LTCH Information Tracking

[Bucknut]

Long Time - First Time

Recent traffic stop. Tag not yet registered to new vehicle. Paperwork in order. No citation.

Officer notices LTCH permit in wallet. Asked to see it and asked if any weapons in vehicle. I have a handgun in vehicle. Officer is very reasonable from this point and after a brief period of time I am on my way.

Was the fact that weapon was in vehicle during stop somehow electronically recorded/attached to drivers license information?

My concern is that if I am stopped again and this information is available the LEO may approach the situation is a much more "aggressive" manner.

Also, any idea what information was checked during stop (LTCH permit, gun serial number etc)?

Thanks for any replies.

 

[AFA1CY]

1st WELCOME to the forum

2nd No, LTCH is not tracked by BMV however I have heard of one local PD that was building a database of people whom have applied for LTCH.

 

[Bigum1969]

Local PD can track applications from their own jurisdiction. I've heard this is the case where I live.

But if I leave my county, a LEO wouldn't know if I had a LTCH.

 

[Denny347]

Local PD can track applications from their own jurisdiction. I've heard this is the case where I live.

But if I leave my county, a LEO wouldn't know if I had a LTCH.

Hmm, we do not have access to CHL files in list form here in Indy. Not sure why that would be useful. What we can do is run a person through State Police to verify a CHL is valid. We do that if the person has a pistol but no CHL on their person (as required by law). That really doesn't happen that often.

 

[wabash]

Long Time - First Time

~~~

Officer notices LTCH permit in wallet. Asked to see it and asked if any weapons in vehicle. I have a handgun in vehicle. Officer is very reasonable from this point and after a brief period of time I am on my way.

~~~

Also, any idea what information was checked during stop (LTCH permit, gun serial number etc)?

uh,,something's missing. how would he know the serial number? was the handgun handed over?


I had a state trooper tell me the serial number check just tells him if it was stolen or "used in a crime".

 

[ATM]

I think the exact nature of the first question has been missed.

Was the fact that weapon was in vehicle during stop somehow electronically recorded/attached to drivers license information?

My concern is that if I am stopped again and this information is available the LEO may approach the situation is a much more "aggressive" manner.

Was the fact that you had a weapon in your vehicle (not that you have a LTCH) somehow going to show up the next time your license (or plates) is run?

I don't think so, but I hope one of our forum member LEOs would address this specifically if I am wrong.

 

[ATM]

Oh, almost forgot...Bucknut!

 

[Bucknut]

Thanks everyone for the welcome.

ATM that is exactly what I was wondering. If my license or plate is run again will there be an electronic post-it showing some sort of "weapon in vehicle" warning.

Wabash, the LEO did secure my handgun and take it back to his car along with my LTCH permit.

 

[Scutter01]

Wabash, the LEO did secure my handgun and take it back to his car along with my LTCH permit.

What do you mean "secure"? Wasn't it secure in your holster?

 

[Bucknut]

se·cure To get possession of; acquire

The LEO inquired as to the location of the handgun. I told him. He asked that I place my hands on the steering wheel and not move them. He then took temporary possesion of the handgun and returned to his vehicle.

 

[Scutter01]

se·cure To get possession of; acquire

The LEO inquired as to the location of the handgun. I told him. He asked that I place my hands on the steering wheel and not move them. He then took temporary possesion of the handgun and returned to his vehicle.

Yes, I know what the word secure means. What's confusing me is why he made you surrender your gun. My question is "Wasn't it secure in your holster?"

 

[ATM]

Sounds like the question should be posed to the officer.

Don't forget to welcome the new member here.

 

[Scutter01]

Don't forget to welcome the new member here.

You're right. Reading back, it sounds very snarky. That wasn't my intention, and for that I apologize. I blame lack of sleep and the Democrats. Mostly the Demos, though.

The question still stands, however. I'm not going to second guess how someone behaves during a traffic stop, but this has come up time and time again where a LEO feels he needs to confiscate your lawfully-possessed property for "safety". It's an abuse of their authority and it's not right.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Bucknut. Be sure to post in the Introductions section.

 

[ATM]

snark·y (snär'kē)


adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang

1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide.
2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

great word! (Certainly not the snarkiest post I've seen)

I agree that confiscation is a. common and b. not right

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'd have a big problem having him reach across me and remove the gun from my holster, as it's almost impossible to do so without the muzzle covering me at some point. "Officer, respectfully, I request that you let me remove it and I'll leave it on the seat and step out, but in the interest of both our safety, I'd rather not take the chance of being shot by my own pistol."

Blessings,
B

 

[Bucknut]

I realize there is some thread drift here (and I hope my original question is discussed) but in the interest of accuracy the handgun was not on my person. In fact I was actually transporting the gun and it was unloaded in its original packaging in a bag in the passenger seat. The officer went around to the passenger side of the vehicle and retrieved the weapon.

I understand and appreciate the “debate” concerning the actions of this and other officers in this situation.

I am not saying that I agree with the actions that were taken but I will say that the officer was respectful of my property and professional in his approach in his handling of the event.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I think this is an issue of consent. Most officers in traffic stops ask that you do something and you give them permission. Best example is you are stopped and pulled over the officer asks if he can look in your trunk and you give him permission to do so.

Furthermore, officers may ask to do things they don't have a right to do without your permission. They do this in a friendly way so that you will consent and waive your right to unlawful search and expectation of privacy .... They may also try to guilt you into consenting (its for my safety), comfort you into consenting (if you have nothing to hide), or intimidate you into consenting (things will go easier if you go along with this). There are other flavors but those are the biggies.

I think many people think that if they do what the police officer wants the police officer will let them off easier. My view is that if you've done something wrong (like speeding), its better for me to get a ticket and protect my rights than try give up my rights and hope I get off. It should just be easier not to speed. Many people think that consenting can't hurt if I've not done anything wrong.

This is wrong thinking. Look at the following hypothetical. I am speeding and get pulled over. The day before I gave my cousin a ride to school and he left a bag in back seat. Believing that I have done nothing wrong, therefore nothing to fear, I consent for the officer to search my vehicle. He opens the bag to find some substance which is illegal. Even though I didn't know it was there, it is still in my possession and I will be charged for having it. If I hadn't consented, I wouldn't have this problem.

Just some food for thought,

 

[jmb79]

hoosiertriangle is spot on with his observations re how police get you to give up you constitutional rights. Anyone who has seen an episode of COPS has seen these tactics in action.

To the original poster... your first "mistake" was to permit the officer to see the LTCH in your wallet. Whether or not you have an LTCH has nothing to do with being stopped for a traffic violation and you should never has let him/her see it. Clearly, things went down hill from that point onward.

For anyone who is interested, I recommend the following discussion re why one should never, ever, speak with law enforcement during an investigation (and yes, stopping you for a traffic violation is an investigation, at least, it is from the officer's point of view). Disloyal Opposition: Eight reasons even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police

 

[brainslushy]

Hello and welcome to the new guy.

I'm a dispatch supervisor for one of our larger cities. Maybe I can clarify a few things quickly.

1.) As an earlier poster noted before, local agencies have a database they can check that will list who has applied for and received a LTCH.

2.) The BMV experimented with a system that tied into ISP's firearms database that would indicate on your driver's licence inquiry return (information the officer gets back when he checks your driving status) whether or not you posses a LTCH. It did not work.

3.) An officer can request their dispatch run a LTCH check on a person through IDACS (Indiana Data and Communications System) that links into the ISP firearms sections database. The officer usually only does this to verify a person does in fact have a LTCH in the event the person claims they have one but can't produce it. Sometimes the officer wants one checked to verify it is authentic. Typically we need either your LTCH License#, or your Name & DOB to do this inquiry. The only information that is returned is the same information that is listed on your LTCH.

4.) There is no "tracking" of any sort indicating that you posses a firearm at the state/national level unless you have really screwed up and gotten on the radar of some Federal Law Enforcement agency that is trying to keep tabs on you. For instance...Secret Service flags people all the time as "persons of interest" and will indicate miscellaneous information on the return like "Check subj's for weapons and not what type, etc." Usually in this case it might be someone that has made public threats against the President or some other protectee and the USSS just wants to keep tabs on the individual. When a LEO runs their information it auto-notifies the USSS of which agency in the USA has made contact with the individual. The USSS usually follows up with a phone call later to determine the disposition.

Let me quantify the above by also stating that your local law enforcement agency/dispatch center may flag individuals with alerts, etc at an officer's request. There is no law that prevents them from doing so. In my agencies computer, we flag people that are known to be mental/emotional, have a history of resisting or battery on a police officer, and even flag people that have been known to carry scanners. Some LEO's in my agency also flag addresses of residences after they have responded and noticed a shotgun propped up behind a door or other firearms in the house. They do this for officer safety so that they know for future runs to an address that firearms are available to the "suspect." However, good police officers respond and react to all situations as if firearms or other dangers are always present, so I wouldn't expect to be treated differently.

 

[Bill of Rights]

(....)local law enforcement agency/dispatch center may flag individuals with alerts, etc at an officer's request. There is no law that prevents them from doing so. In my agencies computer, we flag people that are known to be mental/emotional, have a history of resisting or battery on a police officer, and even flag people that have been known to carry scanners. Some LEO's in my agency also flag addresses of residences after they have responded and noticed a shotgun propped up behind a door or other firearms in the house. They do this for officer safety so that they know for future runs to an address that firearms are available to the "suspect." However, good police officers respond and react to all situations as if firearms or other dangers are always present, so I wouldn't expect to be treated differently.

This, I think, cuts straight to the heart of the OPs question: Now that an officer knows he has a LTC and a firearm, would his file in either the local database or in IDACS be flagged to that effect such that when a future officer who is unfriendly to CCW (or one who is inexperienced) runs his plate, he could expect that said officer might not treat him with the same cordiality as one of our LEO members here might treat him. The answer to that is "maybe", and unless I miss my guess, there's no way he'll ever know unless the officer pulling him over for a broken taillight does so with a "felony stop".

Blessings,
B