INGO member in handcuffs

[Roadie]

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

OK, I knew there was a reason I thought that valid! Thanks for adding that!

 

[Sgt Rock]

50 pages of posts in less than 12 hours. Holy Crap! The rest of you guys should have been there, if it wasn't so anti-2A it would have been funny. Although there was one high spot. After the rousting by the Men in Black, two young men came up and asked Monkey: "Why are you carrying a sub-machine gun around"? Priceless.

 

[Clay]

Nevermind. I finally enlarged the first pic and see IM with it.

 

[long coat]

Were the guns takes before or after the LTCH came back good?

 

[SavageEagle]

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.

If I'm carrying an AK47 down the road, what reasonable suspicion do you have that I am or have committed a crime? Because I have an AK47? A Police Officer has NO legal right to come up to me and ask for my LTCH or run my background for warrants or disqualifying offenses just because I'm carrying a gun.

 

[Indy317]

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?

I'm not saying there is no "precedent" in general. We have rulings from New Mexico and Wisconsin, but those states have laws that don't criminalize the OCing of handguns. Indiana law does criminalize the OCing of handguns, but there are ways around that. I am saying there is no "precedent" based on Indiana law. Your questions have yet to be answered. The cases folks like to cite here really don't go to the heart of the matter we are discussing. One deals with the search of a car, the goal of which was to secure a handgun after the person, who displayed no threats, was removed from the vehicle. The other deals with LE actions while enforcing nothing more than a seat belt violation.

There are no firm rulings to the questions you bring up. Until then, everything is up for interpretation, based on our current system of law. If folks want to voice opinions on how things should be, fine, but at least give that disclaimer in their post. What I see happening is someone reading messages here by certain people, and thinking they have a right to automatically flee an officer, or resist the officer, based on what they "read on the internet." I would rather give people the actual case laws, the actual language, and have them make their own decision. People are giving sides like it is a white vs. black issue, when really there is a lot of gray due to lack of court rulings based on Indiana law.

Here is what I can see happening:
#1: Courts rule that OCing, absent anything else, doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking place. Everyone is happy. People in Indiana can OC so long as they don't point their firearm at someone.

#2: Courts rule that when you have laws like Indiana does, officers in those states do have the right to stop and detain to check to see if there is a violation. With #2 comes:

#2A: Does the officer have a right to disarm the person?
#2B: Does the officer have a right to handcuff the person?
#2C: Does the officer have a right to ask for photo ID to compare to the pink piece of paper to verify the info on the paper, which lacks a photo?
#2D: Does the mere showing of a pink piece of paper mean the officer has to cut the person loose?
#2E: Does the officer have a right to detain the person long enough to call in the license info to see if ISP has it listed as "suspended" "revoked" etc.?
#2F: Does the officer have a right to detain the person while they run a criminal history check to see if the person is a felon in possession, or has a domestic battery conviction, or has a protection order/no contact order which bars possession of a handgun?

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


Specifically, the bolded part?

That is a good case. The only problem I have with that part you put in bold type was the use of the word "or." Was the court saying that so long as there was one of the three, the officers couldn't take action? Or were they saying that since all three were present, the officers couldn't take action. Since Washington had to do with the guy being on private property, a porch, no crime was being committed. However, the officers claimed they took the gun for their protection, so that does play into it...but so does the fact that no crime was being committed since they were on private property.

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

The only questions I have with that is the fact that the officer made a claim that she (I believe it was a female) felt that licenses could be easily faked. They can, that's for sure. However, they state that she didn't check the license on her in car computer, which I don't even think is possible. I'm not sure if she checked it through dispatch or not.

Also, they use the words "circumstances" and "other conditions." Since this is a case based on LEO actions for a seat belt violation, I feel that those circumstances and other conditions they mention are specifically directed at those put in play during seat belt enforcement. Again, we could have some stupid laws come down in the future where for seat belt violations, the mere showing of the pink piece of paper is enough, but they could also rule that with other crimes or infractions, officers are allowed to run the license. Remember, the seat belt law is about minimization. The legislature wanted to minimize intrusion specifically for that law. Why all infractions aren't like this I don't know. My guess is that this was done to get it passed initially.

Another similar case is Shaft Jones v. State of Indiana. In that case, the officer gets the handgun license of a person stopped for no headlights. He runs the license and finds out it isn't good anymore. Now in this case, the person is already stopped for an infraction which isn't a seat belt infraction, so maybe that is why they didn't say anything about it.

OK, I knew there was a reason I thought that valid! Thanks for adding that!

It depends on how you read the ruling. Are they saying this based on the seat belt law, which to me is unlike anything else? Remember, there is more to that case than just MWAG. All factors must be considered, and I wouldn't bet my freedom on just one case, that specifically dealt with a very particular law in Indiana. The whole point of the seat belt law is to minimize law enforcement engagement with the passengers if the officer only has the people stopped for a seat belt violation.

If I'm carrying an AK47 down the road, what reasonable suspicion do you have that I am or have committed a crime? Because I have an AK47? A Police Officer has NO legal right to come up to me and ask for my LTCH or run my background for warrants or disqualifying offenses just because I'm carrying a gun.

There is no reasonable suspicion based on the carrying alone. Also, a police officer does have a legal right to come up to you and ask you for your LTCH. Of course you have the right to say no and keep walking. The officer, based solely on the carrying of an AK, doesn't have a right to detain/arrest you. Unlike the seat belt statue, there is no law saying officers can't just go up and engage a person out in public. As far as running your information, no while detaining you, that is for sure. However, it would be interesting how a court would rule if the officer were to know the person's info, run it then, or at a later time, and then find out the person was in violation due to a recent felony conviction, domestic battery conviction, etc.. The type of firearm does change things.

 

[samot]

they do what they want !

Although i admire the balls you fellas had in doing this I think more harm will come than good
I dony know
I still got ya backs

 

[Roadie]

they do what they want !

Although i admire the balls you fellas had in doing this I think more harm will come than good
I dony know
I still got ya backs

Can you elaborate on how "more harm will come than good"?

 

[Fargo]

I played enough verbal judo with them to keep me satisfied. I was not giving up my ltch for carrying a SBR. But then they asked if I was carrying a handgun(it was concealed) I said yes and gave up the license.

Just an FYI but I believe SBR's fall within the IC definition of handguns and you do need a LTCH to carry one.

IC 35-47-1-6
"Handgun"
Sec. 6. "Handgun" means any firearm:
(1) designed or adapted so as to be aimed and fired from one (1) hand, regardless of barrel length; or
(2) any firearm with:
(A) a barrel less than sixteen (16) inches in length; or
(B) an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

Best

Joe

 

[ATF Consumer]

Were the guns takes before or after the LTCH came back good?

I don't know about the exact timing on this, as once confronted by officer Highsmith, my attention to everything else was gone because I was dumbfounded by my rights being trampled by someone that didn't like being told no.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The only questions I have with that is the fact that the officer made a claim that she (I believe it was a female) felt that licenses could be easily faked. They can, that's for sure. However, they state that she didn't check the license on her in car computer, which I don't even think is possible. I'm not sure if she checked it through dispatch or not.

Also, they use the words "circumstances" and "other conditions." Since this is a case based on LEO actions for a seat belt violation, I feel that those circumstances and other conditions they mention are specifically directed at those put in play during seat belt enforcement. Again, we could have some stupid laws come down in the future where for seat belt violations, the mere showing of the pink piece of paper is enough, but they could also rule that with other crimes or infractions, officers are allowed to run the license. Remember, the seat belt law is about minimization. The legislature wanted to minimize intrusion specifically for that law. Why all infractions aren't like this I don't know. My guess is that this was done to get it passed initially.

She didn't run the LTCH through headquarters according to the ruling. The part about not running it through her car computer was about the criminal background check.

Officer Eastwood did not use her laptop computer in her patrol car to check Richardson‟s criminal history, nor did she check the validity of Richardson‟s handgun permit with headquarters.

Her asking questions about the bulge was found to be against the law because of the statute regarding seat belt stops. If their was a handgun in plain sight on the seat that may be a different story, same as if on a seat belt stop when the officer walks up and they roll the window down a large cloud of marijuana smelling smoke rolls out or if the person smells of alcohol and is slurring their words or if they see a dead hooker in the backseat with your buddy snorting lines off her belly. A bulge is not by itself an indication of a crime, so she couldn't ask about it during a seat-belt stop.

The ruling states that even if the line of questioning regarding the handgun was allowed that it should stop when a valid LTCH was produced. I agree that they can be easily faked, which during a valid stop I don't believe the courts would rule that a LEO would have to take it on face value and couldn't call it in to make sure it was valid.

But that is just my and IANAL

 

[machete]

Stories like this make me mad but I see them all the time these days.

I dont get it,,,I wear a gun for my safety and the cop wears one for his safety.

How come, his safety is more important than mine? How come ATFConsumer, a real hero, can't tell the cop sure, as soon as you take off your gun and give it to me?

Just who is in charge in this country the people or the government?

Isn't is supposed to be by the people, for the people.

I just dont get it. Did y'all hear about the guy in Vegas who was gunned down by the cops for CCing in Costco? Right in front of his wife, while complying with the cops orders and nothing happened to the cops. I say ATFConsumer should say a prayer he's still on the green side of the grass.

Here's the story. The just killed this boy. This is Randy Weaver bad.

Shoppers recount police shooting outside Costco - Las Vegas Sun

I just remembered how about the guy who was OCing on his own land in one state and was gunned down by cops from another state. Here's that story

Caddo Lawyer Killed By Law Officers - Local News Story - KTBS Shreveport

Everyone says vote republican. Whatever,,, the republicans are good on the economics but they are the strongest supporters of police power and nothing is done to cops while they are in charge.

I wish I knew what we could do to really take back the country.

 

[Joe Williams]

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




Demand? Who here thinks they even should?

I don't think they should.

 

[PatriotPride]

I still ask.Why look for trouble?

You know what? I'm still asking, "WHY CAUSE ME TROUBLE?!?" Anyone got a VALID answer to that? I'm still waiting.

There's a whole lot of stupid in this thread. You don't like OC? Good for you. I would hope that the petty "CC vs OC" argument could be set aside for JUST ONE THREAD, and the real issue could be discussed. The officers took the law and wiped their asses with it, plain and simple. They declared themselves to be the enemies of law-abiding citizens, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Their behavior was unacceptable.

That's not the America WE should be living in.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Just an FYI but I believe SBR's fall within the IC definition of handguns and you do need a LTCH to carry one.



Best

Joe

The ATF says different since it has a stock attached.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

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. snip

A deliberate untruth. A fantasy of anti-gunners, but devoid of reality. A thug's wet dream, spouted and supported only by those who hate our freedoms, our rights, and who hope to cow American citizens.

You know full well that multiple federal courts have said you are wrong. You are simply saying what you want the law to be, not what it actually is.

 

[GeneralCarver]

That is basically what I said.
After they had called in our ID's and everything came back , they continued to detain us and the officers slowly walked around all of us, checking that state of our weapons. When officer "Abuser" saw that I had my hammer back and unlocked, he questioned me as to why I had it like that and I explained to him that in the training I have been in up to now has proven that memory movements and unlocking your handgun can cause unwanted delay in reaction and I wanted to be in the "ready state" if I needed to use it.
He then continued to grill me with questions, like "what training?" and "who was your trainer?" and some other questions I don't recall exactly, but then he asked me if there was one in the chamber and I said "yes, don't you have one in yours?"
He then commanded me to de-cock and remove my magazine and I refused saying "No, sir...I will not"
That's when he reached for his cuffs and I pretty much knew where it was going from there. I proceeded to ask, "what law have I violated?" and it was not answered but I was told I was being cuffed for officer's safety.

I want to vent here brothers, so bear with me if you read this, I don't mean to offend anyone, I just want to get my say in on this.


ATF. Brother, you have a 5th Amendment right. You should have been using it I think. Its hard to do because you will want to "talk" your way out of things or "calm" down the officers. Face your fears of being quiet. You knew you were behaving legally. The cops know they can "put heat" on your via questioning and intimidation and perhaps get you to say something they can use against you.

Look, I can't prove this, but reading about this whole scene and knowing what I know about typical cop behavior (via relatives I got in police) they were trying to find something to arrest you guys on. They probably had their minds made up before they even got tot he scene. And when they were having there little "pow wow" meeting while you guys were cuffed, its because they were trying to figure out what they can "get you" on.

I would strongly encourage you next time to NOT talk with the police when they are getting into the "21 questions" experience with them. Yeah, if something specific happened and they want your scoop on it.. ok, but don't talk too much. They mean it when they say it .... "ANything you say or do can be used against you". That's why they kept asking you questions, they were trying to shake you up and get you to say something they can go on to arrest and charge you.

You don't need to reveal anything to the police. Anything. Nothing. Don't let them scare you that if you don't answer all their bull**** questions that somehow your going to get in trouble. Pure nonsense. Those questions he asked you about your weapon, I would not have even responded to those. He would have got a nice long silence out of me.

Look, if you are guilty of something you are NEVER going to be able to talk your way out of it by answering questions. So when they are questioning you its because they are TRYING to get you on something.

More power to you guys. I'm glad there are people out there who have the courage to do what you guys do. The first chance I get to go to an INGO event, I am. Looking forward to it. I think that little incidents like this are good courage building exercises for sticking up for your rights. +1 to you all. : )

 

[PatriotPride]

I don't think they should.

I'd go as far as refuse! The last thing I need is a jumpy police officer telling me to touch my weapon. No thanks. I make a movement he doesn't like, he fills his pants with s*** and puts 3 holes in my chest.

 

[wag1911]

Why not inform IMPD of the plans to OC?

It was a bunch of like minded guys going to lunch together AND open carrying. If we need to inform IMPD of this so that they can brush up on the law then we are in a very sad state of affairs.

 

[PatriotPride]

I wish I knew what we could do to really take back the country.

I know. BUT, we can't discuss it here. Welcome to INGO!