Pulled over and disarmed in Fishers.

[jbombelli]

Perhaps they told him yes or no to his question. I don't know. I highly doubt that they gace him much information concerning the vehicle owner,address ect.

I would think they would have to run the check to confirm whether or not the vehicle was wanted for being involved in a robbery in the first place in order to confirm, no? If so then I would think that checking at all based on someone calling in would be a violation.

Assuming the OP was truthful, they either checked for it based on his calling in, or didn't check and just made something up.

Something just doesn't seem right with the whole story to me. I'm not sure what, but something doesn't sound right. Maybe it's just my suspicious nature.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would think they would have to run the check to confirm whether or not the vehicle was wanted for being involved in a robbery in the first place in order to confirm, no? If so then I would think that checking at all based on someone calling in would be a violation.

Assuming the OP was truthful, they either checked for it based on his calling in, or didn't check and just made something up.

Something just doesn't seem right with the whole story to me. I'm not sure what, but something doesn't sound right. Maybe it's just my suspicious nature.

As is common to the human copndition, my conclusions tend to be based in large part on analogous personal experience. Given that I have only once had a mistaken vehicle incident (which the officer asked politely to take a walk around my truck and established that it had not been driven through a barbed wire fence less than an hour earlier) with no BS story, just an honest and polite request, and I have had more personal experiences with some MFSB with a badge lying to me as a pretext to go fishing, you can guess what conclusion I am drawing.

 

[SirRealism]

http://gunowners.org/vpc10122011.html

Your link is broken. It's actually Violence Policy - Gun Owners Of America

(Yeah, I'm the one who actually wanted to read the whole article. )

 

[Expat]

As is common to the human copndition, my conclusions tend to be based in large part on analogous personal experience.

This is probably true. I have never had a really bad interaction with police in my almost 52 years. So I usually give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there is more to the story in a lot of these stories. Obviously there are bad encounters due to bad police actions and I won't argue that.

 

[jsharmon7]

I learn more about LE practices and procedure by reading INGO than I do from actually working a shift. Next time I have a question about how to handle a call, I'm going to log on and find the answer here!

 

[SirRealism]

I learn more about LE practices and procedure by reading INGO than I do from actually working a shift. Next time I have a question about how to handle a call, I'm going to log on and find the answer here!

NOW we're getting somewhere!

 

[j706]

I learn more about LE practices and procedure by reading INGO than I do from actually working a shift. Next time I have a question about how to handle a call, I'm going to log on and find the answer here!

Heck yes. Nothing like an on line police information service. Pretty handy. I can think of many times where I needed it because I had a question or concern and I flat out didn't know.

 

[dsom2006]

Well it is in fact acceptable and legal. I think most officers attempt to gain as much information as possible before making a stop. But you also can't be following people all over the state while you get that information. In addition many things like this require speaking with or checking out whatever the object of the hit is. There are many times no other way to make sure.

Well we are going to disagree on this one. If just because a mistake is made in the computer or police officer isn't certain; those occurances do not take precedent over my 4th amendment rights. If it did, a citizen would never have the legal right to avoid questioning.

 

[Denny347]

Police are allowed to detain based on warrant hits but the warrant must be confirmed through NCIC to make the arrest. Sorry to say that if you think otherwise you are dead wrong.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well we are going to disagree on this one. If just because a mistake is made in the computer or police officer isn't certain; those occurances do not take precedent over my 4th amendment rights. If it did, a citizen would never have the legal right to avoid questioning.

Could you clarify this a bit more?

 

[Dirtebiker]

:

I usually only have one or the other. If I have both at the same time I get all jacked up on caffeine and sugar and can't concentrate on jack booting or dog shooting.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Do a ride-along and I'll let you play with the lights and siren, yell at people on the PA, and if it is New Year's Eve we'll shoot guns in the air like everyone else.

I want a ride along with you Frank! And I can deffinitly wait till new years eve!

 

[dsom2006]

Could you clarify this a bit more?

Continuing discussion regarding use of incorrect or unverified data in the police computer to stop, detain and question a citizen. The police contengent seem to think this is perfectly acceptable and I think that it is a violation of my 4th amendment. The police/data entry mistake doesn't trump my 4th Amendment rights in my opinion.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Continuing discussion regarding use of incorrect or unverified data in the police computer to stop, detain and question a citizen. The police contengent seem to think this is perfectly acceptable and I think that it is a violation of my 4th amendment. The police/data entry mistake doesn't trump my 4th Amendment rights in my opinion.

Dsom, the name of the game is reasonable articulable suspicion.

The advent of the computer and the mobile data terminal (they were just getting those things when I retired) took law enforcement work to a whole new level, in a GOOD way, allowing LEOs in one part of the country to instantly transmit information about wanted criminals to literally every other LEO in the country.

If a LEO runs your license plate number and gets a hit on it, does that LEO have the right to detain you and investigate you? Without a doubt he does, just the same as he does if you answer to the description of a wanted criminal.

Everyone here who reads my posts knows I cut no slack to my fellow LEOs who abuse their power and violate the rights of citizens. But if you want to live in a civilized society you have to offer some degree of cooperation to law enforcement.

Our procedure in Cincinnati was if we got a computer hit we were required to get verification from our warrant unit of the validity of the hit by telephone as soon as possible. Same thing if it was from another city or state. Outdated or inaccurate information in this country's criminal information systems is rare. In any case, LEOs operate in the good faith belief that the information in the computer system is accurate and conduct themselves accordingly.

Do LEO's randomly run license plates? Sure they do. I did. All LEO's do. We were encouraged to. The ability to run unlimited numbers of plates without going through the communications unit of your agency increases the ability of a LEO to detect wanted criminals astronomically, not just traffic offenders, DANGEROUS criminals. If a LEO runs your plate and you're not wanted for anything, no harm has been done. You won't even know he did it. In all likelihood everyone on this forum has probably had his plates run multiple times. If he runs one and gets a hit on a serial killer on the lam from the other side of the country untold lives will be saved.

For the record I find the account that started this thread rather suspicious. If I got a hit on a license plate from another state that was wanted for a robbery, the driver would not be answering my questions from the driver's seat, but with his nose pressed against the asphalt.

 

[DragonGunner]

I learn more about LE practices and procedure by reading INGO than I do from actually working a shift. Next time I have a question about how to handle a call, I'm going to log on and find the answer here!

LEO: "Dispatch, I have a armed civilian in his car. Permission to take away his gun, handcuff him, an jack boot him if he gives me a hard time about it."

DISPATCH: "Hang on officer.....we are checking INGO.com"

 

[Lex Concord]

or maybe the LEO lied about why he pulled u over in the first place.

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!...LEO NEVER LIE!!!!

At least he was smart enough to make something up that would give him sufficient PC to haul you out and disarm you. That's some fine police work.

+1 Fishers PD!!!

 

[Lex Concord]

This crap again?

Hey, this distinction has helped literally thousands in Indiana rationalize the fact that they have to beg permission to exercise a "right".

 

[Lex Concord]

Considering Indiana is not "May Issue" and we require no permission to carry, but a license I think it bears repeating. We are shall issue, calling it a permit makes it sound like we had to ask "perdy pweez".

So, having to go down to the police station, give all your information, your prints, and ask the nice lawman to run your background in the state and federal DBs isn't asking permission to exercise a right? Really? Can you carry legally without getting the state's permission, i.e. submitting to the hoops they choose for you to jump through in order to exercise this right?

It's a permission slip that you are required to show (okay, now just prove that you have) to avoid losing your liberty. Just because it's shall issue once you jump through the hoops and they weren't able to find anything on you doesn't make it any less so.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yeah, back when this board was actually fun.

Good point...how long have you been a masochist?

 

[Denny347]

Good point...how long have you been a masochist?

Just like a train wreck...sometimes you cannot help but watch and compelled to participate. The wife thinks I'm nuts for even participating on a board that is so unfriendly.