INGO member in handcuffs

[IndyMonkey]

they are required to read you your rights when you are not free to leave and you are being questioned.

He was told that he was being detained and not free to go.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I carried to the polls but at 36 degrees it was just too cold to really oc. I had a jacket on with my sig on my hip.

I made it a point to tuck my shirt in and wear a short jacket.

No one said a word about it until we were outside and noticed the lack of gestapo activity.

 

[4sarge]

I want to thank everyone for the support you have stressed in this thread plus all of the rep that followed...

This should be sending a message to anyone that cares about our constitutional rights...no matter which one it is that is currently under attack.

I've read most all and it IM brings the SBR and ATF Consumer is detained & Handcuffed for Officer Safety. Something definitely askew here. Supervision on IPD/IMPD has been lacking for years. The on scene supervisor should have been able to discern the facts that no law was being broken and sent everyone on there merry way without the goat rope. Where was the "Management" that requested that you be removed? Looks like overzealous police work to me. If officer safety was the priority and you (all) were deemed a threat then the techniques used were not effective. This will continue until there is a lawsuit or an unfortunate incident occurs. Actions of any organization are determined at the top. Bissard skated because the current Chief refused to take the appropriate immediate action after being notified of the personnel situation and then when the incident wasn't handled correctly failed to take action against the supervisors and or personnel that did not follow procedure and or the law. Or, did they do exactly as told by the Chief and Supervisors ? If that wasn't an intentional action (cover up) the officers responsible are incompetent and do not know the law or feel that they didn't have to follow it and no repercussions would occur

 

[Eddie]

He was told that he was being detained and not free to go.

At that point if they wanted/needed to question him then he should have been advised of his rights or else any answers he gave would not be admissible as evidence.

It is not the act of cuffing someone but rather the combination of not being free to leave and being questioned that invokes Miranda.

 

[ProLibertate]

I just spent 2 hrs researching this thoroughly and according to several internet sources and to the text book I have from my law class a couple semesters ago, a police officer is required to read you those rights upon cuffing you because the supreme court has ruled that the rights must be read to someone who is detained and not free to leave on their own free will prior to any other questions being asked. If you were free to go, they did not have to read them but seeing how none of you all were allowed to leave freely and yet they continued to question you, it sounds like this officer and the others standing by violated federal law. I just sent an email to a family friend who is a local procescutor to see if this is true or if I am misinterpreting this. Ill post links and references as well upon verification but just food for thought at this point.
Sounds like you should take this to the top.

I want to make something clear before I explain this: I am not siding with the officer who detained ATF.
I am merely stating the facts surrounding this type of incident.
I'm confident that your prosecutor friend will concur, but I am not a lawyer.

The Miranda Warning is not required in a detention situation just because handcuffs were applied.
A subject must be read their Miranda rights before "custodial interrogation". This is typically, but not always, in association with an arrest, and in conjunction with criminal charges being filed.
ATF Consumer was not arrested, and no criminal charges were filed against him, so the Miranda Warning is not required.
If charges HAD been filed, and he was not Mirandized, then any statement he made in response to interrogation while in custody would not be admissible as evidence against him.
In many cases during an outright arrest, no Miranda Warning is administered because no interrogation is necessary- for example if the arresting officer witnessed the crime.
None of this really applies though if the detention was unlawful to begin with...

EDIT: Looks like Eddie beat me to it by seconds.

 

[Jack Ryan]

The school I voted in had students in class. Carry to a school is a very quick way to BECOME a convicted felon. There is a difference carrying where it is legal and being illegally harassed, rather than committing a felony. Getting arrested by doing so will not help things.

Yep, I agree.

It's still an unconstitutional restriction. Put in place by a tyranical regime long before Obama was placed in the position of giving down orders from upon high.

It still makes it hard for me to be concerned about convicted killers, rapist, and thieves rights to carry a gun when a law abiding citizen who's paid his fee and gotton permission from the regime to carry protection from criminals and bullys can't carry a legal firearm to protect himself when he goes to vote.

Voter Intimidation At McDonald's: Employees Told That, Unless Republicans Win, They Won't Get Raises Or Benefits

2008 voter-intimidation case against New Black Panthers riles the right

New voter intimidation complaints surface at Harris polls | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Voter Intimidation Victim and Witness Come Forward, And Nov. 2 Looms Closer - Houston News - Hair Balls

It happens. It happens in this country just like any other. It has a long history of happening in this country.

I didn't see any law enforcement at the polls? Is there normally law enforcement at other polls including those at schools and other places where you have no right to protect your person, your valuables, or your rights to your own best ability?

What better place to pull a few muggings than where you know people won't be armed, they will have propert identification and probably their bank and credit cards. They will be in a hurry and distracted by the business at hand. Doesn't that pretty much cover the arguement for carrying a means for self defense in every other thread it's debated in?

I just don't se how it doesn't apply to the multitude of threads full of "from my cold dead hands..." and "if they ever come to my door", and "the constitution says..." kinds of after the fact comments. It just looks like an opportunity where a lot of guys who all said they were going to do big things if they ever had this or that happen and they could all be counted on to do big things and they wish they could have all been in on the excitement when big things were happening, well?

The NRA doesn't represent gun owners any more and they should be laying it all on the line to see the constitution is strickly adhered to even in the case of convicted felons on parole well here's a chance for the also ran organisations and supporters to really adress a constitutional issue and show us what they've got. If a single one steps up I'll send in my dues to GOA tomorrow.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I want to make something clear before I explain this: I am not siding with the officer who detained ATF.
I am merely stating the facts surrounding this type of incident.
I'm confident that your prosecutor friend will concur, but I am not a lawyer.

The Miranda Warning is not required in a detention situation just because handcuffs were applied.
A subject must be read their Miranda rights before "custodial interrogation". This is typically, but not always, in association with an arrest, and in conjunction with criminal charges being filed.
ATF Consumer was not arrested, and no criminal charges were filed against him, so the Miranda Warning is not required.
If charges HAD been filed, and he was not Mirandized, then any statement he made in response to interrogation while in custody would not be admissible as evidence against him.
In many cases during an outright arrest, no Miranda Warning is administered because no interrogation is necessary- for example if the arresting officer witnessed the crime.
None of this really applies though if the detention was unlawful to begin with...

Officer Highsmith certainly thought it was necessary to interrogate and in fact did so.

 

[Vasili]

"[FONT=&quot]At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home? . . .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . . [/FONT][FONT=&quot]After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur? What if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If . . . if . . . We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation. . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago[/FONT]

 

[Joe Williams]

Officer Highsmith certainly thought it was necessary to interrogate and in fact did so.

Don't forget, you have the right to remain silent, whether he reads you your rights or not. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that you must actively assert your right... how polite you are when you "actively assert" your right is up to you

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

I want to thank everyone for the support you have stressed in this thread plus all of the rep that followed...

This should be sending a message to anyone that cares about our constitutional rights...no matter which one it is that is currently under attack.

You are the man, ATFC

ATFC for Congress 2012 !

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I just re-read the 40 plus pages on this and im surprised no one picked up on this. ATF, did the officer read you your miranda rights after placing you in cuffs? I just spent 2 hrs researching this thoroughly and according to several internet sources and to the text book I have from my law class a couple semesters ago, a police officer is required to read you those rights upon cuffing you because the supreme court has ruled that the rights must be read to someone who is detained and not free to leave on their own free will prior to any other questions being asked.

The Miranda Warning is not required in a detention situation just because handcuffs were applied.
A subject must be read their Miranda rights before "custodial interrogation". This is typically, but not always, in association with an arrest, and in conjunction with criminal charges being filed.
ATF Consumer was not arrested, and no criminal charges were filed against him, so the Miranda Warning is not required.
If charges HAD been filed, and he was not Mirandized, then any statement he made in response to interrogation while in custody would not be admissible as evidence against him.
In many cases during an outright arrest, no Miranda Warning is administered because no interrogation is necessary- for example if the arresting officer witnessed the crime.
None of this really applies though if the detention was unlawful to begin with...

IANAL but I pretty much agree with ProLibertate on this. Although ATFC statements might be able to be used against him without him being Mirandized. Detention is always the same as an arrest, all arressts are dentions but not all detentions are an arrest. For instance if you get pulled over for speeding and the officer asks if you know how fast your were going and you tell them I was doing 90. That would be I believe, admissable without the Miranda warning. You are detained during the stop and not free to leave but you are not "in custody" for the purposes of Miranda.

 

[ProLibertate]

If he was so worried WHY would he have 5 guys draw their weapons and unload them (in public)?

That was the first thing that raised my eyebrows... Just doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

[SirRealism]

That was the first thing that raised my eyebrows... Just doesn't seem to make any sense.

I asked two officers about that issue. From both of tem, the answer was very unsatisfactory. I believe Highsmith's reply was something along the lines of, "You do what I say." Nothing in their answers addressed 1) the fact that fiddling with loaded weapons in a busy area is unsafe, or 2) how the officers feel unsafe with my weapon in its holster, but perfectly safe having me draw my weapon in front of them.

I'm torn about what I'd do differently if it happened again. One part of me wants to say, "if you want to handle an unholstered, loaded weapon in a public area, please go ahead." But I'd really rather not have someone else take my gun into possession. I also thought about handing him the belt in the holster. But again, I'm not into turning over my property to anyone else.

 

[Eddie]

"[FONT=&quot]At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home? . . .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . . [/FONT][FONT=&quot]After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur? What if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If . . . if . . . We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation. . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago[/FONT]

This is why I think it is important to fight on the little things. Complaining about "No Guns" signs on stores, OCing, writing an e-mail to an elected official, refusing to do business with an anti 2a store and above all striving to educate others are ways to keep it from getting that bad. We need to roll back and repeal the restrictions wherever we find them and constantly push back against any efforts to restrain our freedoms.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Maybe I should have asked for State Police to be present.
If you ask a IMPD for State Trooper presence...is that a request or do they have to comply?

 

[ProLibertate]

Maybe I should have asked for State Police to be present.
If you ask a IMPD for State Trooper presence...is that a request or do they have to comply?

They have no obligation to provide you with a different law enforcement agency in their own jurisdiction.
That said, you would have been justified in asking for the presence of a supervisor.

Besides, there are no mile markers downtown, and the Troopers would just get lost and drive in circles...

 

[Indy317]

Why "there goes the lawsuit?"

An officer doesn't get to detain just because they feel the urge, there are legal standards that must be met.

IC 35-47-2-1 Carrying a handgun without a license or by person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.

The concept of reasonable suspicion and probable cause comes into play. Police may detain people with reasonable suspicion only. You can't tell if someone has a license, or is part of an exempted group, buy looking at them (except maybe a uniformed officer or national guard person in uniform).

However one feels, eventually we will see a push for banning OC in Indiana. I'm not sure if it will pass, or if it will even make it to a bill. Nor do I know how much support their will be for such a law, but expect the LE community to push for it. The people in the middle, who aren't gun people, but don't care that people carry guns, could go with banning OCing, so long as people still have the right to CC. Should be interesting.

My point is that they HAD to investigate you.....

No, they don't. There are very few state laws dictating police responsibilities using certain key words, one of which is "shall."

...broke the law, as clearly stated by the Indiana Supreme Court?

Are you serious trying to compare this situation with State v. Richardson? Apples and oranges if that is the case. An attorney could argue these incidents are similar, but there way too many differences than there are similarities.

+1 to Joe (gotta spread more around) I would love to hear some LEO's answer this!

Joe is wrong. The case I am guessing he is alluding to (noted above) is completely different than what is trying to claim it says. Just an overview:
State v. Richardson deals with additional LE engagement BASED SOLELY UPON seat belt enforcement. Indiana has a special law when it comes to seat belt enforcement, officers are very limited in what they can do. It is different than running a stop sign or speeding. Why? I have no idea, the politicians worded it that way. Secondly, case laws dealing with add'l enforcement in conjunction with seat belt only stops have specific guidelines in terms of what officers can do to assure their safety. If the officer actually sees a gun, they can take action. However, no gun was seen in this case, which makes it 180 degrees different from this incident, in which guns were plainly visible. Not only that, the officer admits she had to assume the "bulge" in Richardson's pants was a firearm, though like the court said, it could have been anything. With officer safety connected with seat belt enforcement, the courts will look at everything. Richardson was giving no indication that he presented a threat, there wasn't even a known firearm involved, only suspected.

All this despite recent case law that states once the LTCH is presented then the stop is over.

Cite this please. I want to see where a judge, or judges wrote "As soon as a person carrying a handgun displays an LTCH, absent any other reasonable suspicion of another crime, the stop is over." They haven't. They have ruled:
-A search of a car for a handgun for officer safety isn't allowed when there is no evidence the person, who has been removed from the vehicle, is a threat.
-Officers can't dig into further stuff on hunches that there might be firearms in a vehicle on a traffic stop that is based upon seat belt enforcement.
-In either Jones V. State or Richardson V. State, there has been nothing said about letting someone go as soon as they show a magical piece of paper. In fact, in Jones, the officer even ran the license to see if it was valid (it ended up having a suspended or revoked status). In Richardson, the officer testified she ran the licenses because she felt they could easily be faked, though in that instance, she didn't run the license on her in car computer (which I don't know of any officer that can, but maybe IMPD officers have access to that system).

 

[lovemachine]

So are you guys going to complain at the station?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Joe is wrong. snip

No, I'm not. NOTHING in what you posted provides PC or RAS to detain a citizen. Not a thing. And you know it, you merely do not respect the law or the rights of free citizens.

In any case, even if an officer IS so thuggish and warped that they think the mere act of carrying a gun provides even RAS to believe the citizen doesn't have an LTCH, once the LTCH is provided (as they were in this case) the stop is legally OVER. Any further actions on the matter by the offices is deliberately illegal activity.

 

[printcraft]

However one feels, eventually we will see a push for banning OC in Indiana.
...........

The concept of reasonable suspicion and probable cause comes into play. Police may detain people with reasonable suspicion only. You can't tell if someone has a license, or is part of an exempted group, buy looking at them (except maybe a uniformed officer or national guard person in uniform).

This will help everything as criminals typically open carry their stolen guns in a nice belt holster
all the while standing around the city market.




oh and


what I'm trying to say is


just in case you missed it