IMPD OC legal updates.

[churchmouse]

If this training is dept. wide then we will have a good baseline of understanding.
Thanks and much appreciated.

 

[the1kidd03]

No, there is a SC ruling on that

EDIT: NVM...brain fart, got it

 

[remauto1187]

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.

So you would just prefer to roll over and show your papers....isnt that kind of mentality that got us where we are today which requires us to obtain papers?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

The relevant part here is "Officer Strayer stated that although it is legal inNorth Carolina for a person to openly carry a firearm, in his
years in the Eastway Division, he had never seen anyone do"

So far all of these cases have come from states like NC or KY where you can open carry without a permit/license. That's a very different animal than Indiana where you have to have a LTCH either way, as I'm sure you are aware. That's why I said his legal reasoning is premature, its yet to be applied to a state where you have to have a license to open carry.

 

[Denny347]

The relevant part here is "Officer Strayer stated that although it is legal inNorth Carolina for a person to openly carry a firearm, in his
years in the Eastway Division, he had never seen anyone do"

So far all of these cases have come from states like NC or KY where you can open carry without a permit/license. That's a very different animal than Indiana where you have to have a LTCH either way, as I'm sure you are aware. That's why I said his legal reasoning is premature, its yet to be applied to a state where you have to have a license to open carry.

Quit possible but seeing the direction the State has been going regarding guns rights, it's inevitable that a decision will come down that will be binding. I don't want my name on that decision.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The relevant part here is "Officer Strayer stated that although it is legal inNorth Carolina for a person to openly carry a firearm, in his
years in the Eastway Division, he had never seen anyone do"

So far all of these cases have come from states like NC or KY where you can open carry without a permit/license. That's a very different animal than Indiana where you have to have a LTCH either way, as I'm sure you are aware. That's why I said his legal reasoning is premature, its yet to be applied to a state where you have to have a license to open carry.

Perhaps the thought process should be: "There is no reason that a in a country with the freedoms we enjoy there should be a tax and a permission slip to exercise a right." There is a difference between law in fact, de facto, and law in court, de jure.

Quit possible but seeing the direction the State has been going regarding guns rights, it's inevitable that a decision will come down that will be binding. I don't want my name on that decision.

I like Denny's outlook and it is reasonable and makes a lot of sense to look to the future and the direction things are going to make policy changes. As has been stated it really insn't necessary from a policing standpoint to check a person's LTCH if they have a gun- if they are committing a crime it will be obvious enough and not necessary to establich contact.

 

[the1kidd03]

So you would just prefer to roll over and show your papers....isnt that kind of mentality that got us where we are today which requires us to obtain papers?

Not exactly. To believe such would be to imply that I think we should have a license to begin with. I don't believe we should. As far as I'm concerned the 2A is all that is needed. However, we must live within the laws we allow our government officials to develop. In which case I have no issue proving that I'm acting within the law SO LONG AS the officer has been professional and courteous up to that point.

I've had negative LEO interactions due to carrying twice in my life. One of which would have been a relatively easy lawsuit had I bothered with it or knew of any pro-gun attorneys at the time.

That said, I'm not a LEO hater. I understand what it takes to do their job. Out of respect I have no problem showing them proof that I'm not committing a crime. I do not believe that the interaction need go any further than that however.

How exactly is it "rolling over" to prove that you are not committing a crime anyhow? Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I'm saying? I'm not saying that a LEO should just go up to every random carrier and ask for LTCH and ID. I'm simply saying that if an officer respectfully asks me to show him my LTCH, I have no problem with that so he knows I'm not committing a crime. Anything further than this simple request and I begin to second guess it depending on the circumstances.

 

[ticktwrter]

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

They do all the time. I have been sued and was completely right. They know many departments will settle for chump change to make it go away right or wrong.

 

[the1kidd03]

They do all the time. I have been sued and was completely right. They know many departments will settle for chump change to make it go away right or wrong.

Demographically speaking, the average gun owner is the least likely to sue for personal gain. They/us/we are a bunch who have a relatively strong moral compass and beliefs in individualism, independence, and rights. Therefore, I would contest that the average gun owner would be more prone to sue not for personal gain, but rather to make sure whatever they're suing for doesn't happen to others and that (in this case LE) are held accountable as well as learn how to better handle their situation.

I can only speak for me personally, but the incident I had I very much wanted to sue and knew I had a case. I didn't know of any pro gun attorneys at the time however and I never bothered to look up the statute of limitations on such an endeavor. I had no interest what so ever in actually making a dime from it though. That's what I had/have a job for. I simply wanted the officers held accountable, the department taught how to handle such situations more appropriately, and to hopefully ensure that sort of treatment doesn't happen again to anyone.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule but I'd wager a vast majority of gun owners are more concerned with suing for similar reasons as opposed to personal financial gain.

 

[2A_Tom]

Not exactly. To believe such would be to imply that I think we should have a license to begin with. I don't believe we should. As far as I'm concerned the 2A is all that is needed. However, we must live within the laws we allow our government officials to develop. In which case I have no issue proving that I'm acting within the law SO LONG AS the officer has been professional and courteous up to that point.

I've had negative LEO interactions due to carrying twice in my life. One of which would have been a relatively easy lawsuit had I bothered with it or knew of any pro-gun attorneys at the time.

That said, I'm not a LEO hater. I understand what it takes to do their job. Out of respect I have no problem showing them proof that I'm not committing a crime. I do not believe that the interaction need go any further than that however.

How exactly is it "rolling over" to prove that you are not committing a crime anyhow? Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I'm saying? I'm not saying that a LEO should just go up to every random carrier and ask for LTCH and ID. I'm simply saying that if an officer respectfully asks me to show him my LTCH, I have no problem with that so he knows I'm not committing a crime. Anything further than this simple request and I begin to second guess it depending on the circumstances.

This exacthy. ^^^^^^

The burden of proof is always and of necessity on the serf.

But my question is that if the general assembly removed the requirement to have my Larry on my person how can it be required that I present ir upon request, and if not required by law is there some reason that that not presenting it would put me in jeopardy. In the absense of law what is the officer's recourse.

The only thing I can think of is what happened when I was 19 in the wrong place. My friend was drunk driving I was with him. He was hauled in. I was with him and had no other way home. They gave me a ride to headquarters where I called someone to come and get me. I left no charges, no trial, no nonjudicial punishment , nothing but 4 years later I had to explain the drunk and disorderly charge when I applied for a higher security clearance. Was I drunk at the time? Definitly. Was I disorderly? Not according to the deneanor of the MP's at the time there was no mention of any charges, but I have a record bacause of it.

I don't know but I've been told they can get you if the want to.

 

[vitamink]

How did you get charged with drunk and disorderly and not go to court?

If i were to hazard a guess, your name just popped up in a report, not as the arrested party.

For you to have a charge a cop would have charged you, a screening prosecutor would have agreed with it and sent it on, then some folks would argue about it in front of a judge who would then say Yay or Nay and if all of that aligned harmoniously you'd then have charges, if anything breaks down along the way you don't.

 

[vitamink]

Demographically speaking, the average gun owner is the least likely to sue for personal gain. They/us/we are a bunch who have a relatively strong moral compass and beliefs in individualism, independence, and rights. Therefore, I would contest that the average gun owner would be more prone to sue not for personal gain, but rather to make sure whatever they're suing for doesn't happen to others and that (in this case LE) are held accountable as well as learn how to better handle their situation.

I can only speak for me personally, but the incident I had I very much wanted to sue and knew I had a case. I didn't know of any pro gun attorneys at the time however and I never bothered to look up the statute of limitations on such an endeavor. I had no interest what so ever in actually making a dime from it though. That's what I had/have a job for. I simply wanted the officers held accountable, the department taught how to handle such situations more appropriately, and to hopefully ensure that sort of treatment doesn't happen again to anyone.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule but I'd wager a vast majority of gun owners are more concerned with suing for similar reasons as opposed to personal financial gain.

In general regarding your average gun owner i would agree however sovereign citizens are the most sue happy individuals on the planet and they don't just stop with monetary judgement in a court system they don't support, they try to put liens on your accounts, cars, house etc

 

[the1kidd03]

In general regarding your average gun owner i would agree however sovereign citizens are the most sue happy individuals on the planet and they don't just stop with monetary judgement in a court system they don't support, they try to put liens on your accounts, cars, house etc

I certainly agree. I'm just stating I don't believe that to be the case for the far majority of gun owners.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How did you get charged with drunk and disorderly and not go to court?

Think of criminal justice as a funnel.

Some are arrested. Of those arrested not every case is filed. Of every case that is filed, not everyone is convicted. Of all those convicted not everyone goes to jail/prison.

The Prosecuting Attorney, the CLEO/HMFIC of the county, has absolute discretion. You may hear on television that "the police filed charges". The police did no such thing. The police made an arrest for . . . Conspiracy to Steal the Moon, but it does not mean that will get filed. Maybe nothing, maybe more, maybe exactly that.

Sometimes prosecutors look at police reports and say "going to the pokey for the night was enough (Public Intox, Minor in Tavern, inter alia)" and simply decline to prosecute.

HTH.

 

[the1kidd03]

Think of criminal justice as a funnel.

Some are arrested. Of those arrested not every case is filed. Of every case that is filed, not everyone is convicted. Of all those convicted not everyone goes to jail/prison.

The Prosecuting Attorney, the CLEO/HMFIC of the county, has absolute discretion. You may hear on television that "the police filed charges". The police did no such thing. The police made an arrest for . . . Conspiracy to Steal the Moon, but it does not mean that will get filed. Maybe nothing, maybe more, maybe exactly that.

Sometimes prosecutors look at police reports and say "going to the pokey for the night was enough (Public Intox, Minor in Tavern, inter alia)" and simply decline to prosecute.

HTH.

This made me think of a situation. A friend of mine was charged with a crime years ago. He had MORE than sufficient evidence to absolve him of what his accusers tried to blame him for (thankfully the military does paperwork on everything). Anyhow long story short, it's years later. He was acquitted and released but it still shows up on his background checks. It hurts him with getting certain employment and it caused him a great amount of grief getting his new LTCH.

IDK, but I would think your record should be clear if you were acquitted of any wrong doing.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

. My demeanor conveyed that he was not in trouble and he was free to leave. .

Thanks for the good news and thanks for that ^ . Positive public relations in action .

 

[henktermaat]

Thank you! Glad to hear this

 

[brotherbill3]

Thanks for the good news and thanks for that ^ . Positive public relations in action .

Thanks Denny, Appreciate the info and the OK to share (via Mrs.G). ... Hope this helps raise the bar elsewhere around the state ...

Can you a commercial motor vehicle be stopped for inspection absent a traffic infraction?
Can a game warden stop you if you are fishing to check for your fishing license? Check your stringer for compliance with limits, etc?

Driver's licenses aren't the only game in town, and while its handy for making the point its far from case law.

IIRC - Fish and Hunt license - are still required to be carried and state in the laws they they must be presented upon request. Fish/Hunt is a 'privilidge' ...
I also know from where I grew up (PA) - many states require these to be "VISIBLY DISPLAYED" while hunting / fishing - not just carried with you. That's why outdoors shops have the things you clip to your vest/coat/jacket/hat - whatever - for them.

An interesting point on this is that in Philadelphia, PA where it is illegal to OC unless licensed, they have a directive that officers are PERMITTED to stop someone just to determine if they are properly licensed. The position they take is that they have the legal obligation to make sure that someone OC'ing is not Violating the Uniform Firearms Act which requires a Licence to OC.

Of course they do not make traffic stops to make sure someone is not violating the vehicle code by driving without a license....

PA - has extensive STATE PRE-EMPTION (even prior to Indiana's Adoption)
- Philly is always trying /continuing to violate this. Erie is being sued over their newest violoation of it.
(it's a constant battle in the state gov wages w/ metro areas)
(PA is like Alabama with Chicago thrown in the SE corner ... )
- AND PA is an OC state without license
- UNLESS you are in a vehicle - once you enter a vehicle
- then you must have an acceptable permit/license (the state honors our LTCH).



Thanks INGO's IMPD guys for the positive work.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Quit possible but seeing the direction the State has been going regarding guns rights, it's inevitable that a decision will come down that will be binding. I don't want my name on that decision.

The state could clear it up at any time by either eliminating the LTCH requirement for open carry, which would put us inline with the states that have made those decisions discussed earlier, or by writing into IC code that its not grounds for a stop, same as the restrictions placed on seat belt stops over other traffic stops.

Either way, like I said earlier its an academic discussion for me as I never stopped people strictly for carrying to begin with, and unless someone OC's into my office its unlikely I'll have the chance to do so in the near future anyway.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The state could clear it up at any time by either eliminating the LTCH requirement for open carry, which would put us inline with the states that have made those decisions discussed earlier, or by writing into IC code that its not grounds for a stop, same as the restrictions placed on seat belt stops over other traffic stops.

Either way, like I said earlier its an academic discussion for me as I never stopped people strictly for carrying to begin with, and unless someone OC's into my office its unlikely I'll have the chance to do so in the near future anyway.

Along these lines... curious:

Would we prefer to have an LTCH that permits CC and OC
or
Would we prefer to have a "conceal carry" license, with no permit required for OC?

In the latter case, could it possibly cause more commotion? Example, you're OC'ing to your car, and a cop sees you get into your car. Boom, now you're "CC" by law, and he has to make sure you're licensed.