lots of police called on me

[Naptown]

the chief, rusty york, is a giant POS who thinks his citizens should NOT be armed.

I hope rusty isn't a member here...

 

[wtfd661]

I was wearing a blue bears hoodie with blue jeans

Well, hell right there was your problem. If you were wearing a Colts hoodie you'd been OK, no issues at all

Seriously, sucks that this happened to you and I hope that whatever route you take it will all work out for you. Good luck to you.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

I hope rusty isn't a member here...

That's fine. Many of his officers think the same of him.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Why does this world have to be blessed, with so may idiots. I know not everyone is a lawyer. I know allot of people are anti gun nazis. They should teach you in High School that it is legal to carry in the open, in the state of Indiana. Those a hole cops need to learn the law. I mean ffs. When I was doing LE, you had to know the laws to a T or you would loose your qualifications.

 

[silentvoice71]

Thanks guys i was more worried about my wife than anything else.

 

[jbombelli]

Check out this short thread:

fwpd.org :: View topic - Concealed or not concealed permit????


I searched that site, and found several threads on this topic. The consensus seemed to be: you can carry openly with a license, but you'll be subject to "further investigation."

I guess that means proned out at gunpoint, yelled at, insulted and threatened before being sent on your way in some places.

 

[rhart]

Didnt we just go through this?
And, are there city ordinances against OC as stated? And if so, are there city ordinances against carrying peroid? This would be news to me.
Just out of curiosity, you didnt go in the Speedway to get your wife ice cream did you?

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Why does this world have to be blessed, with so may idiots. I know not everyone is a lawyer. I know allot of people are anti gun nazis. They should teach you in High School that it is legal to carry in the open, in the state of Indiana. Those a hole cops need to learn the law. I mean ffs. When I was doing LE, you had to know the laws to a T or you would loose your qualifications.

No, what is going to happen is in 1st grade they are going to show a picture of a gun. Any child that can identify it will be expelled immiediatly and the parents will have a full scale fbi investigation.

I however who plans on being a history teacher plan to change things from the inside.

 

[AndersonIN]

Go to their forum web site and you'll see what type of department you are dealing with!

fwpd.org :: View Forum - General Questions

 

[Denny347]

Why does this world have to be blessed, with so may idiots. I know not everyone is a lawyer. I know allot of people are anti gun nazis. They should teach you in High School that it is legal to carry in the open, in the state of Indiana. Those a hole cops need to learn the law. I mean ffs. When I was doing LE, you had to know the laws to a T or you would loose your qualifications.

Sadly, criminal law classes from the state only covers Constitutional Law (300 or so hours of instruction). It is not until you are on the street do you learn specific Indiana law...this is while you are working. I bought my own Indiana Laws book (full text) because they are not provided. We are provided a small law book issues by the prosecutor that only covers some of the more common laws. Yearly inservice has no criminal law involved outside of a few required by the State...ie Domestic Battery. I am not excusing these officers, just giving you a little background. I have a C&R FFL so I am more well versed in gun laws than most of my co-workers. Learning specific Indiana laws is left up to each officer. I still find myself looking through the thousands of pages of laws when I have a question. I will confess that 13yrs ago (fresh out of the academy) I thought that open carry was illegal as well and a LTCH = CC permit which meant it had to be concealed. With time I learned what the law really says about this. It was never taught so I had to learn it myself. Thankfully I'm a quick learner, some are not.

 

[E5RANGER375]

lol, i just read a complaint by a guy who consented to a search of his car, and then hes complaining!! LMAO.

I wanted to say "hey guy with the stupid tatoo on your head, just say no if they ask to search" lol

why do people consent to searches by the police? i have no clue. let them go find real criminals. Ft. Wayne is out of control it sounds like. I will NEVER be going there, until some cops are fired

Denny, thanks for being a good officer and actualy trying to gain knowledge in your preffession to better serve and protect the public! there should be incentives for officers like you who actually wish to better know the law, but whos departments are lagging on the training.

 

[Joe Williams]

lol, i just read a complaint by a guy who consented to a search of his car, and then hes complaining!! LMAO.

I wanted to say "hey guy with the stupid tatoo on your head, just say no if they ask to search" lol

why do people consent to searches by the police? i have no clue. let them go find real criminals. Ft. Wayne is out of control it sounds like. I will NEVER be going there, until some cops are fired

I've read that before, too. "The guy asked if he could look in my car, and I wanted to be cooperative so I said yes, then the cops turned my car inside out."

Well, DUH!!! You told them they could. You don't have to say yes, it's all on you, knucklehead.

JUST SAY NO!! If the cop does it anyway, that's a whole nother issue, but don't complain when you said they could.

 

[Roadie]

Indiana Appeals Court: Concealed Carry Not A License To Be Searched

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Indiana Appeals Court: Concealed Carry Not A License To Be Searched
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Indiana Appeals Court ruled that police were wrong to handcuff and search motorist merely because he held a valid concealed handgun permit.

[/FONT]Police may not search a vehicle merely because its driver has been issued a valid concealed carry permit, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday. A three-judge appellate panel weighed the actions of Indianapolis Police Officer Danny Reynolds who pulled over Melvin Washington for driving with a burned-out headlight on September 17, 2008 at 12:30am.

On that morning, Reynolds first asked Washington whether he had a gun, and Washington said he had one under his seat. Washington also carried a valid concealed carry permit. At this point, Reynolds ordered Washington out of the car and handcuffed him so that he could conduct a search under the seat of Washington's vehicle. Reynolds spotted a small bag of marijuana and issued Washington a court summons and a ticket for the defective headlight. Washington was then released with his handgun placed in the trunk of his vehicle, unloaded.

Washington moved to have the evidence against him suppressed because the warrantless search, he argued, violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. A lower court disagreed, insisting that "officer safety" justified the search. The court of appeals did not buy the safety argument.

"In the present case, prior to the search for the handgun, Officer Reynolds did not express any concerns for officer safety," Judge James S. Kirsch wrote for the majority. "Although Washington admitted that a handgun was present inside of the car, he was at all times totally cooperative with Officer Reynolds The testimony at the suppression hearing indicated that, during the traffic stop, Washington made no furtive movements, answered the officer's questions, and showed no disrespect to the officer. At the time he searched for the handgun, Officer Reynolds had no information that any crime or violation of law had been or was about to be committed, except for the inoperable headlight infraction. Further, at the suppression hearing, Officer Reynolds did not testify that he had any specific concern for officer safety during his traffic stop of Washington."

Because no legitimate safety exception to the Fourth Amendment applied in this case, the court ruled the search was improper. Judge Melissa S. May added in a concurring opinion that the majority's ruling created a subjective element -- cooperation -- that could serve as a loophole allowing searches. To solve this problem, May cited the US Supreme Court case Arizona v. Gant where a warrantless vehicle search was overturned because the suspect had no access to his car (view decision).

"While we are dealing here with a traffic stop, rather than an arrest, the fact remains that Washington, like Gant, was removed from his car and handcuffed," May wrote. "Accordingly, Washington's statement there was a gun under his seat simply could not justify a search of his car based on concern for officer safety."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
If it was determined that the Police cannot search a vehicle merely because the citizen has an LTCH, why is it still allowed for them to detain and search an citizen's PERSON merely for having an LTCH?

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK.. the emotions are running understandably high on this. Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not LEGAL advice, here's my personal advice:

Don't get angry. Get determined.
Lawyer up FIRST. Say NOTHING else on this in any public forum without your attorney's OK. Find one who will take this on contingency: If you don't get paid, neither does s/he.
Find out if you can sue the individuals responsible: The guy who called it in as well as the officers themselves. It's my understanding they have limited immunity from prosecution in the lawful performance of their duty, but what they did does not sound like duty nor does it sound lawful; to me, it sounds negligent, whether out of willful ignorance or blatant disregard of the state law, and that limited immunity can be revoked by the court. You might consider a change of venue request as well, to get it out of the FW area courts. Don't forget the intimidation and the mental anguish that their actions caused you and your wife.

Your attorney should be able to get the ball rolling on the gathering of evidence.

Note that while suing the department and the city can have the better monetary reward and further legal implication depending on how far you take the case, suing the officers personally for what I would call misconduct will, if successful, have a better effect on the future actions of those officers and others as well.

Once again, the above is my personal understanding of the law and the courts. I do not represent myself to be legal counsel, but I am advising you to seek a professional in that area who can advise and represent you. If there is conflict between that attorney's advice and mine, the attorney's advice should take precedence.

Good luck, and when it's all said and done, let us know more.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bigum1969]

The thing that bothers me about this whole situation is the verbal abuse from the LEOs (if this account is true -- we have not heard from anyone else). I understand that LEOs have to give orders with a level of authority, by why the insults?

 

[INMIline]

Can he call your Uncle?

I think we need to organize a INGO OC event in Fort Wayne!!! My uncle is a lawyer, and a gun guy, i'll bring him just incase.

.

 

[E5RANGER375]

sure if he wants to then he can PM me.

 

[INMIline]

If I were in his shoes and if your Uncle is half as aggressive as you I think my first question to him would be,"How much do you need up front?"

sure if he wants to then he can PM me.

 

[Mokkie]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Get a lawyer and go get em. Maybe they will learn that law abiding citizens are getting tired of this sort of stuff.

 

[ISHOOTHST'S]

Does Indiana statute require me to carry the handgun on my person concealed or
exposed?

Indiana law is silent on this issue; however, carrying an exposed weapon in public may
alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private
property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted
areas when carrying firearms into public places. If approached by law enforcement for
official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, it is recommended
that you tell the officer in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or
have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement
officer does have the right to inspect the permit.

Thats all i have to post. If you have to spend your own money in this situation, just do what you can without spending your own money imo.