Please help settle an argument

[BehindBlueI's]

I would like to assume not, but when you run a serial number on a firearm, is there anyway that gets linked to the owner?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer:. It doesn't even tell us who the owner is. The ONLY information you get back is if the firearm is reported stolen or not. If it is stolen you will get an original agency and case number, along with contact information to verify if it should be listed as stolen.

Queries are kept for a certain length of time, but are tied to the officer or civilian who ran the query. That is a security measure so that illegal uses of the system can be investigated. As an example, Joe thinks that Officer Bill is illegally running criminal histories for people that Bill is renting apartments to and complains. Officer Bill's records can then be subpeonaed.

In order for me to tie a particular serial number to a specific person, the planets would have to align. I would have to know enough information to query it that I would already know the answer and there would be no reason to query it.

 

[KW730]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer:. It doesn't even tell us who the owner is. The ONLY information you get back is if the firearm is reported stolen or not. If it is stolen you will get an original agency and case number, along with contact information to verify if it should be listed as stolen.

Queries are kept for a certain length of time, but are tied to the officer or civilian who ran the query. That is a security measure so that illegal uses of the system can be investigated. As an example, Joe thinks that Officer Bill is illegally running criminal histories for people that Bill is renting apartments to and complains. Officer Bill's records can then be subpeonaed.

In order for me to tie a particular serial number to a specific person, the planets would have to align. I would have to know enough information to query it that I would already know the answer and there would be no reason to query it.

I meant more that if it's seized on a traffic stop and you're running their DL at the same time if that information would be stored together. I know that serial #s alone have no identifiable information.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So do you ever disarm LTCH holders for "officer safety"?

It kind of makes me want to decide, to not want to inform.

Barring some other fact known to me at the time, no. A few times I've had to reapproach and disarm because of a warrant, but usually it works out fine.

That said, I'm one officer, not every officer, and I don't even work the streets any more.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I meant more that if it's seized on a traffic stop and you're running their DL at the same time if that information would be stored together. I know that serial #s alone have no identifiable information.

It would, in theory, be possible to match CAD records together and possibly do what you are asking. Like I said, it would be too complicated to bother with, and in order to do so I would already have to have the information that the query would give me, plus it would hardly be fool proof.

I can't just ask the system "did X S/N get ran?" I'd have to ask, and ask through an IDACS security officer after telling him/her the purpose of the inquiry. "Did Officer X run a serial number during this time frame?" Then try to patch it together, and that's assuming he ran it himself while he was marked out and didn't have a partner or civilian run it over the radio.

I have never known of this type of inquiry to happen, not even with a known homicide weapon, if that gives you any idea of how likely it is to occur, even if it is theoretically possible.

 

[92ThoStro]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer:. It doesn't even tell us who the owner is. The ONLY information you get back is if the firearm is reported stolen or not. If it is stolen you will get an original agency and case number, along with contact information to verify if it should be listed as stolen.

Queries are kept for a certain length of time, but are tied to the officer or civilian who ran the query. That is a security measure so that illegal uses of the system can be investigated. As an example, Joe thinks that Officer Bill is illegally running criminal histories for people that Bill is renting apartments to and complains. Officer Bill's records can then be subpeonaed.

In order for me to tie a particular serial number to a specific person, the planets would have to align. I would have to know enough information to query it that I would already know the answer and there would be no reason to query it.

I guess I can see why some officers will seize and run the serial number. I might not have stolen it, and the person before me might not have either, but guns can change hands quite a bit. I suppose it would be returned to its original owner and they could try and track down who stole it by asking for the previous persons contact info. Even though most people don't keep any of that information.

Now if there are no violations being committed, and someone is just walking down the street OCing, can the officer legally still seize and run the serial number, with the seizure being for officer safety, after the LTCH is shown, or is that going beyond what is considered legal possession?

 

[JTScribe]

If it's for officer safety, wouldn't simply placing the holstered weapon on the roof of the car suffice to provide for that safety?

Generally speaking, I thought that officers run your plates before they walk up to you the first time. If they put the weapon on the roof or trunk and then went back to write their citation, if the person being pulled over stepped out of the car, that would be a threatening act, IMO.

My friend is a good kid, he just seems super aggressive to me when it comes to his perspectives on policing. For example, he posted a link to that video of the guy open-carrying in Maine and made comments to the effect that the officer should have "gone hands on" or failing that, "K-9 ass chewing is always a good option."

 

[KW730]

Now if there are no violations being committed, and someone is just walking down the street OCing, can the officer legally still seize and run the serial number, with the seizure being for officer safety, after the LTCH is shown, or is that going beyond what is considered legal possession?

After the LTCH is shown, feel free to walk away. There is no further contact needed so no need to seize the weapon.

My friend is a good kid, he just seems super aggressive to me when it comes to his perspectives on policing. For example, he posted a link to that video of the guy open-carrying in Maine and made comments to the effect that the officer should have "gone hands on" or failing that, "K-9 ass chewing is always a good option."

Sounds like a JBT in training, although admittedly, through my numerous courses that deal with law enforcement I have noticed this seems to be common teaching. Some people just eat up everything they are told.

 

[rockhopper46038]

If it's for officer safety, wouldn't simply placing the holstered weapon on the roof of the car suffice to provide for that safety?

Generally speaking, I thought that officers run your plates before they walk up to you the first time. If they put the weapon on the roof or trunk and then went back to write their citation, if the person being pulled over stepped out of the car, that would be a threatening act, IMO.

My friend is a good kid, he just seems super aggressive to me when it comes to his perspectives on policing. For example, he posted a link to that video of the guy open-carrying in Maine and made comments to the effect that the officer should have "gone hands on" or failing that, "K-9 ass chewing is always a good option."

That kid needs to be set on a different career path. With that kind of misconception and attitude, if he becomes a police officer someone might get hurt - and that someone might be him.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If it's for officer safety, wouldn't simply placing the holstered weapon on the roof of the car suffice to provide for that safety?

Generally speaking, I thought that officers run your plates before they walk up to you the first time. If they put the weapon on the roof or trunk and then went back to write their citation, if the person being pulled over stepped out of the car, that would be a threatening act, IMO.

My friend is a good kid, he just seems super aggressive to me when it comes to his perspectives on policing. For example, he posted a link to that video of the guy open-carrying in Maine and made comments to the effect that the officer should have "gone hands on" or failing that, "K-9 ass chewing is always a good option."

Not everyone's holster just snaps off. I'd have to take my belt off to comply with what you are suggesting. I don't know anyone who would advocate leaving a firearm unsecure on the roof. That's worse than having it in the car. Now I have to watch you and watch pedestrians who might snatch the gun, plus its stupid of me to stand in your window and take my eyes off you to put something on the roof. No, its staying in someone's car, yours or mine.

You do get that he's still a kid and doesn't know his butt from a muddy hole in the ground, right? He's just discovered something and is excited about it.

 

[SideArmed]

If I have the firearm in my possession legally and can legally carry it back to my car, then it requires no further manipulation to see the serial number and is not expanding the scope of the seizure. If I had to remove a grip or something, than yes, I am now increasing the scope of the search and seizure.

If the firearm is not legally in my possession, than any evidence gathered by running the serial number will be suppressed, regardless.

Ditto with a search warrant. If I find anything where an item I am legally searching for could fit, its fair game. If I'm looking for clothing used in a robbery but find a pound of weed in the closet, I don't have to ignore it. I cannot manipulate items that couldn't hold what I'm looking for, though. Depending on what I find I may have to go get a second warrant to seize it (if its unrelated to the original crime).

So, the question boils down to:
1) Am I legally allowed to be where I am?
2) Can I see the item in question from the place I legally am?
3) If manipulation of the item is required, do I have the legal authority for the seizure of the item. (Say I have a warrant for a Droid cell phone with a certain phone number. If I find a cell phone that's an Apple, I can't seize it or look at the contacts, etc. If I find a Droid I can turn it on to see if it has that particular serial number as the warrant grants me the legal authority for that manipulation, but I still couldn't look in messages or the like without a separate warrant).

I can understand your position from the stand point of the firearm truly being in your possession legally. But where do you stand on officers asking for a firearm during a traffic stop simply for officer safety, or some are so bold as to simply state they need it to run the numbers, after a valid LTCH has been presented? Then subsequently running the SN on the gun.

I mean clearly IC 35-47-14 states that a person must be a danger in order for the LEO to seize the firearm, w/o a warrant. So is it fair to state that an officer must be absolutely clear in the fact that an individual is a danger in order to take a firearm during a stop after a LTCH has been verified, and by him doing so w/o sufficient proof that this person was a danger, that it's in violation of the law?

 

[Hammerhead]

Here's how the encounter would be considered based on case law and codified law.

Officer pulls you over, you keep your mouth shut about your firearm, or anything not related to the stop.

If you somehow say that you're licensed, carrying, answer the question about firearms in the vehicle and it becomes a part of the traffic stop, you show your LTCH and are covered by Richardson v. IN. Officer verifies valid LTCH and that ends the firearms portion of the stop.

Let's say that you don't have it on your person, but it's in your glove box. The officer verifies your valid LTCH but orders you out of the car. You're now covered by the 4th A and Washington v. IN. You've been removed from the "danger" and officer safety no longer is an issue.

Let's now say that the officer enters your car, removes your handgun from the glovebox, and takes it back to his vehicle and runs the numbers. He's now not only violated everything I've already stated, he's going to have a hard time proving "danger" under 35-47-14-3.

So let's boil it down. First off, keep your mouth shut about your firearms or LTCH during a traffic stop. IF it becomes necessary to introduce these facts into the discussion, presenting your (valid verified) LTCH ends all further questioning. And since you're being cooperative (presenting your LTCH and keeping your mouth shut), calm, and not presenting a danger, the officer can't just seize your firearm and run the numbers. If he does, he, his department, and his city are going to hear from your lawyer.

 

[SideArmed]

Here's how the encounter would be considered based on case law and codified law.

Officer pulls you over, you keep your mouth shut about your firearm, or anything not related to the stop.

If you somehow say that you're licensed, carrying, answer the question about firearms in the vehicle and it becomes a part of the traffic stop, you show your LTCH and are covered by Richardson v. IN. Officer verifies valid LTCH and that ends the firearms portion of the stop.

Let's say that you don't have it on your person, but it's in your glove box. The officer verifies your valid LTCH but orders you out of the car. You're now covered by the 4th A and Washington v. IN. You've been removed from the "danger" and officer safety no longer is an issue.

Let's now say that the officer enters your car, removes your handgun from the glovebox, and takes it back to his vehicle and runs the numbers. He's now not only violated everything I've already stated, he's going to have a hard time proving "danger" under 35-47-14-3.

So let's boil it down. First off, keep your mouth shut about your firearms or LTCH during a traffic stop. IF it becomes necessary to introduce these facts into the discussion, presenting your (valid verified) LTCH ends all further questioning. And since you're being cooperative (presenting your LTCH and keeping your mouth shut), calm, and not presenting a danger, the officer can't just seize your firearm and run the numbers. If he does, he, his department, and his city are going to hear from your lawyer.

Thank you, I understand the laws and cases as written. I was inquiring as to BehindBlueI's opinion on it, since he approached the subject from a strictly legal aspect of a stop.

 

[JTScribe]

Here's how the encounter would be considered based on case law and codified law.

Officer pulls you over, you keep your mouth shut about your firearm, or anything not related to the stop.

If you somehow say that you're licensed, carrying, answer the question about firearms in the vehicle and it becomes a part of the traffic stop, you show your LTCH and are covered by Richardson v. IN. Officer verifies valid LTCH and that ends the firearms portion of the stop.

Let's say that you don't have it on your person, but it's in your glove box. The officer verifies your valid LTCH but orders you out of the car. You're now covered by the 4th A and Washington v. IN. You've been removed from the "danger" and officer safety no longer is an issue.

Let's now say that the officer enters your car, removes your handgun from the glovebox, and takes it back to his vehicle and runs the numbers. He's now not only violated everything I've already stated, he's going to have a hard time proving "danger" under 35-47-14-3.

So let's boil it down. First off, keep your mouth shut about your firearms or LTCH during a traffic stop. IF it becomes necessary to introduce these facts into the discussion, presenting your (valid verified) LTCH ends all further questioning. And since you're being cooperative (presenting your LTCH and keeping your mouth shut), calm, and not presenting a danger, the officer can't just seize your firearm and run the numbers. If he does, he, his department, and his city are going to hear from your lawyer.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I mean clearly IC 35-47-14 states that a person must be a danger in order for the LEO to seize the firearm, w/o a warrant.

35-47-14 isn't dealing with a traffic stop and temporary seizure of the weapon for officer safety reasons. Its dealing with seizure and retention of a weapon from a dangerous person (ie violently mentally ill) absent a crime being committed. Say someone with severe paranoia saying they are going to kill postal employees because they are secretly CIA agents spying on them (real life example). There's no crime committed, but you need to confiscate the weapons and get the person into mental health care before a tragedy happens. That's what 35-47-14 is dealing with.

The majority of what people are saying on this thread are confusing the requirements for a Terry pat or a stop and frisk vs you already being 'seized' for a violation of the law, with a healthy interweaving of "stopped solely for carrying a handgun" vs stopped for some other infraction. Also being confused is a hypothetical weapon, as in Terry, vs a known weapon.

The Supreme Court, at both the federal and state level, has given broad discretion to an officer to temporarily seize a known weapon that's within the "wing span" of someone being legally detained, including inside a vehicle that you are about to put them back in to. PA vs Mimms, etc.

 

[SideArmed]

The Scenario in the OP is this:

1. Person gets pulled over.
2. Discloses (for what ever reason) they have a LTCH & a firearm in the vehicle.
3. Officer then states either: For officer safety or I need to run the numbers, I am going to take your fire arm back to my vehicle.
4. Individual in the vehicle then ??????

I know what my course of action would be, I am just curious as to what your line of thinking on the subject is.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The Scenario in the OP is this:

1. Person gets pulled over.
2. Discloses (for what ever reason) they have a LTCH & a firearm in the vehicle.
3. Officer then states either: For officer safety or I need to run the numbers, I am going to take your fire arm back to my vehicle.
4. Individual in the vehicle then ??????

I know what my course of action would be, I am just curious as to what your line of thinking on the subject is.

It depends. What was the person pulled over for? MWAG call? Traffic infraction? Matches suspect description for a crime in progress in the area?

Let's assume the most common scenario, you are pulled over for a traffic infraction and the weapon is within your reach. If it is within reach of the occupants of the vehicle, I know of no legal barrier for the officer to take the weapon for the duration of the traffic stop as long as the stop was for something OTHER than the person having a firearm. The purpose is not to run the numbers, it is for his safety. Running the numbers is allowed because it doesn't expand the scope.

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

As Samual L. Jackson would say " there's some smart Mutha F#@kers in here" nice way of talking OP thru this! + 1

 

[SideArmed]

It depends. What was the person pulled over for? MWAG call? Traffic infraction? Matches suspect description for a crime in progress in the area?

Let's assume the most common scenario, you are pulled over for a traffic infraction and the weapon is within your reach. If it is within reach of the occupants of the vehicle, I know of no legal barrier for the officer to take the weapon for the duration of the traffic stop as long as the stop was for something OTHER than the person having a firearm. The purpose is not to run the numbers, it is for his safety. Running the numbers is allowed because it doesn't expand the scope.

How doesn't it expand the scope of the traffic stop? Because I am pulled over for speeding, the validity of my firearm is in that scope?

So you are saying that if I have my pistol on my hip, and get pulled over for speeding, present my LTCH, the officer validates it. That the officer is STILL allowed to secure my firearm for the duration of the stop, AFTER a LTCH is presented? Is that not in direct contradiction to what Richardson says?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How doesn't it expand the scope of the traffic stop? Because I am pulled over for speeding, the validity of my firearm is in that scope?

So you are saying that if I have my pistol on my hip, and get pulled over for speeding, present my LTCH, the officer validates it. That the officer is STILL allowed to secure my firearm for the duration of the stop, AFTER a LTCH is presented? Is that not in direct contradiction to what Richardson says?

Remember when I said it depends on what you got pulled over for? Richardson is one of those reasons "it depends." If Richardson had been stopped for speeding, it would have been different. He wasn't though, he was stopped for a seat belt violation. Richardson was SPECIFICALLY about a seat belt stop. "The trial court concluded that the inquiry went beyond that authorized by Indiana's Seatbelt Enforcement Act. We agree..."

Why was it just about a seat belt stop? They go on to say:

and "On the basis of the language of the statute, we agreed
with the Attorney General‟s position that “the statute requires that when a stop to determine seat belt law compliance is made, the police are strictly prohibited from determining anything else, even if other law would permit.”

Why do they say this? Because IC code SPECIFICALLY limits seat belt stops in ways other traffic stops are not:

IC 9-19-10-3.1
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle; checkpoints
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement agency may not use a safety belt checkpoint to detect and issue a citation for a person's failure to comply with this chapter.

Re-read the whole case and you'll see several other cases referrenced, such as Trigg V State, that specifically address seatbelt stops. Richardson, Trigg, Etc. have aren't about securing a weapon during a traffic stop, they are specifically about under what circumstances an officer can ask questions or conduct a search not related to the seatbelt infraction on a seat belt stop.

 

[Hammerhead]

I'm sorry Blue, but you're wrong.

Richardson specifically states

There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an “unusual bulge” will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

Emphasis mine. They state that if it hadn't been a seat belt stop, the LTCH ends further inquiry.

35-47-14 doesn't specifically deal with traffic stops, or any other stop. 14-3 says nothing about how the officer is interacting with the subject to seize the gun, it only says that the officer must be able to articulate the justification of the seizure based upon a determination of the subject being dangerous. Clearly, if the officer seizes a weapon under 14-3, then he "believes" that the subject is dangerous and his safety is in question.

Washington v. IN addresses this, as does Terry v. Ohio (armed and dangerous and suspect of a crime must all be present, not just one or two).

If you are stopping me for a traffic infraction (our common hypothetical here) then my firearm doesn't hold any bearing on the stop, even if I'm stupid enough to inform. It doesn't matter any more than my cellphone, my jumper cables or anything else I own.

If you are a LEO, and I'm only guessing so, then I'm going to trust the lawyers that I've spoken to about this.