IMPD OC legal updates.

[mbills2223]

Thanks for the update. Glad to hear it.

 

[Denny347]

Interesting news there, Denny. Out of curiosity, was there much discussion among your peers about these policies?

Policy is a bit strong. This are not general orders but interpretations of law but we will be open to lawsuits etc if we continue. There was some discussion but we had lots of other legal topics we had to cover so there was not as much time as I would have liked for this specific issue. No one seemed to moan or protest the OCing aspect and the instructor (and is also a firearms instructor and "gun guy") made clear that OC is legal in Indiana and that we have a LTCH...not a CCW. He also mentioned the Indiana Constitution and how it is specific about protecting the rights of Indiana citizens to bear arms for protection as opposed to the wording in the US Constitution which is being debated (he believes they mean the same thing but ours is worded better).

He used Black v. U.S. No. 11-5084 (4th Cir. 2013) http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf as one of his examples of WHY this practice is wrong. While not binding to us, the logic is there and by following the logic we are ahead of the curve if/when a binding ruling comes down. Quite frankly I love researching this stuff but it is so darn time consuming to try to find case law in Google.

 

[JMoses]

That exact question did come up but it was reference to a "borderline" age. If it is obvious they are under aged then you have RS. "borderline"...maybe.

So by IMPD's thoughts, felons should just start open carrying?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Policy is a bit strong. This are not general orders but interpretations of law. There was some discussion but we had lots of other legal topics we had to cover so there was not as much time as I would have liked for this specific issue. No one seemed to moan or protest the OCing aspect and the instructor (and is also a firearms instructor and "gun guy") made clear that OC is legal in Indiana and that we have a LTCH...not a CCW. He also mentioned the Indiana Constitution and how it is specific about protecting the rights of Indiana citizens to bear arms for protection as opposed to the wording in the US Constitution which is being debated (he believes they mean the same thing but ours is worded better).

 

[HavokCycle]

law =/= regular practice for some officers, of any badge.

 

[Denny347]

So will this have any effect on MWG calls?

For some...yes. For others like myself...no. My last MWG call was last year and it was a guy OCing in a city park. I pulled up next to the guy walking in the park, told him I was called there and asked if he had a LTCH. I never got out of my car and never asked to see his LTCH. My demeanor conveyed that he was not in trouble and he was free to leave. I then educated that park manager about the law and moved on.

 

[Denny347]

So by IMPD's thoughts, felons should just start open carrying?

Lots of people do "illegal" stuff but without RS (which is a pretty LOW threshold to clear) to stop them, my hands are tied. RS is very incident specific and even small details could rise to the level of RS. To be quite honest, I'm not going to get hemmed up for false arrest/detention. If I am stopping you, I'm going to have good RS. Case law or not, I should be able to articulate to any court the facts that led me to believe that a crime was a foot. RS is like 10% likelihood. Really, it should not be hard to find it crime is really going on.

 

[JMoses]

I'd say that we'll be reading a retraction from IMPD in this thread.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'd say that we'll be reading a retraction from IMPD in this thread.

 

[Mark 1911]

Lots of people do "illegal" stuff but without RS (which is a pretty LOW threshold to clear) to stop them, my hands are tied. RS is very incident specific and even small details could rise to the level of RS. To be quite honest, I'm not going to get hemmed up for false arrest/detention. If I am stopping you, I'm going to have good RS. Case law or not, I should be able to articulate to any court the facts that led me to believe that a crime was a foot. RS is like 10% likelihood. Really, it should not be hard to find it crime is really going on.

Denny, first of all, hat's off to you for your positive attitude. I hope your attitude is contagious!

Just curious about the reaction of your co-workers. Have you found most of your fellow LEOs to be as accepting as you are? And for those who may not be, are there any disciplinary actions they would face from the department for not complying, or is that just a matter for the court if it happens to end up there?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

For some...yes. For others like myself...no. My last MWG call was last year and it was a guy OCing in a city park. I pulled up next to the guy walking in the park, told him I was called there and asked if he had a LTCH. I never got out of my car and never asked to see his LTCH. My demeanor conveyed that he was not in trouble and he was free to leave. I then educated that park manager about the law and moved on.

You weren't in Evansville for this were you?

Sounds exactly like a positive encounter I had at Wessleman's Woods but maybe it was two years ago. Never was able to get the officer's name and commend them for a positive contact.

 

[Denny347]

Denny, first of all, hat's off to you for your positive attitude. I hope your attitude is contagious!

Just curious about the reaction of your co-workers. Have you found most of your fellow LEOs to be as accepting as you are? And for those who may not be, are there any disciplinary actions they would face from the department for not complying, or is that just a matter for the court if it happens to end up there?

There was no specific mention of disciplinary actions. He equated it to stopping a car to check the driver for a license. So in that logic, I would expect to face similar remedies. At the very least, lose the court case and possible face civil remedies. Having been sued a couple of times already (for doing my job 100% correct) I can tell you it is not fun and it is hard enough to avoid it by doing my job correct, why the hell would I want to push the limits of legality if I don't have to? Of course an Indiana SC case would be much handier for these debates and someday we might have it. I would put my money on the Indiana SC deciding in favor of the OCers. Going ahead and conducting ourselves with that in mind just puts us ahead of the curve. I do not have access to the formal complaints by OCers being stopped and so I do not know what actions, if any, other than legal training is being handed out.

 

[remauto1187]

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.

So in essence you are also saying that any cop can pull somebody over WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE just to check to see if they have a valid driver license?


You go ahead and try that and be sure to make a pattern of it so folks like me can sue you into oblivion.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So in essence you are also saying that any cop can pull somebody over WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE just to check to see if they have a valid driver license?


You go ahead and try that and be sure to make a pattern of it so folks like me can sue you into oblivion.

No, there is a SC ruling on that

 

[Hayseed_40]

Having been sued a couple of times already (for doing my job 100% correct) I can tell you it is not fun and it is hard enough to avoid it by doing my job correct,

People do NOT sue or complain on LEO who are doing their jobs correctly.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Any of your IMPD coworkers for whom this is seriously gonna munge with their personal policy of "I'm the only one bringing a gun to a call"?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No, there is a SC ruling on that

From the fine folks at Chicago-Kent:

Delaware v. Prouse | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Trigger Time]

Because the law is clear that if you are asked you are obligated to show it or tell them your license number. Some one is going to read this that is outside the Indy area is going to think a LEO can't ask them to see there LTCH if they are OCing.

So what? Hopefully Indiana will do away with the pink handgun license in this years legislative session and after that carrying a pistol won't be illegal and wont be able to be stopped for it. I think impd sees it coming so their getting a jump ahead on it.

 

[VERT]

The officer should really rethink handling a loaded gun unless they MUST.

I really appreciate reading this. Hopefully all departments in the state follow this advice.

 

[the1kidd03]

So in essence you are also saying that any cop can pull somebody over WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE just to check to see if they have a valid driver license?


You go ahead and try that and be sure to make a pattern of it so folks like me can sue you into oblivion.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you should hang around here a bit more...

Then you'll see that I hold as high of (yet reasonable) expectations of LEO as anyone and am just as scrutinizing as others (within reason). You DO realize I'm NOT a LEO I hope.

Regardless, it is illegal to carry in IN without a LTCH. I was simply stating that it is not unreasonable IMO to request a simple visual confirmation that an OCer does indeed have one. As others have pointed out, there apparently is a case pending that will hopefully shed some light on whether or not requesting such a confirmation is actually legal. I'm by no means an expert, but I do feel I'm relatively knowledgable in the laws. I can honestly say that while I would not shy away from most legal entanglements, this is one which I personally would prefer to avoid becoming a case law example in.