed anyway.

It's a good thing she hasn't met my dogs, she'd be calling for UN sanctions against me!

 

[shibumiseeker]

What you see as threatening and what the cop who doesn't know you sees as threatening may be two different things.
The Indiana Courts seem to weigh officer safety more heavily than any individual interests. Here is a short excerpt from Tawdul v. State.
"It is clear under the rationale of Mimms and Wilson that the movements of occupants of a vehicle which is legitimately stopped may be subject to control by the police officer conducting the stop, even though the officer has no suspicion that the individuals have been involved in criminal behavior. This rule is dictated by the public's strong interest in officer safety during potentially dangerous traffic stops when balanced against the minimal intrusion on privacy interests of the driver and passengers.

I understand all that. I happen to disagree with it. And if I am disarmed during a routine traffic stop I will file a complaint up the chain of command because I'm not a sheep. And I'm not a LEO hater, my GF is LEO, and several close family members and friends are as well.

 

[jeremy]

What you see as threatening and what the cop who doesn't know you sees as threatening may be two different things.
The Indiana Courts seem to weigh officer safety more heavily than any individual interests. Here is a short excerpt from Tawdul v. State.
"It is clear under the rationale of Mimms and Wilson that the movements of occupants of a vehicle which is legitimately stopped may be subject to control by the police officer conducting the stop, even though the officer has no suspicion that the individuals have been involved in criminal behavior. This rule is dictated by the public's strong interest in officer safety during potentially dangerous traffic stops when balanced against the minimal intrusion on privacy interests of the driver and passengers.
On the other hand, officers need to act with a ittle common sense and not mess with ordinary citizens for no reason. Sounds like the Trooper has it right. Sometimes you do sometimes you don't.

And as soon as the Stop is over I will be on the phone airing my complaints Starting at the Senior Officials Level and then working to the My Attorney will be in touch...

I am just as concerned with my safety as the Officer is. Why is his safety paramount to mine?!

 

[Sgt7330]

Wow. Let me weigh in here as 11 years road patrol as a police officer. If someone gives me a reason to hold onto a weapon during a stop, then I do it. I would say that 90% of the time, if not more, the weapon stays with the owner.
I can honestly say that the majority of the LTCH people I meet are good to deal with and no problems occur. I want these people carrying and appreciate they do, especially the one day I may be needing that help and my nearest uniform is 5-10 minutes away.
That being said, LTCH holders aren't always the finest upstanding individuals. There is a minority, just as in any group of people (police, doctors, preachers... you get my point) that I have seen demonstrate the need to be disarmed.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Wow. Let me weigh in here as 11 years road patrol as a police officer. If someone gives me a reason to hold onto a weapon during a stop, then I do it. I would say that 90% of the time, if not more, the weapon stays with the owner.
I can honestly say that the majority of the LTCH people I meet are good to deal with and no problems occur. I want these people carrying and appreciate they do, especially the one day I may be needing that help and my nearest uniform is 5-10 minutes away.
That being said, LTCH holders aren't always the finest upstanding individuals. There is a minority, just as in any group of people (police, doctors, preachers... you get my point) that I have seen demonstrate the need to be disarmed.

And this attitude I don't have a problem with. The problem is that there are some officers out there who think that ALL who are legally carrying a weapon are a threat and thus need to be disarmed. And these are often the ones who do not know how to safely unload a weapon or safely remove it from someone elses retention holster.

If an officer can voice a valid reason why a person should be disarmed during a stop then that's one thing. There are scumbags out there in all walks of life. But the officer who routinely disarms everyone he or she knows is armed needs to be called on it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You might ask her, in passing, what other items she lawfully seizes without an articulable threat to safety, reasonable suspicion, probable cause or a warrant?

This procedure is probably lawful somewhere in the US, and maybe police are reading those cases during their training.

This 'bleeding over' of police practices from one jurisdiction to another is fairly common; some officers just don't get that: 1) federal case law is not relevant if the Indiana courts have formed their own doctrine, and 2) other states' case law is not relevant at all, unless adopted by the Indiana courts.

You're assuming here. It's not a seizure if a person cooperates. I've secured weapons before simply by asking. If they refuse, and I can't articulate a reason for making a seizure, the weapon will stay in place until I have assistance from another officer.
I 99% of the time could care less, but there are those certain instances where my "spidey sense" goes off that I don't feel comfortable for some reason with a person holding a firearm.