LEO stops and asking about weapons - Catch 22

[Titanium_Frost]

Reps to Denny.
That law was clearly written to remove any and all guns from the possession of a person that the court deems to be dangerous, one that would do harm to another individual.
There is obviously not time for
during a traffic stop.

Yet there is plenty of time to do it later with the rest of their paperwork after the stop.

 

[Denny347]

Reps to Denny.
That law was clearly written to remove any and all guns from the possession of a person that the court deems to be dangerous, one that would do harm to another individual.
There is obviously not time for
during a traffic stop.

Yes, then they set a court date so the judge can decide to give the firearms back or destroy them.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This law ONLY addresses mentally ill/dangerous persons. It allows us to seize guns from persons that we either, ID (Immediate Detention), involved in a domestic disturbance and one party is in fear of the other and their guns, etc. You will not find a judge to read this law any other way. Do not take pieces away from it to make a point. You must look at the entire law to know what it is for and how it can be applied. I am quite certain that case law allows LEO's to seize firearms during the course of a traffic stop. It has been a long time since I looked it up.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to figure this stuff out. Could you please show me where it is only limited to mentally ill and domestic disturbances?

I agree that it only applies to a dangerous individual. I am not a dangerous person and it is up to the cop to prove that I am when he seizes my weapon. If he cannot, then obviously this law does not give them authority to seize it and the court will return it to me.

I have a meeting with Guy today, I'll run this by him if he has time and see if I'm looking at this right.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

 

[ATM]

...I think this would be a great test for someone who relishes in the additional scrutiny (ATM, paging ATM ).

Wife: I don't like scrutiny!

ATM: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your scrutiny. I love it!
I'm having scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, baked beans, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny and scrutiny!

Vikings (singing in background): Scrutiny scrutiny scrutiny scrutiny...

 

[Dirc]

Can't you file a civil suit whether you accept the gun back from the officer or not?

 

[Denny347]

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to figure this stuff out. Could you please show me where it is only limited to mentally ill and domestic disturbances?

I agree that it only applies to a dangerous individual. I am not a dangerous person and it is up to the cop to prove that I am when he seizes my weapon. If he cannot, then obviously this law does not give them authority to seize it and the court will return it to me.

I have a meeting with Guy today, I'll run this by him if he has time and see if I'm looking at this right.

Read the definitions, that is what the law describes and was enacted for.
Some background to the law:
PsychiatryOnline | Psychiatric Services | Application of a Firearm Seizure Law Aimed at Dangerous Persons: Outcomes From the First Two Years

There are not many decisions about officer taking firearms during the course of a traffic stop then giving them back at the conclusion. As well as running Serial numbers once in hand. Here are a few.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955287.P.pdf
ARIZONA V. HICKS, 480 U. S. 321 :: Volume 480 :: 1987 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf

 

[Denny347]

Can't you file a civil suit whether you accept the gun back from the officer or not?

You can file a civil suit for just about anything. True or not.

 

[Claddagh]

Wife: I don't like scrutiny!

ATM: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your scrutiny. I love it!
I'm having scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, baked beans, scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny and scrutiny!

Vikings (singing in background): Scrutiny scrutiny scrutiny scrutiny...

LMAO! I'd rep you for that, if you hadn't disabled yours.

 

[thebishopp]

A couple points:


1. Arizona V. Hicks was a case where the officers responded to a report of a shot fired and someone injured. Anything the court says can only apply to that situation (based on the current Richardson only applies to seat belt stop argument). For the rest of us that do not hold that point... the question would be does Arizona have a similar law that regulates when an officer may "disarm" or "seize" a firearm from a lawfully carrying citizen? If not then this case law is not valid.


2. USA V Baker was a case where the person failed to stop at a stop sign. Again based on the Richardson Seat Belt Stop Case this would only pertain if an officer pulled someone over for failing to stop at a red light. Also, if Maryland does not have a similar law to Indiana's which specifies when a lawfully carrying citizen may be disarmed then this case is also invalid.

3. New Mexico V Ketelson. Again same argument. Subject stopped for expired tags. Court opinion only applies in those situations. Also, does NM have a law which regulates when an officer may disarm a lawfully armed citizen similar to Indiana's?

It is my understanding that "officer safety" in Indiana doesn't mean that you can seize a lawfully armed citizens firearm "just because" and that if you do so you must be able to state actual reasons before a judge to back up your call. Essentially explaining why you felt they were both "armed" and "dangerous" with the fact that they are "armed" not automatically indicating they are "dangerous" to the officer.

Failing to do so could result in civil action against the department and possibly against the leo as an individual.

I do not think there has been a case in Indiana (the lawyers on this site may be able to verify that) mostly because people who had their weapons "seized" for unlawful reasons are just happy to get their guns back and the one's who had their weapons "seized" for valid reasons have no basis for a civil action.

In the end it's going to take a "test" case to settle this debate.

 

[Rookie]

Read the definitions, that is what the law describes and was enacted for.
Some background to the law:
PsychiatryOnline | Psychiatric Services | Application of a Firearm Seizure Law Aimed at Dangerous Persons: Outcomes From the First Two Years

There are not many decisions about officer taking firearms during the course of a traffic stop then giving them back at the conclusion. As well as running Serial numbers once in hand. Here are a few.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955287.P.pdf
ARIZONA V. HICKS, 480 U. S. 321 :: Volume 480 :: 1987 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf

The first definition is an imminent risk. The second definition refers to loony bins.

14.3 refers to warrantless seizure if the person fits any definition of dangerous.

 

[Rookie]

Btw, Arizona vs Hicks seems to back the belief that officers have no legal right to seize your weapon. A weapon has nothing to do with a traffic violation, especially if the person is licensed to carry.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Using cases like that makes the argument that Richardson is only about seatbelts look foolish. How can a case from a different state that has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about be relevant but a case from IN doesn't?

That doesn't make sense to me. Bishop summed it up nicely.

 

[Denny347]

Using cases like that makes the argument that Richardson is only about seatbelts look foolish. How can a case from a different state that has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about be relevant but a case from IN doesn't?

That doesn't make sense to me. Bishop summed it up nicely.

Feel free to provide clarification by becoming a test case. You do not think judges consider case law from other jurisdictions? Who sounds foolish now? Look we are talking about legal concepts that are similar. If you feel so strongly that I am wrong...do something about it. We have NO legal directives reversing this practice so it will continue until that happens. I do appreciate hearing your OPINION in the matter, something we have in great supply here.

 

[rw496]

During the course of a non-seatbelt stop prior to the purpose of the stop being completed, the police can ask you questions about your weapon even if a LTCH has been produced. They simply may not prolong the stop to do so. You, of course are free to answer or not as you wish.

Fargo gets it.

 

[rw496]

 

[blamecharles]

Feel free to provide clarification by becoming a test case. You do not think judges consider case law from other jurisdictions? How sounds foolish now? Look we are talking about legal concepts that are similar. If you feel so strongly that I am wrong...do something about it. We have NO legal directives reversing this practice so it will continue until that happens. I do appreciate hearing your OPINION in the matter, something we have in great supply here.

I will volunteer. Let's go get some coffee at speedway Emerson and stop 11 is my favorite. There are always LEO there and I OC there everyday. I will be OCing you can ask for my LTCH at which point I will show you it(it's valid & lifetime) then let the test begin. I will not be giving you any reason to think I am dangerous and will be glad to have 30 cops there if you want.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Feel free to provide clarification by becoming a test case.

I think I will let my track record speak for itself on that one

You do not think judges consider case law from other jurisdictions? How sounds foolish now? Look we are talking about legal concepts that are similar.

Of COURSE I think they matter. I was the one earlier trying to link other cases and I was met with cops saying that Richardson ONLY applied to seatbelt stops. They kept restricting the results. I agree that any case law matters across the board as long as there is not a conflicting law already on the books.

If you feel so strongly that I am wrong...do something about it. We have NO legal directives reversing this practice so it will continue until that happens. I do appreciate hearing your OPINION in the matter, something we have in great supply here.

Yes, I feel you are wrong in your narrow interpretation of it but generally correct in princible. I have an OPINION on it, but my OPINION has been correct several times before and I imagine it may be correct again!

I appreciate this dialog. At least we can actually accomplish something...

 

[blamecharles]

I do want to add that I have grown to respect your thoughts on many cases presented on INGO Denny and also want to thank you for being very honest in some of your opinions. I am not trying to be hostile by my above statement just trying to see people's thoughts.

 

[thebishopp]

Feel free to provide clarification by becoming a test case. You do not think judges consider case law from other jurisdictions? How sounds foolish now? Look we are talking about legal concepts that are similar. If you feel so strongly that I am wrong...do something about it. We have NO legal directives reversing this practice so it will continue until that happens. I do appreciate hearing your OPINION in the matter, something we have in great supply here.

While I agree with the fact that we are talking about similar legal concepts, the current Richardson only applies to Seat Belt stops argument, many by active Leo's really is hypocritical.

I believe you stated yourself that that is what your legal department has said as well, that Richardson only applies to seat belt stops.

If the stance is that the ruling in the case only pertains to what the case was actually based upon (in Richardson a seat belt stop) then any case you may try to bring in to support your position can only pertain to the the reasons why the police were involved... in the cases you sited we are talking about a shots fired with injury, running a stop sign, and being pulled over for expired tags.

On top of that you do not say if any one of those three different states have a law like Indiana which states the only legal reasons that an officer may disarm a lawfully armed citizen as well as the legal process that should occur after the citizen has been disarmed.

While you are quite correct that "case law" from other states can be considered, you need to at least provide states that have a similar law and if I wanted to take the same view as your legal department I would also say you needed to provide cases for every single reasons a police officer could lawfully detain a citizen.

If the cases you cited were introduced to try to support your unlawful disarmament of a citizen (unlawful by Indiana law in an Indiana state court) then I would not be very optimistic about your success.

What you would basically be doing is making an attempt to have the courts invalidate the applicable Indiana Law (highly unlikely) or attempt to have the courts redefine how they view the term "dangerous" as it applies to an armed person and if such redefinition grants the officer the right to disarm a citizen under the current IC.

You are correct that what we need is a test case.

The worst case scenario for the person who has their gun "seized" (as long as he he not doing something seriously unlawful - would be the cost of the traffic ticket if pulled over - probably nothing if all he is doing is OC'ing) is that he would be without his firearm for a period of time till the judge ordered the department to give it back.

Whereas the officer could face some form of disciplinary action by his department and the city may have to pay out some money to the citizen.