IMPD OC legal updates.

[Denny347]

I'm on lunch from my bi-annual in-service and half the morning was legal updates/refresher. It was taught by an officer (I think he is also a lawyer) who is fantastically well read on Indiana laws...even the obscure ones. One topic that stopping a person carrying a gun. The entire dept will be on the same page in regards to this issue...FINALLY. The department's stance, stopping a person who is OCing to check LTCH=illegal. Demanding LTCH for anyone carrying (who is not considered dangerous) and that is the only reason for the stop = illegal. Holding onto a pistol during a traffic stop, while still legal, is ill advised and the officer assumes responsibility for injury and damage to pistol as a result. The officer should really rethink handling a loaded gun unless they MUST. He uses the same analogy used here, "stopping cars to check license status" is illegal, so is checking LTCH. I think this topic was brought to his attention based on complaints but I am not 100%. I am thankful that it is finally getting addressed. Just a FYI for those who are interested, complaints don't fall on deaf ears. Training is the positive effect. This was a long time in coming.

 

[MCgrease08]

Great to hear. Thanks for using your break-time to give us the update.

 

[Fredo]

Good to know! Thanks Denny!

 

[N8RV]

I find that interesting, Denny. I mean, statutorily, we carry ILLEGALLY unless we possess a license, right? So, it would follow that it would be entirely within the purview of LEOs to verify the status of anyone carrying. Like I said, interesting. Unfortunately, there are a ton of smaller departments elsewhere in the state that won't follow your department's lead, and likely won't even hear about it.

Thanks for posting this update!

 

[williamsburg]

Thanks for the update. Good to know.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Very interesting.

After the litigation in Georgia I would think Indiana law enforcement would come out with a policy allowing stops for OC or noticeable CC. After that I would think Prouse would fall on deaf ears.

Good to hear (especially the handling loaded guns part). Thank you very much for the update.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm on lunch from my bi-annual in-service and half the morning was legal updates/refresher. It was taught by an officer (I think he is also a lawyer) who is fantastically well read on Indiana laws...even the obscure ones. One topic that stopping a person carrying a gun. The entire dept will be on the same page in regards to this issue...FINALLY. The department's stance, stopping a person who is OCing to check LTCH=illegal. Demanding LTCH for anyone carrying (who is not considered dangerous) and that is the only reason for the stop = illegal. Holding onto a pistol during a traffic stop, while still legal, is ill advised and the officer assumes responsibility for injury and damage to pistol as a result. The officer should really rethink handling a loaded gun unless they MUST. He uses the same analogy used here, "stopping cars to check license status" is illegal, so is checking LTCH. I think this topic was brought to his attention based on complaints but I am not 100%. I am thankful that it is finally getting addressed. Just a FYI for those who are interested, complaints don't fall on deaf ears. Training is the positive effect. This was a long time in coming.

That is AWESOME news!! Thanks for the post/update.

 

[the1kidd03]

I find that interesting, Denny. I mean, statutorily, we carry ILLEGALLY unless we possess a license, right? So, it would follow that it would be entirely within the purview of LEOs to verify the status of anyone carrying. Like I said, interesting. Unfortunately, there are a ton of smaller departments elsewhere in the state that won't follow your department's lead, and likely won't even hear about it.

Thanks for posting this update!

IDK. From what experiences I have with other smaller departments, IMPD and ISP sort of "set the standards" and the smaller ones seem to follow their lead in how to act. Of course, most of my interactions with LEO have been in areas adjacent to IMPD's area, but I wouldn't doubt their impact further out as a possibility.

Either way, this couldn't hurt any.

 

[cigarman454]

Great news. Thanks for the post.

 

[mainjet]

Thank you for the update. This is indeed good to hear and it makes good sense.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I still think he's wrong, FWIW. Case law pertaining to states that allow open carry have no bearing on IN, and stopping to check a driver for a driver's license has as much bearing as DNR stopping a fisherman to check for a fishing license. If this is going to be the IMPD policy, then it should be put forth in a general order. I never stopped people just for carrying anyway, so it doesn't change the way I do business, but if they are going to restrict stops based on this then is should be on paper.

I also brought up Frank's stop of the OC-er who turned out to be a felon in possession of a handgun. (Despite the instructor saying felons don't open carry or use holsters.) If the instructor is correct, then that case will be thrown out since its a bad stop. If I'm right, the case will be successfully prosecuted. Test case is already in the system.

 

[the1kidd03]

I still think he's wrong, FWIW. Case law pertaining to states that allow open carry have no bearing on IN, and stopping to check a driver for a driver's license has as much bearing as DNR stopping a fisherman to check for a fishing license. If this is going to be the IMPD policy, then it should be put forth in a general order. I never stopped people just for carrying anyway, so it doesn't change the way I do business, but if they are going to restrict stops based on this then is should be on paper.

I also brought up Frank's stop of the OC-er who turned out to be a felon in possession of a handgun. (Despite the instructor saying felons don't open carry or use holsters.) If the instructor is correct, then that case will be thrown out since its a bad stop. If I'm right, the case will be successfully prosecuted. Test case is already in the system.

Are you saying the officer teaching this new "mantra" is basing it on laws of other states?

I agree. Any policy worthy of being policy should be on paper otherwise it's too easy to (excuse the pun) cop out of it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Are you saying the officer teaching this new "mantra" is basing it on laws of other states?

I was thinking of the New Mexico matter where the individual was open carrying at a movie theatre. Based on New Mexican law (no license needed for open carry), he was awarded a monetary judgment.

I would think the Georgia case (Georgia law, like Indiana, requires a license to "carry", not matter how) would be more analogous. IIRC the indidivual stopped in Georgia was a lawyer who took his suit coat off on a hot day.

The Indiana cases do not directly address this matter as yet.

 

[the1kidd03]

I was thinking of the New Mexico matter where the individual was open carrying at a movie theatre. Based on New Mexican law (no license needed for open carry), he was awarded a monetary judgment.

I would think the Georgia case (Georgia law, like Indiana, requires a license to "carry", not matter how) would be more analogous. IIRC the indidivual stopped in Georgia was a lawyer who took his suit coat off on a hot day.

The Indiana cases do not directly address this matter as yet.

I guess we'll find out soon enough. I would tend to think if it's required to have a license, then checking for ownership of that license is not unreasonable.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

Either way, the situation around OC is a double edged sword for LEOs. I agree that a majority of those whom OC aren't of any concern, but if something doesn't seem right, I would have no issues with a LEO asking to see my ID and my LTCH. This doesn't mean that every MWAG call = Boot 2 'da Head, but a civil conversation without either party feeling "harassed"...

That is my opinion. Nothing more / less...

Also, thanks to Denny & BBI for bringing this to everyone's attention!

 

[Mark 1911]

Good news Denny. Thanks for posting.

How long before the training reaches the entire department?

During the training, was anything said regarding how cases of officers not complying with the training would be addressed?

 

[Birds Away]

16 post in a thread started by a LEO and no cop bashing yet? seems to be off its game today.

 

[the1kidd03]

Good news Denny. Thanks for posting.

How long before the training reaches the entire department?

During the training, was anything said regarding how cases of officers not complying with the training would be addressed?

If they started this in July, I would venture to guess until the end of the year for "bi-annual" training.

I would expect the information to reach farther, faster by word of mouth and working alongside one another however.

 

[stephen87]

Great news. However, I believe it is still legal for IMPD to stop someone to check LTCH status, just against policy. Great news nonetheless and I hope that other departments follow the lead.

IANAL, but my interpretation of the law says that due to it being illegal to carry without a license, that makes it legal for a stop. It may be against policy, but I don't think it woukd be illegal. Cant wait for the official ruling on it.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Either way, the situation around OC is a double edged sword for LEOs. I agree that a majority of those whom OC aren't of any concern, but if something doesn't seem right, I would have no issues with a LEO asking to see my ID and my LTCH. This doesn't mean that every MWAG call = Boot 2 'da Head, but a civil conversation without either party feeling "harassed"...

That is my opinion. Nothing more / less...

Also, thanks to Denny & BBI for bringing this to everyone's attention!

If "something doesn't seem right", then the officer would already have RAS to stop and question the subject. In that case, the OC wouldnt be the reason for the stop, but something that could be subsequently investigated during the stop. It sounds like the new policy is simply stating that the OC cannot be the only reason for a stop.


Thanks for the update Denny!