IMPD officers arrested.

[Rookie]

If they did their due diligence and sent a certified letter to the owner. But would they be required to send one to the vehicles owner or the guns owner?

My guess is that the due diligence wasn't done and it was just turned over under the impression that is what was required.

Any other thing I noticed is if you look at the mycase it says he was granted bail as to this case only.

Are there other cases?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

In this instance, the vehicle owner and the gun owner are the same. My assumption would be that they did their job since it's their job.

 

[Rookie]

Y'all are making this a lot more complicated than it is.

Feel free to simplify.

 

[KG1]

If they did their due diligence and sent a certified letter to the owner. But would they be required to send one to the vehicles owner or the guns owner?

My guess is that the due diligence wasn't done and it was just turned over under the impression that is what was required.

Any other thing I noticed is if you look at the mycase it says he was granted bail as to this case only.

Are there other cases?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Seems to me it would be the vehicles owner pertaining to all items contained within the vehicle.

 

[HoughMade]

Feel free to simplify.

Not a repossession. Any statute applying to repossession does not apply.

Getting past that...which is actually the ending point...assuming Copart legally owned the gun (and there is no evidence to support that) there is no evidence Copart gifted or sold it to anyone.

 

[Rookie]

Not a repossession. Any statute applying to repossession does not apply.

Getting past that...which is actually the ending point...assuming Copart legally owned the gun (and there is no evidence to support that) there is no evidence Copart gifted or sold it to anyone.

What statute is being applied to this?

 

[Dutchisaurus]

Not a repossession. Any statute applying to repossession does not apply.

Getting past that...which is actually the ending point...assuming Copart legally owned the gun (and there is no evidence to support that) there is no evidence Copart gifted or sold it to anyone.

Then it would still fall under 32-34-1-21.





Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[HoughMade]

Then it would still fall under 32-34-1-21...

Agreed...and assuming the facts as alleged true (and that's a big assumption), that possibly changes who the "victim" of the theft is...which is irrelevant.

 

[Rookie]

I'm confused...

Copart had the car and its contents. I'm guessing why matters? If they are holding it in impound, I would assume they don't have any right to the contents. If they purchased it, what is the legal way to sell, give away, dispose of items in the vehicle?

 

[KG1]

Not a repossession. Any statute applying to repossession does not apply.

Getting past that...which is actually the ending point...assuming Copart legally owned the gun (and there is no evidence to support that) there is no evidence Copart gifted or sold it to anyone.

Well that hits on another aspect. Did the manager of the auction house believe that the accused was acting in an official capacity as a LEO and handed over the firearm as requested and not just gifting or selling in a separate arnangement as in a private individual? Who knows under what guise the transfer of the property took place.

 

[Route 45]

Any notion that the transfer of the firearm from the auction house to the off-duty officer was a private matter evaporated when he used his official authority to run the gun through IDACS/NCIC to check for stolen. Twice.

 

[printcraft]

That’s her assumption then, she could have given them to anyone.
If she gave it to the mechanic across the street from her are we still in the same position?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Full disclosure, I keep all currency and electronics found when examining skin folds

 

[HoughMade]

Well that hits on another aspect. Did the manager of the auction house believe that the accused was acting in an official capacity as a LEO and handed over the firearm as requested and not just gifting or selling in a separate arnangement as in a private individual? Who knows under what guise the transfer of the property took place.

I'm starting to get the idea that few here have read the probable cause affidavit.

 

[chezuki]

False... unless you’re referring to Texas law, in which case it is irrelevant in Indiana, but Rhino would be required to provide KF with yet another case if .45.

 

[Dutchisaurus]

I'm starting to get the idea that few here have read the probable cause affidavit.

I couldn't find it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[HoughMade]

I'm starting to get the idea that few here have read the probable cause affidavit.

Again, assuming the truth of what is alleged in the PCA...which, of course, could turn out to be inaccurate, it is made clear that the police were contacted with the intent for the police to take possession of the gun (the police were originally called, not the specific individual at issue) as had been done in the past​.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Full disclosure, I keep all currency and electronics found when examining skin folds

I thought you was a doctor?!? Now I’m finding out you work with the TSA.

 

[KG1]

Any notion that the transfer of the firearm from the auction house to the off-duty officer was a private matter evaporated when he used his official authority to run the gun through IDACS/NCIC to check for stolen. Twice.

That's my understanding as well that a LEO is not authorized to run queries through IDACS other than in the context of official duties.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Full disclosure, I keep all currency and electronics found when examining skin folds

Another example of the medical system fleecing the sick.

 

[chezuki]

I'm starting to get the idea that few here have read the probable cause affidavit.

I still can’t find it. If you can point me the right direction, publicly or in PM, I’d appreciate it. Normally they are linked in mycase, this is not.