blamecharles
Master
Not to mention the fact that the officer knows no crime was committed by anyone at the gun store.
Except receiving stolen merchant. Even though that I didn't know business isn't a defense.(can't do purple from phone)
Not to mention the fact that the officer knows no crime was committed by anyone at the gun store.
Except receiving stolen merchant. Even though that I didn't know business isn't a defense.(can't do purple from phone)
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.
The prosecutor filing charges and someone getting arrested are two separate issues. I believe the point being made here was if you are stopped and found to be in possession of a stolen handgun you may end up being arrested.