LEO stops and asking about weapons - Catch 22

[rw496]

Cops don't know IC, why would we expect them to know case law? They don't and I don't expect them to. Its YOUR job to know your rights, the law, case law AND how it applies.

I do.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Police can really ask you anything they want to during a stop so long as it doesn't prolong the detention. Kirk is right though, you are under no obligation to answer although people usually do. The exception is when a traffic stop is made under the seatbelt enforcement act to determine compliance. In that case you can't ask anything of an investigatory nature. That is really what Richardson is about..IMO...although I do not sit on the Indiana Supremem Court.

I do.

Obviously not...

 

[rw496]

​

I re-read Richardson just for you, Frost, and I just can't see any other interpretation. Maybe you can enlighten me. It is always fun when those who are not judges, including cops and lawyers, try to interpret a specific case law and apply it to every situation.
"The trial court concluded that this inquiry went beyond that au-thorized by Indiana‟s Seatbelt Enforcement Act. We agree with the trial court‟s determination"
"Because we resolve Richardson‟s claim on statutory grounds, we do not address Richardson‟s constitutional arguments."

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I re-read Richardson just for you, Frost, and I just can't see any other interpretation. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Read this one: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

The fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning

 

[rw496]

The fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning

That's true, but questioning during detention is a constitutional issue; the ruling in this case was decided on statutory grounds meaning that the wording of the Indiana Seatbelt Statute prohibited the questioning in this case, not that this type of questioning would be prohibited under different circumstances such as stopped for speeding

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That's true, but questioning during detention is a constitutional issue; the ruling in this case was decided on statutory grounds meaning that the wording of the Indiana Seatbelt Statute prohibited the questioning in this case, not that this type of questioning would be prohibited under different circumstances such as stopped for speeding

Yes, and what I quoted was from the addendum to the ruling. The stop was good (seatbelt), how it was conducted was bad (questioning and detention), and the first trial was bad. Those are three different parts that require the appeals court to send out a multi point ruling plus whatever else they want to clarify while they are at it.

 

[DragonGunner]

Obviously not...

I thought the same thing...LMAO.

 

[Hoosierdood]

If Richardson only pertains to seatbelt infractions, then this quote:

The fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning

should have read something like this:

The fact remains that Richardson's stop for a seatbelt violation should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning

Since the court ruled that the production of a valid LTCH should have terminated further questioning, it makes it pretty clear, that this was not about a seatbelt stop, but about what should happen once a valid LTCH is produced under any normal traffic stop.

 

[rw496]

Yes, and what I quoted was from the addendum to the ruling. The stop was good (seatbelt), how it was conducted was bad (questioning and detention), and the first trial was bad. Those are three different parts that require the appeals court to send out a multi point ruling plus whatever else they want to clarify while they are at it.

Maybe I don't understand exactly what your position is because I agree with all of that. The stop was legal, the questioning was bad..because of the wording of the seatbelt enforcement act..and the trial was bad. I believe the same questioning under different circumstances would be permissible. Is your position otherwise?

 

[thebishopp]

Somebody rep Titanium_Frost for me; I'm out.

Got em.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Maybe I don't understand exactly what your position is because I agree with all of that. The stop was legal, the questioning was bad..because of the wording of the seatbelt enforcement act..and the trial was bad. I believe the same questioning under different circumstances would be permissible. Is your position otherwise?

You keep adding that it was because of the seatbelt law. That is what I disagree with. The same questioning during a different stop would have been just as illegal.

It was two tiers of questioning. Both were wrong. The first was wrong only because of the seatbelt law. The second (the one we are intersted in) was illegal because he produced a valid LTCH.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Summary of Richardson: (all quotes taken directly from Richardson court documents)

Richardson was stopped for no seatbelt, searched, and found carrying a firearm and cocaine.

QUESTION: Was the search allowed pursuant to a seatbelt violation stop?

ANSWER: Under normal circumstances where the subject is cooperative, an officer cannot go on a "fishing expedition".

cautioning that a traffic stop based solely upon the failure of the driver or the passenger to wear a seat belt does not provide reasonable suspicion for the officer to “unilaterally expand [an] investigation and „fish‟ for evidence of other possible crimes.

If the subject is not cooperative, or if the subject is displaying actions that may be construed to be questionable, the officer may ask if the subject has any weapons. *This is separate from a stop for a seatbelt violation.*

Did Officer Eastwood‟s inquiry, during a traffic stop for a seat belt violation, regarding a “large, unusual bulge” in the defendant‟s pocket, cross the line? The State relies on our decision in State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1207-08 (Ind. 2008), to contend that Officer Eastwood‟s inquiry was entirely proper because under Section 11, an officer may ask a motorist whether he or she has weapon on his person.

In this totally separate line of questioning that has absolutely nothing to do with the seatbelt violation (since the courts determined that being pulled over for a seatbelt violation does not give authority to the police to pursue further questioning), must be substantiated with reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to take place. Richardson's "unusual bulge" did not meet the requirements of reasonable suspicion.

While Officer Eastwood did observe an “unusual bulge,” this fact standing alone did not provide the independent basis of reasonable suspicion that Baldwin requires, especially in light of Richardson‟s immediate compliance and Officer Eastwood‟s prior peaceful exchanges with Richardson.

The court then goes beyond the ACTUAL facts in Richardson to clarify its position. Even if there was reasonable suspicion (separate from the seatbelt violation), once the valid LTCH is produced, questioning should stop immediately.

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 7production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning

 

[rw496]

On these facts, we agree with the trial court that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the "unusual bulge" contravened the Act.
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.

All of that precedes your quote. I think it clearly states it was because of the statutory wording. Richardson is not about seatbelt infractions it is about limiting police authority under the Seatbelt Enforcement Act to stop motorists without probable cause to determine compliance. It does this by only allowing officers to handle the seatbelt matter and not investigate anything further without RS.

 

[Hoosierdood]

All of that precedes your quote. I think it clearly states it was because of the statutory wording. Richardson is not about seatbelt infractions it is about limiting police authority under the Seatbelt Enforcement Act to stop motorists without probable cause to determine compliance. It does this by only allowing officers to handle the seatbelt matter and not investigate anything further without RS.

But with their ruling, they in essence stated that once a valid LTCH is produced, there is no longer any case for "reasonable suspicion". Does this definition of RS only pertain to seatbelt violations?

 

[Hammerhead]

 

[thebishopp]

All of that precedes your quote. I think it clearly states it was because of the statutory wording. Richardson is not about seatbelt infractions it is about limiting police authority under the Seatbelt Enforcement Act to stop motorists without probable cause to determine compliance. It does this by only allowing officers to handle the seatbelt matter and not investigate anything further without RS.

I believe the key quote is this:


"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" (emphasis added by me).

It's pretty straight forward. They are saying that even if the situation was such that questioning of the bulge was proper (say any other type of stop that did not have the restrictions that the seat belt statute has) then the showing of the valid gun permit should have stopped any more questioning about it.

 

[rw496]

But with their ruling, they in essence stated that once a valid LTCH is produced, there is no longer any case for "reasonable suspicion". Does this definition of RS only pertain to seatbelt violations?

No, I agree with that completely. What I am saying is that in this case no further questioning is permitted because of the Act. For example I could not ask for consent to search the car. In other circumstances, I could still ask other questions so long as it didn't unreasonably lengthen the stop..such as permission to search. With the Act, RS is needed to ask anything else, not so with other infractions so long as I don't lengthen the stop.
"the statute requires that when a stop to determine seat belt law compliance is made, the police are strictly prohibited from determining anything else, even if other law would permit."

 

[thebishopp]

No, I agree with that completely. What I am saying is that in this case no further questioning is permitted because of the Act. For example I could not ask for consent to search the car. In other circumstances, I could still ask other questions so long as it didn't unreasonably lengthen the stop..such as permission to search. With the Act, RS is needed to ask anything else, not so with other infractions so long as I don't lengthen the stop.
"the statute requires that when a stop to determine seat belt law compliance is made, the police are strictly prohibited from determining anything else, even if other law would permit."

Ok keep on going to:

"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" (emphasis added by me).

Clearly stating "even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper" (if the stop was for anything OTHER than the seat belt statute and said statute did not have the same restrictions as the seat belt statute THUS making the "questioning about the bulge proper"), that the production of the valid gun permit "should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning".

 

[Denny347]

Our legal dept has stated that this is about the legality of a seat belt stop and search/after that stop. We cannot search persons or vehicles from a seat belt stop only. There needs to be a "new" crime involved. A bulge was not enough to warrant further action. Any other traffic infractions would have been OK. However, IC for seat belt is quite specific to what we can and cannot do. I'm no legal expert but our legal experts are saying this does not extend outside of seat belt stops.

 

[Hammerhead]

Actually the key quote is the whole paragraph. I'm going to summarize because it's been posted already, but here:

There will be times... (at some point, some officer will be able to ask). This is not one of them (this situation is not what we mean, because of the seatbelt act [...we agree with the trial court]). And even if the facts were such...production of a valid [LTCH] should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning (in this situation, if she'd had the authority to ask, his valid LTCH meant the gun was legal and she had no further PC or RAS).

Here's how the law and case law helps to protect you.

1) Terry stops: There must be evidence of a crime being or having been committed, or you're a danger. If neither one is met, you cannot be "frisked" as carry itself isn't PC or RAS of a crime. Yes, I know that carry in IN is a crime if you are not properly licensed. Produce a valid LTCH - no crime, no Terry stop.

2) Washington: Cooperative and removed from [vehicle, weapon], officer safety isn't valid for a search. For example - if you're asked to step out, explain that you are going to remove your sidearm very carefully and place it in your vehicle, lock the door and step away and the officer now has no PC or RAS to search your vehicle or seize your property. This is only an example and is in no way a recommendation (Coonfinger Clause). However, if you store a/your weapon in your vehicle not on your person while you're driving, the same applies. Leave it, shut and lock the door, step towards the rear of the vehicle, Officer Safety can go take a hike.

3) Richardson: The production of a valid LTCH ends further inquiry into your firearm. If you're legal, they have no PC or RAS to involve the firearm further in the interaction, as legal carry isn't a crime.

4) IC 35-47-14-3 Warrantless seizure of a firearm from an individual believed to be dangerous: A LEO must be able to provide proof that you're a danger to the court if he seizes your firearm without a warrant. If you are cooperative (playing nice not giving up your rights) then there should be no "being dangerous" involved. People say all the time that an officer disarmed them, and the officer runs the numbers or whatever, then gives the firearm back in various states of discombobulation. DO NOT ACCEPT THE FIREARM BACK if you are disarmed. Do not resist either. This is a warrantless seizure and if he cannot articulate that you're a danger (you aren't being one, are you?) then he has violated the law and your civil rights. Section C of this law says that this does not allow for a seizure to happen if a warrant was required otherwise.

Learning the laws of carry that pertain to self defense and where/when/how you can carry are good, but you cannot overlook these either as they protect your rights when officially interacting with LEOs.

Basic advice is to stay calm, stay quiet, and keep a recording device in your pocket.