pro-gun bumper sticker as probable cause for pat down

[FCSD 23-18]

I'm curious...

In light of State v. Richardson, if one were to be all nicey-nice (read cooperative) with a cop and hand him his LTCH along with his driver's license at the outset of the traffic stop, would this forbid the officer from inquiring any further about weapons in the vehicle, as long as you weren't otherwise behaving in a manner to give the officer RAS that they could be in danger?

I'm thinking of this as our magic force-field against weapon seizure. Of course the cop could take your gun anyways, and you would have to sue in court, but I wonder how this would turn out given the court case mentioned above?

It wouldn't forbid any other action regarding the firearm but it would be a good faith measure to do the responsible thing, this would put the office more at ease about the situation. When someone tells you that they are armed we feel that they are less likely to use the firearm against you. But rest assured that as long as the gun is present, it is still in play.

 

[ryknoll3]

It wouldn't forbid any other action regarding the firearm but it would be a good faith measure to do the responsible thing, this would put the office more at ease about the situation. When someone tells you that they are armed we feel that they are less likely to use the firearm against you. But rest assured that as long as the gun is present, it is still in play.

Problem is the first time that someone's "good faith measure" is returned by their handgun in pieces in a baggie will be the last time that said person informs LEO. The good faith has to go both ways.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

To me it is an unreasonable request, if I wanted it in the trunk I would of put it there. Which I sometimes do with long guns or with handguns that I am not carrying for defense. Also as Bill mentioned, I will not be opening my trunk willingly. I will not willingly allow a plain view search of my trunk, by forcing me to open it so you can place my firearm inside you have violated the 4th amendment for unreasonable search.

No problem, if you do not want it in your trunk I will secure it in my vehicle for the duration of the investigation. The trunk was just an polite offering on my part. I know that no one will agree with me about disarming someone but once again until there is case law saying that I cant, I will keep doing it on a case by case basis and so will many other officers unless it becomes against department policy at some point.

You have mentioned Terry several times, but you have left out several parts. One being that the officer has to have RAS that there is a crime being committed, and also that the officer has to have RAS that the person is armed AND dangerous. Other than the original reason that you pulled a person over(which is not usually a crime, most traffic stops are a civil infraction not criminal), what about a bumper sticker or a person exercising their rights gives you RAS that a crime is afoot? Or that a person is dangerous? Other than a danger to your authority.

OK in response to Terry v. Ohio the fact that the firearm sticker exists, and the drivers refusal to answer rather or not there is a weapon in the vehicle does give RS to conduct a Terry search of the drivers person and areas of the vehicle that are within his reach. I'm not so much worried about the sticker as I am about his refusal to answer my question that leads to my safety. The sticker is nothing more than an internal alarm that sets off my spidey senses nothing more.

A person exercising their rights is not suspicion of a crime, whether that be refusing a search or exercising their 5th amendment rights.

You are 100% right however his non compliance to the simple question about being armed does lead one to believe that this person my be contemplating doing you harm. If he is legally armed, then there is no good reason not to answer the officer.



No offense intended and please do not take any. But please tell me you are a special or reserve deputy? Or perhaps an explorer? Nothing wrong with those. But it scares me if you are a full deputy.
The IC you mentioned does not have to do with lying. There is one regarding it, but that is not it. And the IC that covers it, most likely would not apply for a traffic stop, at least according to a attorney(and a LEO) or two here on INGO.

I have been a sworn LEO of some sort since I was 18 years old I'm now 33 (How you might ask? Military Police) I also hold a BS in Criminal Justice, and I am a second year part time law student at IU Bloomington. And yes at one point while doing my undergrad work I was a Reserve Deputy, while working as a State Parole Agent.

You are right, the IC i quoted does not have to do with lying but it does have to do with OBSTRUCTION, providing a false statement in an attempt to inter fear with an investigation, every TS is an investigation.

The only question that I know a person has to answer is to ID themselves if they are suspected in good faith by an officer of committing an infraction or ordinance violation. They can ID themselves with a state issued ID/DL or verbally with their name/dob/address. They are not required to answer any other thing, if they are stopped in a vehicle and they are the driver they have to provide registration and proof of insurance.


Other than that they are not required to provide ID. iirc there is a case here in IN (sorry can't remember the case, perhaps someone can help me out) where the police demanded ID of a witness. They refused and were arrested for failure to ID. They were convicted but it was thrown out on appeal because a person has the right to refuse to answer.

OK sticking with your train of thought if I pull over a car with 5 people in it I suppose it would be wrong to ask for the ID of everyone in the vehicle? Sorry but it happens every day, failure to identify yourself will lead to an arrest.

Nothing in IC states that I have to show a LEO my LTCH and it is not a crime to not do so. But I can be arrested for carrying without a license if I do not, but charges will be dropped and all records expunged when I show it to the prosecutor per IC.

You are again correct, but do you really want to go to jail, when you could simply show your LTCH.


Where do I start

 

[FCSD 23-18]

I haven't seen much in personal attacks, but if you feel I'm guilty then my apologies. I think we all agree that you can disarm someone using officer safety as a reason. Can you agree that officer safety is over used by many officers?

The question I still have is, am I required to show ID any time I'm asked or only if I'm guilty of an infraction or ordinance violation? What about misdemeanors or felonies?

BTW, if you feel slighted by someone, feel free to ignore them, but don't punish the others that are interested in learning.
Appreciate your input.

OK, we all know that code says an officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good. So say an officer walks up to you and asks you to identify yourself, do you know why he is asking? Maybe you look like someone that is wanted, maybe he didn't like something he saw you do. The best thing to do is comply, because the officer is not acting outside of the scope of his authority by asking. If you feel that your rights have been violated take it up through a civil action. Never argue with an officer in the field you will not win.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

I haven't seen much in personal attacks, but if you feel I'm guilty then my apologies. I think we all agree that you can disarm someone using officer safety as a reason. Can you agree that officer safety is over used by many officers?

The question I still have is, am I required to show ID any time I'm asked or only if I'm guilty of an infraction or ordinance violation? What about misdemeanors or felonies?

BTW, if you feel slighted by someone, feel free to ignore them, but don't punish the others that are interested in learning.
Appreciate your input.

Also as of todays date 35 officers have been gunned down in the line of duty that is 44% more that in 2010. If you ask me Officer Safety is under used in the field.

 

[Rookie]

If an officer arbitrarily asks me for ID, I'm going to ask if I'm being detained. I want to know if the officer intends for our encounter to be consensual. If he states that I'm not being detained, them I'm not going to provide ID. If he states I am then I'm going to ask why. A valid reason (infraction or ordinance violation) will get my ID. Am I being wrong?

 

[Rookie]

Also as of todays date 35 officers have been gunned down in the line of duty that is 44% more that in 2010. If you ask me Officer Safety is under used in the field.

I am not saying that it's not a valid reason, I am saying that, at times, it is improperly used. Do you agree that some officers misuse officer safety as a reason for their actions? Example: Indiana vs. Washington.

 

[Roadie]

No your simple refusal to not open your trunk does not give an officer PC to search it, anyone who operates in this fashion is truly unprofessional.

Guys I'm just trying to give you insigh into the way things are actually done in the field. I discussed our conversation with other officers from several agency's today and they all share my opinion that we do have the authority to disarm a properly licensed armed citizen during the process of a field interview or traffic stop. The consensus was who cares if evidence is suppressed, or feelings are hurt. As long as you can articulate that you felt officer safety was the issue that led to your actions. I know that you guys are not going to like this, and some will attack me personally but that is just the way it is. There is not an unlawfully seizure taking place because the weapon is not being removed from your presence. Where the water gets gray is if I disarm you for the purpose of running your weapon to determine rather or not it is stolen. If that was the sole reason for disarming you then we get into 4th issues. I enjoy debating this with you guys but I ask that you limit the personal attacks just because you do not like the way we operate. Until there is case law that says someone can not be disarmed that is lawfully armed, I will continue to do so on a case by case basis to ensure my and my fellow officers safety.

Again with the "Officer Safety" thing.. hmmm, could you read this previous post of mine and respond please? Thanks..

The bottom line here is that it is a statistical FACT that Licensed gun owners are among the most law abiding citizens in this country.

Only 0.26% of all criminals convicted in TX are CHL holders..
Only 0.25% of all gun deaths in the US since 2007(excluding self defense) are the cause of someone licensed to carry..

You are statistically safer with an LTCH carrier, than with a non-LTCH holder. Your treatment of LTCH holders is therefore statistically, and logically, un-called for.

I have made this challenge before, and IIRC it has gone un-answered.

Can you show me ONE case in Indiana(heck, in the US) where a citizen has shown their LTCH(CHL, CHP, etc) to LE on a traffic stop, and THEN shot them? Just one...

Not to mention, the safest gun is the one you are NOT handling. You should have been taught that in Training, I assume. Also, how much easier would it be for someone to shoot you, after you have given them permission to handle their gun?

 

[thebishopp]

For those officers here who seem to think that it is against the law for a person NOT to show their ID:

IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.

If a person is being stopped and meets the requirements of this IC and refuses to identify themselves then the following:

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
__________________

In addition the U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld that officers may request the ID of anyone they have reasonable suspicion to believe has, will, or is in the process of committing a crime. Indiana IC (the ones I posted) reflect this and are in agreement.

The point being that refusal to give your ID in Indiana is not a crime unless it meets the requirements of the Indiana Code that covers it (pasted above).

For example, if I am a passenger of a motor vehicle and the officer has no reasonable suspicion to believe that I have "committed an infraction or ordinance violation" then it is not "unlawful" for me to refuse to give him my ID.

That "every time a police officer talks to you it is an investigation" BS has failed muster in court.

 

[Rookie]

Key words being infraction and ordinance violation. Misdemeanor and felonies don't apply. Sure, they can book you as John Doe, but they can't charge you with refusal to identify if you're being charged with a misdemeanor or felony.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Originally Posted by Damageable
To me it is an unreasonable request, if I wanted it in the trunk I would of put it there. Which I sometimes do with long guns or with handguns that I am not carrying for defense. Also as Bill mentioned, I will not be opening my trunk willingly. I will not willingly allow a plain view search of my trunk, by forcing me to open it so you can place my firearm inside you have violated the 4th amendment for unreasonable search.

No problem, if you do not want it in your trunk I will secure it in my vehicle for the duration of the investigation. The trunk was just an polite offering on my part. I know that no one will agree with me about disarming someone but once again until there is case law saying that I cant, I will keep doing it on a case by case basis and so will many other officers unless it becomes against department policy at some point.

For myself, you will be securing it for longer than just the investigation. I will refuse to accept it back and ask for a receipt for it. Then per IC the officer can write up a statement under oath describing the reasoning behind his belief that I'm dangerous and submit it to a judge.

You have mentioned Terry several times, but you have left out several parts. One being that the officer has to have RAS that there is a crime being committed, and also that the officer has to have RAS that the person is armed AND dangerous. Other than the original reason that you pulled a person over(which is not usually a crime, most traffic stops are a civil infraction not criminal), what about a bumper sticker or a person exercising their rights gives you RAS that a crime is afoot? Or that a person is dangerous? Other than a danger to your authority.

OK in response to Terry v. Ohio the fact that the firearm sticker exists, and the drivers refusal to answer rather or not there is a weapon in the vehicle does give RS to conduct a Terry search of the drivers person and areas of the vehicle that are within his reach. I'm not so much worried about the sticker as I am about his refusal to answer my question that leads to my safety. The sticker is nothing more than an internal alarm that sets off my spidey senses nothing more.

Spidey senses or a gut feeling are not reasonable articuable suspicion. I felt that guy was suspicious so I detained him and patted him down wouldn't fly. Where I observed him repeatedly walking back and forth in front of the window of the jewelry store shortly before closing and noticed what appeared to be a stocking mask hanging out of his back pocket (in june) and a large bulge in his jacket pocket. Quite possibly would be.

Again a person exercising their rights is not PC or RAS. Just as refusal to allow a search of a vehicle is not, neither is refusing to answer a question.

A person exercising their rights is not suspicion of a crime, whether that be refusing a search or exercising their 5th amendment rights.

You are 100% right however his non compliance to the simple question about being armed does lead one to believe that this person my be contemplating doing you harm. If he is legally armed, then there is no good reason not to answer the officer.

I can think of several good reasons. One is officers such as yourself(or at least how you come across on this forum). Another is the safest place for my firearm to be is in it's holster, not being finger ****ed by a LEO on the side of the road who may or may not know how to operate it. For instance see Kirk's encounter in broad ripple, or another posters on here experience with a officer who repeatedly on a loaded and cocked 1911 flipped the safety on and off, and told the guy his decocker was broken. Or my buddy who had an isp trooper who had no idea how to clear the chamber on his 1911.

I also don't like to give up my rights, why should I answer any questions I don't have to? To make it easier on a LEO to fish? I don't have anything illegal in my car, but if you ask me for permission to search it you will get a resounding hell no, or perhaps a "Sir I do not consent to any searches or seizures.

No offense intended and please do not take any. But please tell me you are a special or reserve deputy? Or perhaps an explorer? Nothing wrong with those. But it scares me if you are a full deputy.
The IC you mentioned does not have to do with lying. There is one regarding it, but that is not it. And the IC that covers it, most likely would not apply for a traffic stop, at least according to a attorney(and a LEO) or two here on INGO.

I have been a sworn LEO of some sort since I was 18 years old I'm now 33 (How you might ask? Military Police) I also hold a BS in Criminal Justice, and I am a second year part time law student at IU Bloomington. And yes at one point while doing my undergrad work I was a Reserve Deputy, while working as a State Parole Agent.

Now I'm scared.

You are right, the IC i quoted does not have to do with lying but it does have to do with OBSTRUCTION, providing a false statement in an attempt to inter fear with an investigation, every TS is an investigation.

Again that is the wrong section of IC. The one your thinking of is False Inform. IC 35-44-2-2

What is forcible about providing a false statement?

The only question that I know a person has to answer is to ID themselves if they are suspected in good faith by an officer of committing an infraction or ordinance violation. They can ID themselves with a state issued ID/DL or verbally with their name/dob/address. They are not required to answer any other thing, if they are stopped in a vehicle and they are the driver they have to provide registration and proof of insurance.


Other than that they are not required to provide ID. iirc there is a case here in IN (sorry can't remember the case, perhaps someone can help me out) where the police demanded ID of a witness. They refused and were arrested for failure to ID. They were convicted but it was thrown out on appeal because a person has the right to refuse to answer.

OK sticking with your train of thought if I pull over a car with 5 people in it I suppose it would be wrong to ask for the ID of everyone in the vehicle? Sorry but it happens every day, failure to identify yourself will lead to an arrest.

It may be reasonable to ask, but they are under no duty to provide it. And it is not illegal for them to not to. Unless for instance you had an honest belief they committed an infraction or ordinance violation eg failure to wear a seat belt or littering. Most likely if I'm a passenger in a car and an officer asks for my ID, I will tell him politely "no sir". If he chooses to arrest me for it, I will be speaking to an attorney.

Nothing in IC states that I have to show a LEO my LTCH and it is not a crime to not do so. But I can be arrested for carrying without a license if I do not, but charges will be dropped and all records expunged when I show it to the prosecutor per IC.

You are again correct, but do you really want to go to jail, when you could simply show your LTCH.


Where do I start

Nope, which is why the only time I've been asked about it I gave the officer my LTCH.

My answers in blue.

OK, we all know that code says an officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good. So say an officer walks up to you and asks you to identify yourself, do you know why he is asking? Maybe you look like someone that is wanted, maybe he didn't like something he saw you do. The best thing to do is comply, because the officer is not acting outside of the scope of his authority by asking. If you feel that your rights have been violated take it up through a civil action. Never argue with an officer in the field you will not win.

Your right he is not outside his authority in asking, but I am under no obligation to honor his request. Read the code I posted on duty to inform. It states that an officer can detain a person for an ordinance or infraction violation to 1) inform the person of the violation 2) get ID 3) issue a warning or summons. Notice what the first part of it is.

If you ask, I'm going to ask if I am being detained. If you answer yes, I'm going to ask what for.

 

[thebishopp]

OK, we all know that code says an officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good. So say an officer walks up to you and asks you to identify yourself, do you know why he is asking? Maybe you look like someone that is wanted, maybe he didn't like something he saw you do. The best thing to do is comply, because the officer is not acting outside of the scope of his authority by asking. If you feel that your rights have been violated take it up through a civil action. Never argue with an officer in the field you will not win.

Actually this is not true. New York in particular has paid out a number of civil suits recently. The average being 30k a pop for just that. Demanding ID's of people taking photos and then arresting them when they refused. Baltimore is in some hot water as well for beating up that college kit, falsifying the report, and then having the video of the incident turn up proving they were lying). Not to mention quite a few other incidents across the nation.

While I will not advocate antagonizing law enforcement (you could wind up dead or beaten up - maybe even the victim of some "testlying" on falsified charges) HOWEVER, the settlement is a lot higher of course if you are wrongfully arrested than if you comply, just be sure you have some type of video or audio recording that proves your case (or many witnesses).

Now as far as to "why the officer is asking". Is it against the law to ask why? Is it against the law for the officer to say exactly why he is asking? Is that against department policy these days? Not "macho" if you explain yourself? Feel like it takes away from your "power"? We aren't talking about some kind of exigent circumstance here, and not everything is an officer safety issue. I highly doubt that it is "unsafe" to explain yourself in the average encounter. Of course it does go against the Wyatt Earps out there (and I knew a lot of those when I was a cop).

Of course then we get into the plain truth that officer safety should never trump the rights of the citizen. Keep in m ind I am not speaking about police actions that are based upon their articulable suspicion and probably cause or actions taken in the lawful defense of themselves. Without that, police degenerate into little more than bullies with badges.

The whole point of the bill of rights was to restrict the power of the government and secure both the rights of the states AND the rights of the people. In particular, to secure them against intrusions by the government (both federal AND state).

To argue otherwise means that you argue for the total removal of the god given rights of individuals under "officer safety".

Wouldn't it be the ultimate in officer safety if we didn't have them? The only way for an officer to be safe is if a citizen had NO rights. I could walk up to you, taser you, handcuff, then remove your id and check it for myself. Maybe even lock you up in a little room and beat a confession out of you, after all, no one is innocent. Seriously. If an officer can initiate an attack, he is safer than if he must defend against one. First strike and all. It is common sense and a well known and successful military tactic for just that reason. Where does it stop?

The fact that any officer is arguing the "comply now" and "sue later" argument
illustrates perfectly the problem we have with current leos as well as one of the very things our founding fathers were afraid of.

 

[Hammerhead]

You keep saying that someone should show you case law where you can not disarm a citizen when you have them stopped for some reason.

You fail to read the post stating such. State v. Richardson. As a summary, in Richardson, the gentleman was stopped for a seat belt violation. He was cooperative with the officer, admitted to not wearing the belt. The officer noticed a "bulge" in his "pocket" and inquired about it. He informed the officer that it was his legally carried handgun and that he was licensed. He provided his license. The officer attempted to confirm the validity of the LTCH had an issue with the fact that the expiration date was partially obscured. She also couldn't do basic math because he'd only been issued the LTCH, a four year license, 13 months prior, well within the four years.

As she was somehow unsure of the validity of the LTCH, she performed a Terry stop and searched his truck. She found a baggie of cocaine, he resisted the subsequent arrest, and was then charged with resisting, possession, an assault on an officer.

The case made it's way to the INSC, where they ruled that the inquiry into the firearm the gentleman carried should have ended immediately after he presented a valid LTCH. Take note of this sentence. Once a valid (verified) LTCH is presented, any inquiry, including disarming the subject, is to cease immediately.

In this case, they also referenced Washington v Indiana. In Washington, the subject was removed from his car, and thus from the contents therein. He was also cuffed. The officers on the scene searched his car for "officer safety" and his firearm and a baggie of marijuana was found. The search was considered illegal as "officer safety" couldn't be used as PC or RAS as the subject was removed from his vehicle, and he was cooperating with the officers.

So there's two cases.

So, if I'm cooperating in a traffic stop, and you happen to glimpse my sidearm and ask, I will present my LTCH. Once that's done, your questions or any further actions concerning my sidearm are NOT LEGAL. I do not have to answer any questions at all. Period. I can hand you my DL and registration without speaking. I can also inform you that I do not wish to answer questions. No, you can't make me place my sidearm in the trunk. No, you can't place my sidearm in the trunk for me. No, you cannot confiscate my sidearm "for the duration of the stop in my vehicle". No, you cannot seize my property. No, I'm not required by law to inform you I'm licensed, or carrying a weapon.

If you are going to then use my silence against me, you will be meeting my attorney. If you disarm me after I've presented my LTCH, you will be meeting my attorney. If you don't like that people know and can assert their rights, including remaining silent, lawfully carrying a sidearm, and refusing searches of themselves or their property, you should find another line of work.

I don't care if "all your cop buddies do this in the field, so that's how it goes." You and your cop buddies are wrong.

Oh, and just for the sake of it, if you ever were to stop me for a traffic infraction, or any other reason, BS or not, you will be recorded.

Oh, and one last thing. All those law abiding citizens with legally carried sidearms you so adamantly wish to disarm and leave defenseless because you think "officer safety" is more important than citizens rights? Yeah, they're probably armed with more than just a sidearm, if not multiple firearms and other assorted tools that could be considered and used as weaponry. I highly doubt you'll see those. I also highly doubt that those law abiding legally carrying citizens will use any of their tools on you.

You said that officer deaths are up from last year. You still haven't answered Roadie's question about one instance, one case, one story of a LTCH or CCW permit holder informing an officer (even when it wasn't necessary or required) and THEN pulling their weapon and shooting them. This addresses a specific chain of events, not just officers being shot.

I may not have anything to hide, but I have absolutely NO reason to roll over and willingly give up my rights. Stop it.

 

[IndyGunner]

^this

 

[KG1]

Say I were to be pulled over for an infraction and lets say there are no pro 2A related stickers on the vehicle and the officer approaches, asks for my DL and registration then proceeds to inquire about any weapons in the vehicle. Now keeping in mind that in the state of IN I am not legally required to inform. I then respond with "Officer, I respectfully decline to answer any questions that are not directly related to the initial reason that I was pulled over" which I have every right to do. Does that in and of itself give that officer enough PC or RS to proceed with a Terry search? I say No. Also the point that was brought up by a previous poster about "COMPLY now" "SUE later" seems to be more and more the prevailing attitude both in the Courts and in LEO attitudes in general. I find this be an unsettleing trend at best and whether intended or not has an effect of subdueing a citizen from just trying to exert their rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No your simple refusal to not open your trunk does not give an officer PC to search it, anyone who operates in this fashion is truly unprofessional.

Guys I'm just trying to give you insigh into the way things are actually done in the field. I discussed our conversation with other officers from several agency's today and they all share my opinion that we do have the authority to disarm a properly licensed armed citizen during the process of a field interview or traffic stop. The consensus was who cares if evidence is suppressed, or feelings are hurt. As long as you can articulate that you felt officer safety was the issue that led to your actions. I know that you guys are not going to like this, and some will attack me personally but that is just the way it is. There is not an unlawfully seizure taking place because the weapon is not being removed from your presence. Where the water gets gray is if I disarm you for the purpose of running your weapon to determine rather or not it is stolen. If that was the sole reason for disarming you then we get into 4th issues. I enjoy debating this with you guys but I ask that you limit the personal attacks just because you do not like the way we operate. Until there is case law that says someone can not be disarmed that is lawfully armed, I will continue to do so on a case by case basis to ensure my and my fellow officers safety.

I appreciate your answer. As others have said, I don't care how many officers agreed that "this is the way we do it", that doesn't make it respectful of the rights of the citizens (who also have a right to go home safely), of your oaths of office, or of the Constitution itself. (edit to add: consider, for example, how many LEOs have told people over however many years that they could transport to the range unloaded and cased or even whole departments, such as Terre Haute that tell people they cannot OC according to, variably, city ordinance or state law, neither of which is ever named because they don't exist. Both are "what everyone does", but neither is right) Also, in light of Richardson, once you know that I'm in lawful possession of my handgun, you have no authority to put it in your vehicle (which DOES remove it from my presence) or to demand it go in my trunk. The lawful thing to do would be to hand it back; The chance is far higher I'll use it in your defense than that I'd turn it on you, and that the chance exists at all that I could do the latter does not give you authority to defy the INSC. There's the case law: Richardson v. Indiana.

In practice it goes like this, if you do not have your DL or ID on you then it is permit able to give name, DOB, Address.

I arrested a guy once because he refused to identify himself, we brought him in front of the judge every day for about two weeks until we had a family member come and make a missing persons report. It turned out that he was an illegal alien from Mexico.

And again, thanks for the answer.

Many Law Enforcement Officers including myself spent a full day down in INDY protesting this decision. The latest is that the court is going to review their decision so lets pray.

And finally, thanks for your efforts in favor of rights over powers. I respect that you're trying in the best way you can see to do the right thing and uphold your oath of office. I disagree with some of your methods as you describe them here, and it's my hope that you'll reconsider them. I want you to get home safely after each shift... The only thing I don't want is for you to wittingly or unwittingly trample peoples' rights to do so. Theirs are no less important than yours.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

In practice it goes like this, if you do not have your DL or ID on you then it is permit able to give name, DOB, Address.

I arrested a guy once because he refused to identify himself, we brought him in front of the judge every day for about two weeks until we had a family member come and make a missing persons report. It turned out that he was an illegal alien from Mexico.

So, you walked up to a random person on the street and demanded ID, OR was there already cause for you to stop them, THEN you asked for ID?

HUGE difference there..

 

[snowman46919]

So, you walked up to a random person on the street and demanded ID, OR was there already cause for you to stop them, THEN you asked for ID?

HUGE difference there..

Why do you keep asking him questions before he can double back on what he said without you?

 

[thebishopp]

In practice it goes like this, if you do not have your DL or ID on you then it is permit able to give name, DOB, Address.

I arrested a guy once because he refused to identify himself, we brought him in front of the judge every day for about two weeks until we had a family member come and make a missing persons report. It turned out that he was an illegal alien from Mexico.

...and if you didn't have any AS or PC to stop, detain, and demand ID - then you got lucky (and that is according to both the Indiana IC as well as Supreme Court rulings).

Had he NOT been an "illegal" and instead someone with money or influence, the outcome would have turned out badly for you. At the very least a public thrashing in the media, at the worst, your badge and maybe a law suit against both you and the city/county.

Just because "everyone does it" or has gotten away with it for a period of time doesn't make it right. History is rife with wrong doings committed by people in authority (in this case law enforcement) which continues for years before someone finally does it to the wrong person and then BAM.

 

[Roadie]

Look at the Las Vegas PD where several officers detained, beat, and smashed the phone of a citizen for filming them during an unrelated shooting..

"everyone does it" indeed.