the chief, rusty york, is a giant POS who thinks his citizens should NOT be armed.
I hope rusty isn't a member here...
the chief, rusty york, is a giant POS who thinks his citizens should NOT be armed.
I was wearing a blue bears hoodie with blue jeans
I hope rusty isn't a member here...
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.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.
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
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][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]
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.
.
sure if he wants to then he can PM me.