LEO stops and asking about weapons - Catch 22

[rw496]

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"

The part you added in parentheses is incorrect. My point is that they meant proper under Baldwin meaning that Eastwood had reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry of a person stopped under the seatbelt Act about his bulge. The production of a LTCH removed any reasonable suspicion and questioning should have stopped. Other infractions don't require reasonable suspicion to ask questions of an investigative nature.
While Officer East-wood did observe an "unusual bulge," this fact standing alone did not provide the independent basis of reasonable suspicion that Baldwin requires

 

[rw496]

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.

Thank you.

 

[magiaaron]

7. Some n00b will be in shortly to say "Just show the cop your permit along with your license whenever a cop asks, it makes the stop go better, the cop more comfortable, you will end up with a warning, he will invite you to his house for coffee and donuts, the stop will end with a hug and a kiss or some other crap.

Like Massad Ayoob?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s

-Aaron

 

[Indy317]

If I understand this correctly, Washington vs Indiana says that if you present your LTCH then all other questions regarding firearms should be discontinued.

Washington was about a vehicle search. It basically said the following: If an officer has driver with a firearm in the vehicle, and they removed the person from the vehicle, and the person gives no indication of possibly being a danger to the LEO, the LEO can't use "officer safety" as a reason to go into the vehicle and obtain the weapon.

I think the LTCH reporting during a traffic stop prevents ANY questions about firearms.

Right? Wrong? What do you think? Wheres Kirk?

Officer can ask you about firearms if they want. Remember, most of the time they aren't going to have your driver's license info to run, meaning they aren't going to get that LTCH info until after they obtain your license and return to their vehicle. I think there is an issue of how officers ask. Most of these appeal case point out the officers testify how they make it a routine thing to ask about firearms. I think if it isn't routine, the officer has to give valid reasons for asking.

1. Its Richarson, not Washington on that note.

2. Anyone can ASK anything they want at any time.

Not if the officer is stopping a person for a seat-belt infraction. That law specifically limits "fishing."

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

should have read something like this:


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.

If folks want to argue over verbiage, so be it. I fully read Richardson as applying to laws where "fishing" is limited. If folks want to apply it to every infraction in the criminal code, more power to them. Next time an officer sees the LTCH and then dares to ask further questions, I guess lawyers will be lined up around the block to take the slam dunk civil rights violation case? I read the simple paragraph at the begging. rw496 already posted it. If folks want to believe one part of an entire ruling as they see fit, more power to them.

rw496, you are wasting your breath. Some will take one sentence out of one circumstance that has many specifics attached to it and apply it to everything under the sun. They should be trying like hard to get pulled over, flashing the LTCH right as the officer reaches the window, and then suing when the officer ask the first question about the gun. They aren't, because they would have no case.

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.

But as another posted pointed out, wouldn't the court have specifically stated that? You can't have it both ways. You can't say a sentence or two from one specific case with many attributes now applies to any traffic stop involving any infraction. The safe bet is that they were talking about all this stuff under the umbrella of just the seat belt act. However, if folks think this applies to everything under the sun, so be it.

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.

Yes, ignore everything about the seat belt law restrictions....that makes a ton of sense

 

[Hammerhead]

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.

Yes, the INSC agreed with the trial court's initial ruling that the search was illegal because of the seatbelt stop. They said that because Mr. Richardson cooperated with Officer Eastwood and admitted that he forgot (or whatever the conversation was) she should have moved on. She, however, decided to do a little fishing as LEOs are wont to do. ("Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?" sorry)

Anyway, the INSC ruled that the trial court had it right, that she should have stopped there. However, they also input that one paragraph at the end of Section I of the Discussion that is worded the way it is. They quote several other cases they have had previously that say that a limited search or questioning about weapons is ok, if the other person is or is known to be a danger. The line "There will of course be times..." is a statement based on those other cases. "This is not one of them." - refers specifically to that traffic stop under the seatbelt act. "Even if the facts were such..." - Even if for ANY other reason she could have asked, his valid LTCH ends further inquiry.

It's not just about the seatbelt act or stops involved therein. They acknowledged that in all the rest of Section I of the Discussion. That last line about "production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning" speaks to any other official interaction between citizens and LEOs.

 

[rugertoter]

If I understand this correctly, Washington vs Indiana says that if you present your LTCH then all other questions regarding firearms should be discontinued.

I also understand that in some areas LEO know about your LTCH at some time or another. Either when they run your plate or license.

Isn't it therefor inferred that since they already know, that no questions about firearms are allowed? What is the difference between the computer telling them any you telling them?

I think the LTCH reporting during a traffic stop prevents ANY questions about firearms.

Right? Wrong? What do you think? Wheres Kirk?

We have a member of our family that is on the Sheriff Department, and he told me that when they pull up your information on their laptops, your CC permits come up already. By the time he/she comes back to return your licence/registration/insurance, they already know that you are permitted to carry a weapon. Indiana is not one of the ten states that require you to offer that information from the start, but I personally would just hand them my permits along with the other information. I know some guys are pretty hard core about this, but frankly I don't sweat such stuff as letting them know I am armed. (As long as they stay within the limits of the law themselves, if not, then I'll see them in court)

 

[Titanium_Frost]

We have a member of our family that is on the Sheriff Department, and he told me that when they pull up your information on their laptops, your CC permits come up already. By the time he/she comes back to return your licence/registration/insurance, they already know that you are permitted to carry a weapon. Indiana is not one of the ten states that require you to offer that information from the start, but I personally would just hand them my permits along with the other information. I know some guys are pretty hard core about this, but frankly I don't sweat such stuff as letting them know I am armed. (As long as they stay within the limits of the law themselves, if not, then I'll see them in court)

PROPHECY FULFILLED!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hammerhead]

Let me put it this way:

Yes, the INSC stated that specifically Richardson's case, i.e. the one they were ruling on and that this ruling is speaking about, the stop was handled inappropriately by Officer Eastwood under the seatbelt act. Officer Eastwood should not have proceeded further with her fishing expedition because of the lack of any element of "danger" from Mr. Richardson. On that basis, they have ruled the search illegal and agreed with the trial court that seatbelt act = no fishing.

They have also stated that there will be conditions that allow a police officer to conduct further inquiry. They do not articulate that these conditions are solely connected to the seatbelt act, rather they state "something more than an 'unusual bulge,' or other conditions" that give "reasonable suspicion" to conduct that further inquiry. This, I believe, is where you're getting hung up.

"This [Officer Eastwood's seatbelt stop of Mr. Richardson] is not one of them." It wasn't. They've already stated that she overstepped the seatbelt act, and are separating this specific traffic stop from other traffic stops under any "other circumstances."

Even if she could have asked about his bulge under those "other circumstances" his valid LTCH stops the inquiry.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Long story short...

Richardson limits how much police can fish for information during a seatbelt stop. It also states that reasonable suspicion is removed once a valid LTCH has been produced.

 

[rw496]

Long story short...

Richardson limits how much police can fish for information during a seatbelt stop. It also states that reasonable suspicion is removed once a valid LTCH has been produced.

Yes..Amen.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

[/THREAD]

 

[thebishopp]

Long story short...

Richardson limits how much police can fish for information during a seatbelt stop. It also states that reasonable suspicion is removed once a valid LTCH has been produced.

This will never be resolved until either someone gets the AG's opinion on if the ruling applies only to seat belt stops or an officer gets in a situation where this is a factor and then the person actually takes it to court.


As far as the AG is concerned, maybe if enough of us ask they will issue a formal opinion:

http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/

After all:

"The Office of the Indiana Attorney General helps protect the rights, freedoms and safety you enjoy as a citizen of the Hoosier state. Attorney General Greg Zoeller and his staff are dedicated to meeting the state's legal needs, as well as the needs and interests of its citizens."

 

[Indy317]

They have also stated that there will be conditions that allow a police officer to conduct further inquiry.

Yes. Further inquiry while enforcing the seat belt act. Everything is tied back to that. If folks don't want to believe it, so be it. I guess we should be hearing about all those INGOers who will be winning five figure lawsuit payouts soon enough.

They do not articulate that these conditions are solely connected to the seatbelt act, rather they state "something more than an 'unusual bulge,' or other conditions" that give "reasonable suspicion" to conduct that further inquiry. This, I believe, is where you're getting hung up.

Not hung up at all. To entirely dismiss half the opinion, and claim a portion is 100% separate case law is illogical. The entire opinion is tied, everything connected, to the seat belt enforcement act.

It also states that reasonable suspicion is removed once a valid LTCH has been produced.

Only in conjunction with the seat belt enforcement act.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Only in conjunction with the seat belt enforcement act.

So my question that I have asked already in this thread, but has yet to be answered... Is "reasonable suspicion" held to a different standard on seat belt violations than it is in every other stop?

Or can it be construed to mean that even if I am pulled over and the officer knows that I have a firearm as well as a valid LTCH, that he cannot take that firearm for "officer safety" and take it back to his cruiser and run the numbers?

Does it eliminate "reasonable suspicion" as is necessary for the confiscation of a firearm under IC 35-47-13-3?

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

 

[thebishopp]

So my question that I have asked already in this thread, but has yet to be answered... Is "reasonable suspicion" held to a different standard on seat belt violations than it is in every other stop?

Or can it be construed to mean that even if I am pulled over and the officer knows that I have a firearm as well as a valid LTCH, that he cannot take that firearm for "officer safety" and take it back to his cruiser and run the numbers?

Does it eliminate "reasonable suspicion" as is necessary for the confiscation of a firearm under IC 35-47-13-3?

The argument that the people and/or agencies are using is exactly that. They are not seeing anything after "seat belt". Their position seems to be that anything and everything that was said only pertains to "seat belt" violations and are choosing to disregard anything else.

Like I said, until there is an AG opinion (which local departments may still try to do what they want anyway) or a case where an officer pulls someone over for, let's say speeding, and the same thing happens and it's thrown out for the same reasons the argument is still going to be that it only applies to "seat belt" stops.

Unfortunately I am willing to bet that even if such a thing were to occur the next argument will be that it only applies to "seat belt" and "speeding" and then another court case will have to happen for a different offense and so on and so on and so on.

Let's put it a different way. The recent court ruling that Police can enter your home and you can't resist even if that entry was unlawful.

The case was based off a domestic disturbance call. Does that mean the court ruling only means you can't resist if the police are there for a domestic disturbance call? Based on the argument by the "it only applies to seat belt stops" then I would say yes.

Sadly one of the problems is that most people do not fight this stuff in court. They take plea deals or just pay the fine.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This will never be resolved until either someone gets the AG's opinion on if the ruling applies only to seat belt stops or an officer gets in a situation where this is a factor and then the person actually takes it to court.

The AG's opinion???

 

[Indy317]

So my question that I have asked already in this thread, but has yet to be answered... Is "reasonable suspicion" held to a different standard on seat belt violations than it is in every other stop?

Reasonable suspicion is there, the officer sees the driver driving w/o wearing a seat belt. Cops don't need reasonable suspicion to ask questions, they need reasonable suspicion to lawfully detain. Run a stop sign, don't wear your seat belt, etc., that is your reasonable suspicion to stop and detain. The detainment for traffic infractions has been ruled on many, many years ago. I believe it is 20 mins. There are various case rulings about what officers may or may not do during that time frame. Officers are free to ask any questions they want, but they shouldn't pro-long the traffic stop anymore than is need to check license, plate, and issue ticket/warning.

The argument that the people and/or agencies are using is exactly that. They are not seeing anything after "seat belt". Their position seems to be that anything and everything that was said only pertains to "seat belt" violations and are choosing to disregard anything else.

That is because the issue is about limitations under the Seat Belt Enforcement act. Others here want to totally dismiss anything to do with this act, even though the court specifically wrote that is what the ruling is about. To try and separate a handful of sentences within this ruling seems strange to me. I'm not disregarding anything. It is actually the other way around. Folks are taking a few sentences here and there and are actually disregarding anything to do with the seat belt enforcement act. I'm saying everything is attached, others are detaching a few things here and there and claiming it is the law of the land for every situation imaginable.

From the case:

Defendant Robert Richardson was stopped for driving his pickup truck without wearing a seatbelt. The police officer‟s subsequent inquiry regarding a “large, unusual bulge” in his pocket led to the discovery of cocaine. The trial court concluded that this inquiry went beyond that authorized by Indiana‟s Seatbelt Enforcement Act. We agree with the trial court‟s determination.

 

[Rookie]

Let's say that this stop was only about seatbelts. If it was only about seatbelts then what this mean?
"And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the bulge was proper..."

 

[SSGSAD]

Long story short...

Richardson limits how much police can fish for information during a seatbelt stop. It also states that reasonable suspicion is removed once a valid LTCH has been produced.

My question is, does this ONLY pertain to SB stops, or ALL TRAFFIC stops ???

 

[Indy317]

Let's say that this stop was only about seatbelts. If it was only about seatbelts then what this mean?
"And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the bulge was proper..."

Well, since I believe this is all tied to the limitations of the seat belt act I believe the justices were simple stating the following: If they had ruled that asking such a question was proper under the limitations of the act, the immediate showing of the LTCH should have ceased any further questioning because the officer has limitations in regards to "fishing" given the law she was enforcing."

For example, they courts have already ruled there are some exceptions to the limitations. They listed one or more in their ruling. If the officer had heard the guy say anything about having a handgun with him, then saw a bulge, maybe the court would have said "OK, for officer safety reasons, asking about the bulge would be allowable. However, as soon as the driver produced a LTCH, given the limitations placed onto the officer, no further questioning would be allowed."

My question is, does this ONLY pertain to SB stops, or ALL TRAFFIC stops ???

That is what this back and forth is about. Some folks want to separate a few sentences and claim that wording applies to all traffic stops. Others say that the entire ruling is connected, and everything written/ruled was done so with the limitations of the act in mind, and thus is attached to that specific law.