IMPD OC legal updates.

[CathyInBlue]

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.

How about an LTCH that remains the same, but a section of 35-47-2 that explicitly exempts open carry, defined as any part of the sidearm proper visible from any angle above 3 ft. above prevailing terrain, from licensure requirements.

And a wholesale repeal of 35-47-2-24.

 

[remauto1187]

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.

I dont know if Indiana does it but in Illinois there is a procedure to have that charge/arrest record expunged from "your' record if found not guilty or the State dismisses the charge. Its fairly easy to do and DOES NOT even require a lawyer. Ive done it in Illinois and was quite successful with the procedure.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

Denny... this is an odd situation for me where I disagree with the logic of your presenter but I am glad he made the bad leap of logic that he did.

 

[2A_Tom]

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.

I truly have no idea. At the time it happened I was in the army and my company commander never informed me of any charges. As I said 4 years later I needed to upgrade my security clearance from sesret to TS. It came up in the investigation and I had to go to MP headquarters get copies and write an explanation. That was the only negative report that I had so it did not cause a denial just fierce irritation.

 

[Kedric]

Denny, thanks for the post, the info, and the updates. I am glad to hear about that, and am hopeful that it will spread to the rest of the state's various departments. While I certainly understand it is not policy nor law yet, I think it will help lead the way towards better understanding and interactions for everybody involved.

Additionally, huge kudos to you for your own thoughts and stance on the issue.

 

[Somemedic]

Fishing indiana waters requires license...

Driving indiana roads requires license...

Carrying gun in indiana requires license...

The first 2 are a privilege. The other is a constitutional right.

Is that the difference on why you can't be questioned?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Fishing indiana waters requires license...

Driving indiana roads requires license...

Carrying gun in indiana requires license...

The first 2 are a privilege. The other is a constitutional right.

Is that the difference on why you can't be questioned?

They are all rights, just simply infringed upon

 

[Fargo]

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.

I dunno that his legal reasoning is "premature"; just because there isn't black letter law on it doesn't mean that he cannot opine on what he believes to be legal/illegal.

Up until the amendments to the LTCH statute a couple of years ago, I think the police could stop and check LTCH for OC alone. After the amendments, it is a LOT less clear and I think his legal reasoning has a pretty good basis, especially since the right to bear arms is a specifically enumerated constitutional right, unlike say the right to travel.

Plus, I would think that most officers would rather err on the side of caution where there is no apparent crime than end up the guy the judge rules violated the constitution; with the attendant liability problems that entails? I give legal advice all the time on things where there isn't black letter law and it usually ends up with a "you might be able to do this, but since there is a good chance you might not you may want to look for a different way if possible."

Best,


Joe

 

[atalon]

Based on the plethora of discussions here, I also thought it odd that it was "illegal" to stop just for OCing. But I'll take it. Should be simple enough to instruct officers that in the absence of any other indicators of criminal behavior/intent, the act of OCing alone isn't worth the hassle to LE or otherwise law-abiding citizens. More than that though, I'm glad it's being addressed. I almost value consistency in enforcement over the "right" policy. A wrong policy consistently enforced would be remedied soon enough in the courts I would think. But no clear policy and an inconsistent (across the department) approach can always be brushed aside as an error on the individual LEO's part, not the department. But thumbs up to IMPD for taking this step. Next: official policy. Whoswithme?

The idea is that they can't stop someone from doing something legal. For instance they can't randomly pull someone over just to check to see if they have a drivers license. The same goes for carrying a gun. It is illegal to drive without a license and it is illegal to carry a gun without a license, but you shouldn't get hassled for the act of doing it legally.

 

[Jack Burton]

The idea is that they can't stop someone from doing something legal. For instance they can't randomly pull someone over just to check to see if they have a drivers license. The same goes for carrying a gun. It is illegal to drive without a license and it is illegal to carry a gun without a license, but you shouldn't get hassled for the act of doing it legally.

For the tenth million time... the supreme court has ruled that checking for the licenses merely upon observing someone driving a car is illegal. There is NO such counterpart ruling for observing a person carrying a firearm when it is otherwise prohibited.

 

[lonehoosier]

For the tenth million time... the supreme court has ruled that checking for the licenses merely upon observing someone driving a car is illegal. There is NO such counterpart ruling for observing a person carrying a firearm when it is otherwise prohibited.

You can repeat this tell your blue in the face and people will still not understand it. When someone repeats miss information over an over again it must be true. Next they will say that some other state said LEO can't stop you if you are OC.

 

[armedindy]

awesome..thanks for letting us know

 

[HavokCycle]

For the tenth million time... the supreme court has ruled that checking for the licenses merely upon observing someone driving a car is illegal. There is NO such counterpart ruling for observing a person carrying a firearm when it is otherwise prohibited.

i dont give a damn what you say. i've been pulled over on my bike a half dozen times for an endorsement check. you're confusing what should be (law) with what is (police)

 

[stephen87]

If you're unhappy with it, follow standard procedures. File a freaking complaint!


SCOTUS has ruled, LEO CANNOT legally stop you to check for a driver's license. This is in NO way associated with being able to stop you to check for a LTCH. IMPD is doing you a favor by saying that it's against policy for them to do it.

 

[Denny347]

Yes, if more people filed complaints or suites we would have a ruling that WILL be binding in Indiana and these discussions will no longer be needed. Internet complaints don't count.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If you're unhappy with it, follow standard procedures. File a freaking complaint!


SCOTUS has ruled, LEO CANNOT legally stop you to check for a driver's license. This is in NO way associated with being able to stop you to check for a LTCH. IMPD is doing you a favor by saying that it's against policy for them to do it.

That's the thing, it is not yet against policy. Officers have only heard about it from the officer teaching the legal updates class, not from the Chief of Police or any of his designees.

 

[Prometheus]

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.

Very cool. Thank you for the info!

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.

So is driving a car, still doesn't justify a fishing expedition without reasonable suspicion.

 

[stephen87]

That's the thing, it is not yet against policy. Officers have only heard about it from the officer teaching the legal updates class, not from the Chief of Police or any of his designees.

Good point. Let us know if anything ever comes of it. As of right now, it seems like this particular person is trying to get every officer on the same page though.

 

[Redhorse]

if the official policy changes where they aren't allowed, just file a compliant. Heck, do so anyways, especially if the Leo gets mean.

 

[lonehoosier]

Any updates to this?