Need Some quick help with a legal question

[cobber]

I see what your getting at. I agree fully. I was trying to find a way that you could "reasonably" articulate the situation to where a terry stop would be appropriate.

Hear me out. Im not trying to work words into a way to violate rights. Being as unusual as it for a man to carry a rifle slung over his shoulder at 130 am down the main drag (i recognize not illegal in any way), given recent events in our society (again in no way makes it illegal), would it be reasonable to think a crime may be about to be committed when the person refuses (only at first in my situation) to identify himself or show any handgun permit?

Doesnt the totality of the circumstance tend to lean toward justifying a terry stop where he would be required to identify?

Im just thinking out loud. Im here to learn and do my job more effectively.

Terry stop isn't based on a hunch. You need to articulate some criminal activity you believe to be afoot. Open carry of weapons in the wee hours is unusual but not criminal. If you can plausibly connect this to something else, e.g., it's 1:30 and he's carrying weapons openly outside the house of his estranged wife who has a NCO. But the problem here is his location.

You can detain briefly to check the LTCH. That's not a consensual encounter.

On the other hand, if he does consent to stop, present ID, etc., you can check that.

You can always ask. Beyond the LTCH, you can't force anything more. If in the course of the LTCH check you develop reasonable suspicion, then you can prolong the stop. But not solely on a hunch.

In your situation, I would be curious why a person, assuming he had an LTCH, would refuse to show me same, or in the alternative give me his name so dispatch could check on it. This fact is curious, assuming he believed himself to be a law-abiding gun owner... But I wasn't there.

I would be interested to hear what the prosecutor's office tells you.

 

[jerryv]

This is an interesting thread.

Seems to me you had every right to stop him and 'demand' sufficient information to verify he was licensed to carry a handgun, which was plainly visible.

Carrying without a license is obviously not legal. He is not required to carry or show the LTCH .. but in its absence, he would have to provide sufficient identification for you to verify that he has a license. It doesn't seem like there would be any need to connect his behavior with a possible crime in the area or anything else. The visible handgun IS a possible crime until it's determined that he's carrying it legally.

 

[Kirkd]

I think that walkng down the middle of the street with or without a gun is going to draw some attention.

 

[tyrajam]

I'm sorry, but WTF?? You are an officer and you are asking legal advice on an anonymous internet forum while you have a guy in the back of your squad car?? That is really scary to me that! I applaud you looking for answers instead of bluffing, but come on, if I am in the back of your squad car and you are taking a poll on twitter about whether I broke the law or not, you better believe complaints would be filed!

 

[Ruffnek]

I have decided that there is to much law to know it all. While I continue to study and read case law, it is simply impossible to know it all. I did call my supervisors to the scene to assess the situation. It was 130 in the morning and there was nobody to call (that would be pleased to talk to me at such an hour) to discuss the situation.

Because there was no one illegal action by the man in question, there was no reason to wake anyone from their bed to talk about it. I consulted a forum because I was curious and thought a good insightful discussion would be appropriate.

Rest assured, the emails are already sent to the city attorney, the prosecutors office, and the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy's staff attorney for further clarification.

I also plan to send out a county wide LEO email with my findings incase they run into this guy or another guy that feel the need to express their rights to have and carry a firearm legally. Hopefully they read it and an infringement on someones rights is avoided.

Great idea.As I said before,please don't take my comment the wrong way,just seems like this guy could cause you and the department some headaches if he found out that you got your legal advice from an internet forum.Ya know?

 

[Scutter01]

I'm sorry, but WTF?? You are an officer and you are asking legal advice on an anonymous internet forum while you have a guy in the back of your squad car?? That is really scary to me that! I applaud you looking for answers instead of bluffing, but come on, if I am in the back of your squad car and you are taking a poll on twitter about whether I broke the law or not, you better believe complaints would be filed!

Relax. He's just looking for opinions. Nowhere did he say that he was posting in the middle of his investigation with the guy in the back of the squad car. He's already stated that he's submitted queries to the city attorney, ILEA, and the prosecutor's office. I don't know what you're getting so bent out of shape about.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is an interesting thread.

Seems to me you had every right to stop him and 'demand' sufficient information to verify he was licensed to carry a handgun, which was plainly visible.

Carrying without a license is obviously not legal. He is not required to carry or show the LTCH .. but in its absence, he would have to provide sufficient identification for you to verify that he has a license. It doesn't seem like there would be any need to connect his behavior with a possible crime in the area or anything else. The visible handgun IS a possible crime until it's determined that he's carrying it legally.

^^^This^^^

 

[Tnichols00]

I found this law, it seems like he has to provide proof that he is a "Proper Person".
It looks like he has to provide proof he is "Proper Person", im not sure if that is limited to his LTCH or includes his ID

IC 35-47-2-5
Suspension or revocation of license; failure to return license; rules concerning procedure for suspending or revoking license
Sec. 5. (a) The superintendent may suspend or revoke any license issued under this chapter if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person's license should be suspended or revoked.
(b) Documented evidence that a person is not a "proper person" to be licensed as defined by IC 35-47-1-7, or is prohibited under section 3(g)(5) of this chapter from being issued a license, shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of a license previously issued under this chapter. However, if a license is suspended or revoked based solely on an arrest under section 3(g)(5) of this chapter, the license shall be reinstated upon the acquittal of the defendant in that case or upon the dismissal of the charges for the specific offense.
(c) A person who fails to promptly return his license after written notice of suspension or revocation commits a Class A misdemeanor. The observation of a handgun license in the possession of a person whose license has been suspended or revoked constitutes a sufficient basis for the arrest of that person for violation of this subsection.
(d) The superintendent shall establish rules under IC 4-22-2 concerning the procedure for suspending or revoking a person's license.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.140-1994, SEC.7; P.L.2-1996, SEC.285; P.L.120-2001, SEC.2; P.L.1-2006, SEC.535.

 

[tyrajam]

Relax. He's just looking for opinions. Nowhere did he say that he was posting in the middle of his investigation with the guy in the back of the squad car. He's already stated that he's submitted queries to the city attorney, ILEA, and the prosecutor's office. I don't know what you're getting so bent out of shape about.

Posted here for quick results

Im a LEO. We just got a call of a man with a rifle slung on his shoulder walking down the main street in my town. The man also had a pistol OC on his hip. The call came out as a suspicious person call.

My question is this. When arriving, we asked for his ID and handgun license. The man didnt think he needed to provide either. Everything I have seen has been to the contrary.

While carrying both weapons is not illegal in any way (and I like that people exercise these rights) the idea of a man walking at 130 am down main street with a rifle slung is awfully suspicious around here.

The guy turned out to be a nice guy and hes sitting here at my squad car and I would like clarification for me and for him on this subject.

Thanks

?????
I stand by my statement. Is this professional and competent?

 

[Hammerhead]

IANAL, but here's my opinion.

He did not have to show ID, he did have to show his LTCH. You verify his valid Larry, and so long as he is cooperating, you have no further PC or RAS for a Terry stop. He is also protected by Washington and Richardson.

The removal and holding of his firearms can be sticky. 35-47-14-3 says that you must be able to articulate him being a danger to seize his firearms. Your statements clearly indicate that he wasn't being dangerous, but cooperative (if asserting his rights) and as such as soon as his Larry was verified valid, they should have been returned to him.

I don't believe "officer safety" was a valid excuse for the retention (even if it was only for the transport to his vehicle).

You may have erred on the side of caution, but you erred in other areas as well. I didn't see, but I hope you didn't "run the numbers" or anything on his guns. That would have been adding insult to injury, and a violation of Richardson.

 

[Hammerhead]

?????
I stand by my statement. Is this professional and competent?

He was "at" the squad car. Not "in" the squad car. It also sounds like it was after they'd returned him to his vehicle and wanted to discuss it further. Consensual encounter now.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Very interesting thread! I missed this when it was happening, but what I would have replied has pretty much been covered. The rifle itself does not provide RAS here in Indiana that any infraction has or is going to occur. The handgun is illegal without the LTCH permission slip (unless he is coveted by LEOSA or something else similar) so it would be permissible to enquire for ID, but it would be equally permissible for him to have responded by producing an LTCH alone. Then he should have been left to go on his way. In this case he apparently thought he didn't need to provide ID (correct) or LTCH (technically correct, because you need not have it on you, but the burden is then on him to prove he does possess one, so if he continued to refuse I suppose you could have taken him in to let him produce it for the judge). That's my take. "People being worried" isn't RAS, to me.

I'm glad the OP posted though. I'm glad he is open to other opinions, legal opinions and otherwise. I don't expect an officer to know every law. I expect an officer to know every law he plans to enforce.

I hope we see the gentleman sign up to be here, and I thank socomike for posting the thread for discussion.

 

[cosermann]

Glad to see an officer checking this out himself.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

If anyone is interested, in at least one WTS/WTT thread, the OP states that Lebanon was the site for the intended sale/trade.

I'm going out on a limb and presuming that the city in question is Lebanon.

-J-

 

[MrsGungho]

?????
I stand by my statement. Is this professional and competent?

When we pulled up, he immediately stopped walking and faced us with his hands in front of him at his waist. He had a handgun OC'ed on his hip, and an AR15 slung over his shoulder.

When we asked him what he was doing he stated he was walking down the street. When we asked him for identification he stated he was not required to give identification. When we asked if he had a handgun license, he stated he did not believe he was required to show his handgun license unless we suspected a crime had been committed.

During the entire conversation he was very polite. Because he was refusing to show any ID or a LTHC, an Officer removed the rifle from his shoulder and the handgun from his hip. The man protested the idea as an illegal seizure of his property.

This is when he gave us permission to get his LTCH from his wallet. After his LTCH was checked and came back valid, he was given a ride to his truck (on his request I believe) and the guns were transported in the trunk of the squad car.

Thats the best I remember it happening. I was walking from my car to the scene several times to check IC codes to satisfy my own curiosities. Im sure there was more conversation while I was in my car, but I cannot vouch for it. I followed the supervisor giving him a ride so I could sit down and talk with him and we could hash out what we knew and didnt know and get some clarification on the whole thing. We broke out the indiana constitution, this website, and google and did some research.

I think we both learned a little here and im glad it went the way it did. Although, about 5 squad cars showed up and guys were amp'ed up because they were dispatched to a "suspicious man with a gun". I really wish it would have been more low key and we could have let him go about his business after checking his LTCH.

Sounds to me like the gentleman carrying was willing to sit down and learn too.

 

[Socomike]

I'm sorry, but WTF?? You are an officer and you are asking legal advice on an anonymous internet forum while you have a guy in the back of your squad car?? That is really scary to me that! I applaud you looking for answers instead of bluffing, but come on, if I am in the back of your squad car and you are taking a poll on twitter about whether I broke the law or not, you better believe complaints would be filed!

You, sir, obviously need a lesson in reading comprehension. Or is it that you see the acronym LEO or the word cop an immediately want to find a reason to complain because "the man is in your business".

It is very plainly stated, if you choose to read the thread, that I followed my supervisor, who was giving the man a ride to his truck, so I could introduce myself to the man and ask if he wanted to figure this out because he nor I were 100 percent sure EXACTLY how the law read.

We shook hands. Introduced ourselves, stated what each other though went wrong with the encounter, broke out the code book, pulled up the Indiana constitution online, and posted on here. I made it very clear he could leave if he liked or had better things to do. He wanted to learn and so did I.

He never sat in my squad car, he only leaned in the drivers door while I typed on the computer. We discussed at length the situation an ultimately called a supervisor back to the location for continued dialogue.

Before you comment in an informative thread such as this with the intent to tell me how bad I am at my job, maybe remove your head from your ass so you can read the previous posts easier.

I really appreciate everyone giving insite and will post the replies I get from each office I contacted. I feel more informed and confident for future encounters of this nature and I thank you for that.

 

[Tnichols00]

You, sir, obviously need a lesson in reading comprehension. Or is it that you see the acronym LEO or the word cop an immediately want to find a reason to complain because "the man is in your business".

It is very plainly stated, if you choose to read the thread, that I followed my supervisor, who was giving the man a ride to his truck, so I could introduce myself to the man and ask if he wanted to figure this out because he nor I were 100 percent sure EXACTLY how the law read.

We shook hands. Introduced ourselves, stated what each other though went wrong with the encounter, broke out the code book, pulled up the Indiana constitution online, and posted on here. I made it very clear he could leave if he liked or had better things to do. He wanted to learn and so did I.

He never sat in my squad car, he only leaned in the drivers door while I typed on the computer. We discussed at length the situation an ultimately called a supervisor back to the location for continued dialogue.

Before you comment in an informative thread such as this with the intent to tell me how bad I am at my job, maybe remove your head from your ass so you can read the previous posts easier.

I really appreciate everyone giving insite and will post the replies I get from each office I contacted. I feel more informed and confident for future encounters of this nature and I thank you for that.

Thanks for being a respectful LEO, respectful to both the law and to the citizen.

 

[Socomike]

Thanks for being a respectful LEO, respectful to both the law and to the citizen.

No problem. With respect to one and not the other I'd be doing a disservice. I'm in this career to make a difference, even if small and relatively unimportant.

 

[jerryv]

No problem. With respect to one and not the other I'd be doing a disservice. I'm in this career to make a difference, even if small and relatively unimportant.

I'd beg to differ. You guys are in the position to make a huge difference, depending on the situation. If, God forbid, any of us need to call 911, it's guys like you who will show up, perhaps to lay it all on the line. There's nothing bigger.

My kid's career military. I've said to him, and I'll repeat to you .. I appreciate your service ..

 

[tyrajam]

It is very plainly stated, if you choose to read the thread, that I followed my supervisor, who was giving the man a ride to his truck, so I could introduce myself to the man and ask if he wanted to figure this out because he nor I were 100 percent sure EXACTLY how the law read.

Ok, there is the misunderstanding. If that is what happened, then awesome, good job, and assorted other accolades. What you actually wrote was:

Thats the best I remember it happening. I was walking from my car to the scene several times to check IC codes to satisfy my own curiosities. Im sure there was more conversation while I was in my car, but I cannot vouch for it. I followed the supervisor giving him a ride so I could sit down and talk with him and we could hash out what we knew and didnt know and get some clarification on the whole thing. We broke out the indiana constitution, this website, and google and did some research.

The only person named in that entire paragraph is your supervisor, so the pronouns him that I highlighted in red refer to your supervisor. If you meant it referring to the suspect then that changes the whole meaning of your post.

Your original post saying that

"hes sitting here at my squad car and I would like clarification for me and for him on this subject".

sounded like a man asking an anonymous group of "internet experts" how to do his job while he was trying to do it.
Your post a few hours later clearly states that now you and your supervisor were the ones hashing out what you knew and didn't know and getting some clarification, not you and the man you stopped. Apparently that is not what happened, so as far as the original encounter last night, kudos.

As far as you insulting me, and swearing at me, and mocking my reading comprehension because you can't write a clear sentence, don't sweat it. I forgive you.