INGO member in handcuffs

[DaKruiser]

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

+1 I think someone got a little wrapped up in one case!

 

[IndyMonkey]

Your missing the part where I was stopped for carrying a rifle.

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.



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



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.



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.



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).

 

[Indy317]

K40 does miss the point though. I know I speak for myself when I say that I had no problem with them investigating. I know that some people will, but I don't. I do not mind that the officers "investigated" someone carrying an MP5 in Indianapolis.

This makes no sense though. It appears you want the cops stopping people with guns, yet you don't want them to be able to secure the scene as they investigate. I see this opinion a lot around here. I can only assume it is because people think about 'What if...' cases: What if two guys were going to shoot up my relatives college they attend? I would want the cops to stop and "investigate" if someone were to call in about a MWAG (the shooter) prior to the incident.

I have no problem police investigating someone with a gun, but at the same time, a silly piece of paper means nothing until the information is confirmed via a computer check. Not only that, but just because someone has license doesn't mean they can do no harm to anyone, ever.

If courts or politicians rule or pass laws that officers can't cuff or disarm someone with a firearm when investigating them, then no one should demand officers investigate people with firearms, or MWAG calls. Yes, officers put themselves in harms way, but every situation has a scale of danger to it, and folks with guns are some of the dangerous situations to be in. No one can tell if a person with a license has decided to go off the deep in or not. Not every MWAG would likely require disarming or cuffing, but the option should be there, or we shouldn't demand police investigating MWAG calls.

 

[88GT]

I haven't read past this point...

OMG! I'm SOOOO Sorry I couldn't be there. I thought the day couldn't get any worse then I find out not only did they boot your from City Market, but also that ATF was cuffed!?!?! That's just effed up. Two big OC events downtown and they have to cuff you guys. It seems our job of informing is not done....

I'm proud of you guys and I'm glad things worked out in the end. I'm sorry I couldn't be there. Would have been much better than finding out what I did today. Either way, good job, and next time we're going big.

Consider yourself repped since it won't let me as of now.

Disregarding anything goofy the cops may have done, look at it from their point of view: you guys were OC across from the county government building, where everyone through the door is rigorously disarmed. It's also the seat of county government, which IMPD de facto guards (they outnumber the MCSD deputies in the building). If a cop or security officer saw you guys it was "instant adrenaline rush" OMG! Someone is going to attack the CCB! Also, don't forget we're at a rather high state of alert for terror incidents. Adrenaline rush + unusual event + constant terror threat surveillance = high state of excitement - rational thought = conditioned reflex (go out there and arrest them).

I'm not saying you all were wrong in doing what you did; just that you probably should have expected such a reaction.

I still ask.Why look for trouble?

Yeah, the blacks striving for equality should have stayed in the back of the bus. Look where their efforts got 'em. Oh. Wait.

I don't think Que is saying that. Let's face it, Sheeple are afraid of guns, and afraid of gun owners/carriers. I think,and feel, that to get people on our side is a very, very delicate process.

I don't think walking around Indy with long guns is going to do this. I'm all for OCing, I prefer CC, but I do OC when it's necessary.

I just think a different approach could have been better.

Well, it came across to me as we shouldn't do them. Perhaps his approach should be re-evaluated since it didn't have the intended effect.

I wish I could have made it, but one of my kids got a little sniffle and I didn't think standing around in the cold would have been the best for him. But I am so proud of our members willing to put themselves out there. Super big props to all of you.

And please let's keep the pressure on. Complacency will garner us nothing.

 

[ATM]

Not every MWAG would likely require disarming or cuffing,

Only those who refuse when the officer tells them to, "Draw your sidearm and unload it. NOW!"

...or we shouldn't demand police investigating MWAG calls.

Demand? Who here thinks they even should?

 

[ATF Consumer]

So are you guys going to complain at the station?

Yes, via an official filed complaint and I am also reviewing what legal channels I have to follow up with...This is simply outrageous that law abiding citizens get harassed and rights trampled on because a LEO wants to feel 'safe'.
Once the LEO's showed up, I must honestly say I felt LESS SAFE!

 

[Indy317]

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

Lurkers, don't listen to Joe. Indiana law is clear, carrying a handgun, concealed or open, is a crime. Connected to that law is another law, that says if a person has a license, or fits into a list of positions, one is not in violation of carrying a handgun.

Since the law says no handguns on your person, then if an officer sees a person with a handgun, there is absolutely reasonable suspicion to stop that person and investigate a possible criminal violation. The scope of this stop has yet to be determined by Indiana courts. There have been three cases dealing with this, in some form or fashion. You folks can believe JW, or you can believe the law.

There has been no case law, based on an Indiana case, that states anything like what JW is spouting. I ask him to prove this, and he won't be able to. He or others may post case laws, but read them carefully, and decide for yourself if they are relevant or not. If you are unsure, you should consult a defense attorney.

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.

I agree. It won't be about criminals, it will be about the chaos that seems to happen when state agents get involved with calls about OCing MWAG (and sometimes those where the gun is CC, but someone still sees it). A person in Ft. Wayne taken down at gunpoint. A guy at a gas station getting a Marion Co. Deputy telling him he has to cover it. The guys working on the strip mall down near Stop 11 and Emerson. And now this case.

Your missing the part where I was stopped for carrying a rifle.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking in general when police see a person(s) with handguns. Some are trying to see there is no RS to even stop a person. Others say cops should investigate, but can only do x, y, and/or z. Others say even other more bizarre things, I'm just trying to give some basic info and let folks decide for themselves. There is no law about carrying long guns on your person, out in public, etc. that I know of (yes, there are hunting laws, but obviously this isn't anything near that).

 

[shibumiseeker]

Yes, via an official filed complaint and I am also reviewing what legal channels I have to follow up with...This is simply outrageous that law abiding citizens get harassed and rights trampled on because a LEO wants to feel 'safe'.
Once the LEO's showed up, I must honestly say I felt LESS SAFE!

Welcome to the State.

The movie "Brazil" is not so farfetched...

 

[Pocketman]

OK, been reading for a while and I think I'm caught up. My apologies if I sounded like a richard earlier in the thread when I implied that this could all be a joke. It obviously wasn't.

Not sure if I'm glad I missed it or not because I'm not sure if I could have shown the same restraint. I just wonder what would have happened if someone said "I'm sorry officer, but I will not comply because that is an unlawful command."

I agree with Frank that this probably would not have happened without the presence of the MP5. However, Indy had every right to carry it. I don't claim to speak for IM, but I'm pretty sure if the officers would have just checked everyone's LTCH and then respectfully ASKED PERMISSION to check out his MP5, he would have been more than willing to allow it without having to be commanded to do so.

I also do not believe the LEO's involved were necessarily intentionally abusing their power. They probably really believed they were doing what they were supposed to do. This is just another unfortunate example of uninformed, uneducated officers and/or departments not fully understanding the laws involved and what the extent of their authority really is.

This is all the more reason to continue having these events. Hopefully we can eventually educate enough people to make a difference.

Personally, I would think LEO's would feel less threatened by a well behaved person that is openly OCing in a public area than they would by many of the other jackwagons running around down there. Not too many felons are bold enough to OC on a downtown street in front of the CCB. If they were, there would almost certainly be other indicators in their behavior to raise suspicion. Seeing a firearm on a person's belt as they go about normal activities SHOULD be an automatic indication to any LEO that the person is a "good guy", not the other way around.

+ a bunch
While this could have gone better, it illustrates what many have been saying all along. Just because one is a LEO doesn't mean he/she is knowledgeable about weapons and OC. An IMPD officer once asked me to remove the firing pin from my flintlock musket at Conseco Fieldhouse. City Mkt is a very public place and probably the officer's first experience with an MP5. My guess is the next time this officer sees someone OC, it will be handled better. So that's something positive.

Sounds like all the INGO people involved handled themselves well.

Good thing no one was wearing a rag on their head.

 

[indyjoe]

Lurkers, don't listen to Joe. Indiana law is clear, carrying a handgun, concealed or open, is a crime. Connected to that law is another law, that says if a person has a license, or fits into a list of positions, one is not in violation of carrying a handgun.

Since the law says no handguns on your person, then if an officer sees a person with a handgun, there is absolutely reasonable suspicion to stop that person and investigate a possible criminal violation. The scope of this stop has yet to be determined by Indiana courts. There have been three cases dealing with this, in some form or fashion. You folks can believe JW, or you can believe the law.

There has been no case law, based on an Indiana case, that states anything like what JW is spouting. I ask him to prove this, and he won't be able to. He or others may post case laws, but read them carefully, and decide for yourself if they are relevant or not. If you are unsure, you should consult a defense attorney.

Driving without a license is a crime. However, you can't be stopped just to check for a license.

Which Amendment covers the right to drive? I can't find that one?

Which Amendment covers the right to bear arms? Ah. There it is.

The Constitution trumps bubba playing alpha dog.

No where are people here blasting the police checking that the OC'ers were not violating the law. ONCE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE OC'ers WERE LEGAL, THEN THE POLICE STARTED TO VIOLATE THE LAW SO THAT WE WOULD "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH."

 

[Indy317]

Driving without a license is a crime. However, you can't be stopped just to check for a license.

Which Amendment covers the right to drive? I can't find that one?

Which Amendment covers the right to bear arms? Ah. There it is.

Constitution trumps bubba playing alpha dog.

No where are people here blasting the police checking that the OC'ers were not violating the law. ONCE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE OC'ers WERE LEGAL, THEN THE POLICE STARTED TO VIOLATE THE LAW SO THAT WE WOULD "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH."

If JW is spouting what he believes should be the law, that is one thing. However, he is writing information that isn't factually correct. Yes, driving w/o a license is a crime, but if an officer sees a person driving, they can't just stop them. The difference vs. that and carrying a handgun: A US Supreme Court ruling. Back in the day, officers were stopping people based solely on them driving a vehicle on a public street, not for speeding, not for running a stop sign. A court case changed all of that. Until we have a similar case based on carrying handguns, they aren't the same. One can argue they are, and on the face, they are the same, but one activity has a US Supreme Court ruling dictating how things are, the other doesn't.

If you want to thump your chest about rights and what not, go ahead...don't even have a license and carry a handgun. I don't see anything in the C about people needing permission slips for the 1st amendment. This is a country based on laws. The C can't cover every detail of every possible situation, so what we have is a system where certain people get to declare if certain actions can be criminal or not. Not a perfect system, but it is what we have. We actually do have the Heller ruling, and while the 2nd says nothing about licensing and registration, the justices seemed to pretty much be OK with government implementing those types of things.

 

[indyjoe]

If JW is spouting what he believes should be the law, that is one thing. However, he is writing information that isn't factually correct. Yes, driving w/o a license is a crime, but if an officer sees a person driving, they can't just stop them. The difference vs. that and carrying a handgun: A US Supreme Court ruling. Back in the day, officers were stopping people based solely on them driving a vehicle on a public street, not for speeding, not for running a stop sign. A court case changed all of that. Until we have a similar case based on carrying handguns, they aren't the same. One can argue they are, and on the face, they are the same, but one activity has a US Supreme Court ruling dictating how things are, the other doesn't.

If you want to thump your chest about rights and what not, go ahead...don't even have a license and carry a handgun. I don't see anything in the C about people needing permission slips for the 1st amendment. This is a country based on laws. The C can't cover every detail of every possible situation, so what we have is a system where certain people get to declare if certain actions can be criminal or not. Not a perfect system, but it is what we have. We actually do have the Heller ruling, and while the 2nd says nothing about licensing and registration, the justices seemed to pretty much be OK with government implementing those types of things.

Agreed. However, you say that there is no precedent to when the investigation is stopped for determining if you are breaking the law by carrying a gun.

Is it over when the LTCH is presented? Is it over when the LTCH is verified? Is it over when you are cuffed and forced to disarm? Is it over when you are thrown in the police car? Is it over when you are illegally arrested? Is it over when you are tazed? Is it over when the officer is done verbally berating you for choosing to exercise your right?

When is it over?

Or should it never have begun unless there was suspicion of you violating a crime? Maybe we can get fully legal, license-less open carry to make this bull mierda stop.

 

[CorvetteTom]

Agreed. However, you say that there is no precedent to when the investigation is stopped for determining if you are breaking the law by carrying a gun.

Is it over when the LTCH is presented? Is it over when the LTCH is verified? Is it over when you are cuffed and forced to disarm? Is it over when you are thrown in the police car? Is it over when you are illegally arrested? Is it over when you are tazed? Is it over when the officer is done verbally berating you for choosing to exercise your right?

When is it over?

Or should it never have begun unless there was suspicion of you violating a crime? Maybe we can get fully legal, license-less open carry to make this bull mierda stop.

It's over when the cop has decided that you finally believe he has supreme power over you. He can ruin your life and how dare YOU question his authority! Poorly trained cops need to stop fudging the law to bolster their damn egos!

 

[OS3-USN]

Driving without a license is a crime. However, you can't be stopped just to check for a license.

Which Amendment covers the right to drive? I can't find that one?

Which Amendment covers the right to bear arms? Ah. There it is.

First, read the Ninth Amendment. It clearly states that we possess other rights aside from those that are enumerated. Second, the Constitution grants not a single right. We possess our rights regardless of written documents. Third, you are asking the wrong question. Where does the Constitution say that government can decide if we can drive or not? It really doesn't matter if the Bill of Rights says we have a particular right. Unless the government is constitutionally granted the authority to deny us a certain activity, action, etc. then we continue to possess that right.

 

[OS3-USN]

The C can't cover every detail of every possible situation, so what we have is a system where certain people get to declare if certain actions can be criminal or not. Not a perfect system, but it is what we have. We actually do have the Heller ruling, and while the 2nd says nothing about licensing and registration, the justices seemed to pretty much be OK with government implementing those types of things.

No, the Constitution states specifically what the government can do. If the Constitution doesn't address a certain situation the government has no legal role in that situation.

 

[Roadie]

I admit that my previous statements regarding certain case law were not relevant, due to my misunderstanding of those cases. IANAL.

However, I was doing some research and found something in Washington v Indiana that may or may not apply. Thoughts?

When defendant announced he was going inside, an officer
observed a “metal glint” on defendant’s person and shouted “gun.” Id. A gun was recovered from defendant’s waistband, and it was subsequently determined that he had a prior felony conviction, which made possession of a handgun illegal. Id. Defendant moved to suppress the handgun, which the trial court denied. Id. On appeal, we held that the trial court had
improperly denied the motion to suppress and that the seizure of the weapon was illegal where there was an absence of an articulable basis that there was a legitimate concern of officer safety or a belief that a crime had been committed or was being committed.

Specifically, the bolded part?

 

[DaKruiser]

The plain and simple truth! The offending officer "responding" officer, wanted it to appear that the OC'ers were breaking the law! That's it! obviously they were not, or they wouldn't have been released with their belongings.......

 

[Clay]

is the MP5 in the pictures posted? I dont see it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

There has been no case law, based on an Indiana case, that states anything like what JW is spouting. I ask him to prove this, and he won't be able to. He or others may post case laws, but read them carefully, and decide for yourself if they are relevant or not. If you are unsure, you should consult a defense attorney.

Indy in State of Indiana v Richardson while not part of the conclusion (I believe the conclusion is what sets case law) it states.

There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an “unusual bulge” will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson‟s production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf pg 6-7

And the conclusion states that for the reasons above. The quote above is one of the reasons for it. But I'm not sure that it constitutes binding case law.

 

[SavageEagle]

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.

Yep. Pretty much this. I was going to respond to Indy317's post, but this pretty much sums it up.