Pulled over tonight...

[finity]

As promised:

Stats on crimes commited by CCW holders (Yes, I know IN is LTCH but I couldn't find stats on IN in my short search)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

A little dated but it begins the search.
___________________________________________


As of jan 2010

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

692,621 total issued

5,308 total revoked

.76% yes that’s .0076

Only 167 were revoked due to improper use of firearm in 23 years!
___________________________________________


Heres one for MI

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CPL_Annual_Report_2008-2009_307251_7.pdf

____________________________________________

Here’s a very easy to read one from Texas

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

& here’s all years

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

_____________________________________________

Ohio

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Enforcement/Concealed-Carry/Concealed-Carry-Statistics

_____________________________________________

You get the idea…

In every instance the suspension & revocation rate for CCW holders (I assume anybody convicted gets revoked) compared to the general population shows that CCW holders are more law-abiding.

Just the facts.

 

[Denny347]

BTW there are a lot of jobs out there way more dangerous (& crappy) than LEO's. As a matter of fact cops are WAY down the list of the most dangerous jobs. It's not like cops are being killed left & right. Let's not lose sight of that bit of reality.

Ok ok...I need to interject. What do you know about the dangers of being an officer here in Indianapolis? I work the district with the largest concentration of section 8 complexes in the state. I work every day in the crappiest neighborhoods with our worse criminals. How does generalized statistics apply to me? It REALLY depends on where you are an officer at. The statistics are misleading. Some cities are worse than others. In my short 12yrs as an LEO here in Indy, I have had a friend shot in the chest (thankfully the vest caught it), I've had one friend shot and killed, 2 friends shot in the head, both surviving but one lost his eye and one lost part of his brain and it was a miracle he survived. I've had one co-worker shot in the chest with a shotgun (thankfully with bird shot). I've had one friend that shot and killed a bad guy who was hiding, it was his K9 that caught the bad guy by surprise. The bad guy shot/killed the K9 instead of the officer. The bad guy was trying to shoot the officer and the dog saved his life. I've had a co-worker shot and killed by a loon with a rifle. How about the officer that was chasing a shoplifter and was stabbed in the eye for his trouble. Or my buddies that chased a burglar to the woods only to have him start taking shots at them while concealed in the trees. I was soo mad that I had left the shift to go to days and was not there with my rifle to help them out. This does not count the dozen or so funerals I attended for LEO's in other areas of the state that died in the line of duty. If I'm a LEO of Boondock USA...I'll probably never see violence. This is MY reality so please do not talk like you know what dangers I face and the likelihood of violence. I assure you that the only people seeing their buddies getting killed/injured more often than me are military in war time. I'm not complaining, I LOVE this job and gladly face the danger every day. I put the uniform on everyday knowing that it may be the last time I see my wife and kids. But it is my calling, it is in my blood, it is an unavoidable part of my makeup. The statistics are worthless without more data. The larger cities have officers dying often, but there are more smaller departments with little crime so the statistics are skewed. I really dislike hearing that BS about the likelihood of violence. I've seen too much to believe otherwise. So that let us not lose sight of that little bit of MY reality.

 

[UncleMike]

Ok ok...I need to interject. What do you know about the dangers of being an officer here in Indianapolis? I work the district with the largest concentration of section 8 complexes in the state. I work every day in the crappiest neighborhoods with our worse criminals. How does generalized statistics apply to me? It REALLY depends on where you are an officer at. The statistics are misleading. Some cities are worse than others. In my short 12yrs as an LEO here in Indy, I have had a friend shot in the chest (thankfully the vest caught it), I've had one friend shot and killed, 2 friends shot in the head, both surviving but one lost his eye and one lost part of his brain and it was a miracle he survived. I've had one co-worker shot in the chest with a shotgun (thankfully with bird shot). I've had one friend that shot and killed a bad guy who was hiding, it was his K9 that caught the bad guy by surprise. The bad guy shot/killed the K9 instead of the officer. The bad guy was trying to shoot the officer and the dog saved his life. I've had a co-worker shot and killed by a loon with a rifle. How about the officer that was chasing a shoplifter and was stabbed in the eye for his trouble. Or my buddies that chased a burglar to the woods only to have him start taking shots at them while concealed in the trees. I was soo mad that I had left the shift to go to days and was not there with my rifle to help them out. This does not count the dozen or so funerals I attended for LEO's in other areas of the state that died in the line of duty. If I'm a LEO of Boondock USA...I'll probably never see violence. This is MY reality so please do not talk like you know what dangers I face and the likelihood of violence. I assure you that the only people seeing their buddies getting killed/injured more often than me are military in war time. I'm not complaining, I LOVE this job and gladly face the danger every day. I put the uniform on everyday knowing that it may be the last time I see my wife and kids. But it is my calling, it is in my blood, it is an unavoidable part of my makeup. The statistics are worthless without more data. The larger cities have officers dying often, but there are more smaller departments with little crime so the statistics are skewed. I really dislike hearing that BS about the likelihood of violence. I've seen too much to believe otherwise. So that let us not lose sight of that little bit of MY reality.

Mike

 

[WestSider]

I've seen tons of these types of threads and thankfully I haven't had any experiences like this. I will say that legal or not, I doubt I would ever have a rifle sitting unsheathed on my front passenger seat.

I do know that acting nervous and making inconsistent statements to the police will automatically get you more attention.

As far as telling the officer that I'm armed, I wouldn't even mention it unless he asked. I have been pulled over exactly one time in my life for a burnt out tail light and I didn't see a need to mention it to him as it didn't pertain to the issue at hand.

I didn't give this topic much thought until I took a class on criminal justice and talked quite a bit with a retired police officer and it truly is all about the officer's safety.

 

[SSGSAD]

Does any law officer in Indiana have the right to disarm you without cause? Particularly in the case that you broke no law?

Serious question I hope will be answered by someone who really knows.

The LEO, will tell you, that it is for YOUR protection, and Safety, as well as his own.....

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I was a reserve LEO for a couple years. Let me give you a perspective from someone that can see both sides of the issue. I'll put myself in the officers shoes.

Start off by breaking down the chain of events according to the OP. OP says he in essence pulled over for no reason. My immediate thought would be that he needed some assistance. My secondary thought would be that he was disoriented or under the influence. I walk up to the car and visually identify a weapon. Again, I don't know the reason for OP's stop, but I have an absolute right to safety during our encounter. Who says an LEO's safety trumps your right to keep ahold of your gun for the few minutes you are stopped? The courts do. It's well established doctrine under Terry that an officer can protect himself. You may not like it, but it is settled law.

So I ask for the weapon and OP complied. I ask if OP had any other weapons to which OP responds affirmatively. I ask for that weapon and OP complies. It sounds like a respectful exchange so far.

Now, back to probable cause. After identifying that OP needed no assistance, the next issue on the list would be that OP was either disoriented or under the influence. The fact that OP complied with the requests would lead me to believe that it was just a misunderstanding. I would give him back his weapons, thank him for his indulgence, and send him on his way.

However, if he had not complied in such a case I probably would have called for a second car. If he was a real prick I may well have assumed that he was under the influence and escalated the stop. Again, it sounds as though there was reason to believe the OP was disoriented or under the influence. In either case until you determine he's safe to drive you can't let him drive away. If he drives 2 blocks away and has a diabetic seizure causing an accident with injuries or death, then everyone jumps all over the useless LEO who failed to do his job.

The bottom line is it's not like the LEO picked the OP out of a line and pulled him over just to ask if he had any weapons. He kept the weapons only for the duration of the stop. Hell, I was stopped by a trooper for speeding and after identifying myself he asked for my weapon (Glock 22). He handed it back to me field stripped. I could have been pissed off, and made useless phone calls that no one pays attention to and really just laughs at you about, and generally railed about how violated I was. Or, as I chose, I put it back together and drove away. It took less than 30 seconds. No anger, no frustration, no lasting ill effects.

Some things just aren't worth getting you blood pressure up about. The circumstances of this stop as stated lead me to believe this is one of those times.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
However, if he had not complied in such a case I probably would have called for a second car. If he was a real prick I may well have assumed that he was under the influence and escalated the stop.snip

So... if he chooses to exercise his Constitutional rights to not answer your questions, you see that as good reason to toss the Constitution aside, manufacture probable cause (lie about whether or not you actually thought he was under the influence, since being a prick to you when you demand he open his trunk and allow you to conduct an illegal search while claiming it's to put a weapon away when you have no legal right to make such a demand isn't actually probably cause) and get other officers involved in your conspiracy to deny an American citizen their civil rights... following which you'd no doubt perjure yourself in court to cover your illegal actions?

Heck, why not just prone 'em out, claim thay made a furtive movement, and enjoy the two weeks off?

 

[Bull]

Ok ok...I need to interject. What do you know about the dangers of being an officer here in Indianapolis? I work the district with the largest concentration of section 8 complexes in the state. I work every day in the crappiest neighborhoods with our worse criminals. How does generalized statistics apply to me? It REALLY depends on where you are an officer at. The statistics are misleading. Some cities are worse than others. In my short 12yrs as an LEO here in Indy, I have had a friend shot in the chest (thankfully the vest caught it), I've had one friend shot and killed, 2 friends shot in the head, both surviving but one lost his eye and one lost part of his brain and it was a miracle he survived. I've had one co-worker shot in the chest with a shotgun (thankfully with bird shot). I've had one friend that shot and killed a bad guy who was hiding, it was his K9 that caught the bad guy by surprise. The bad guy shot/killed the K9 instead of the officer. The bad guy was trying to shoot the officer and the dog saved his life. I've had a co-worker shot and killed by a loon with a rifle. How about the officer that was chasing a shoplifter and was stabbed in the eye for his trouble. Or my buddies that chased a burglar to the woods only to have him start taking shots at them while concealed in the trees. I was soo mad that I had left the shift to go to days and was not there with my rifle to help them out. This does not count the dozen or so funerals I attended for LEO's in other areas of the state that died in the line of duty. If I'm a LEO of Boondock USA...I'll probably never see violence. This is MY reality so please do not talk like you know what dangers I face and the likelihood of violence. I assure you that the only people seeing their buddies getting killed/injured more often than me are military in war time. I'm not complaining, I LOVE this job and gladly face the danger every day. I put the uniform on everyday knowing that it may be the last time I see my wife and kids. But it is my calling, it is in my blood, it is an unavoidable part of my makeup. The statistics are worthless without more data. The larger cities have officers dying often, but there are more smaller departments with little crime so the statistics are skewed. I really dislike hearing that BS about the likelihood of violence. I've seen too much to believe otherwise. So that let us not lose sight of that little bit of MY reality.

Thank you for doing what you do.

 

[theturtle06]

So... if he chooses to exercise his Constitutional rights to not answer your questions, you see that as good reason to toss the Constitution aside, manufacture probable cause (lie about whether or not you actually thought he was under the influence, since being a prick to you when you demand he open his trunk and allow you to conduct an illegal search while claiming it's to put a weapon away when you have no legal right to make such a demand isn't actually probably cause) and get other officers involved in your conspiracy to deny an American citizen their civil rights... following which you'd no doubt perjure yourself in court to cover your illegal actions?

Heck, why not just prone 'em out, claim thay made a furtive movement, and enjoy the two weeks off?

So if you were in his shoes and you have the OP pulled over, see a gun sitting in plain view, and ask the OP about it. He doesn't answer your question, you just gonna wave him along and say "Have a nice day?"

 

[Joe Williams]

So if you were in his shoes and you have the OP pulled over, see a gun sitting in plain view, and ask the OP about it. He doesn't answer your question, you just gonna wave him along and say "Have a nice day?"

What I never did do was manufacture probable cause.

 

[SedahDrol]

So... if he chooses to exercise his Constitutional rights to not answer your questions, you see that as good reason to toss the Constitution aside, manufacture probable cause (lie about whether or not you actually thought he was under the influence, since being a prick to you when you demand he open his trunk and allow you to conduct an illegal search while claiming it's to put a weapon away when you have no legal right to make such a demand isn't actually probably cause) and get other officers involved in your conspiracy to deny an American citizen their civil rights... following which you'd no doubt perjure yourself in court to cover your illegal actions?

Heck, why not just prone 'em out, claim thay made a furtive movement, and enjoy the two weeks off?

The search wasn't an illegal search, the OP implied consent the moment he complied with the officers request. Remember police are allowed to talk to you and ask you to do things. Until you are under arrest they are under no obligation to remind you of your miranda rights. It's up to the citizen to know their rights until that point and excersice them. Which is why everybody should know how to politely say the L-word, once you say Lawyer an officer can not question you any further. Well they can, but they are violating your rights at that point. Another thing to remember is that an officer is allowed to use deception. Even if it's making it appear they have the right to demand you to open your trunk. One of their strongest tools is a commanding presence. Was the cop a prick? That is a possible interpretation of his actions. Or was he merely increasing his odds of going home safely.

Keep in mind that exercising your rights may turn a warning into a ticket. Give a cop an hard time they might just return the favor. They can call another unit, have a K-9 sniff the exterior of your car. Interpret that the K-9 indicated a hit. Thoroughly search your car. It's a two way street. Cops are human, if you are a prick to them they are more likely to be a prick to you. If the cop is the initiator the prick-like behavior, the citizen, might just return the favor and lodge a complaint. Complaints can keep a police officer from advancing. BTW if a cop is exceptionally respectful to you, by all means return the favor and let the department know about the fine job the officer did.

 

[theturtle06]

What I never did do was manufacture probable cause.

I wasn't asking about probable cause. But on that note, wouldn't you be just a little bit suspicious in a LEOs position in this case?

Would you have let this guy go if you had pulled him over?

Also to the LEOs what is the proper way to hand you a weapon in a traffic stop? My good sense and rules of handling firearms would generally dictate me dropping the mag, clearing the chamber, and locking the slide back. I would of course ask permission and keep it pointed At my floorboard if given the ok.

 

[kludge]

Again, I don't know the reason for OP's stop, but I have an absolute right to safety during our encounter. Who says an LEO's safety trumps your right to keep ahold of your gun for the few minutes you are stopped? The courts do. It's well established doctrine under Terry that an officer can protect himself. You may not like it, but it is settled law.

Terry was stopped for a reason. There must be PC or RS for Terry to apply.

A cop can't just go down the street stopping (or pulling people over) and frisking people or taking a peek into their cars. They can't even stop them if the SEE a rifle in the back window.

Now (from the cop's point of view) say I pull someone over for 10mph over the limit on I-465, and I see that the driver is wearing clothing typical of a street gang, and my experience with street gangs it that they usually have drugs or weapons on them.

Wearing clothing typical of a street gang is not PC or RS of having drugs or weapons.

So I ask, "License and registration, please. Any drugs or weapons in the car?"

The response is "Good evening officer. Here's my license and registration. May I ask why I was stopped?"

"Sir, I asked about drugs and weapons. Please answer the question." (I don't smell anything either.)

Silence.

"Sir, please step out of the vehicle and keep you hands in view."

Now I frisk him and find nothing that feels like a weapon. Tell him to stand in front of the vehicle with his hands on the hood. Then I reach under the seat and find a dime bag.

"Sir, you are under arrest for possession of a prohibited substance."

In this situation, IMO, IANAL, etc., Terry is out the window and both the frisk and the search of the passenger compartment were not incipient to the traffic stop.

In fact once he is removed from the vehicle, and can not reasonably get to a weapon in the vehicle, the whole vehicle becomes off limits under Terry.

At least this is how I understand Terry.

.
.
.

If I were the cop in the OP, upon seeing the gun (back window, front seat, whatever) I would get the driver out of the car instead of trying to get the gun out of the car with the driver in it.

Traffic stops aside...

What I don't get is how a LEO can ask to see an ID and a LTCH and confiscate a handgun (however short the duration of the "encounter") if (s)he sees someone OC or CC and have it be valid under Terry, or if responding to a "man with a gun" call for someone that is OC in Kroger's.

 

[sonny27]

I spoke with a lawyer who works for a police department in central Indiana. He told me that a law abiding citizen does have the right to deny a police officer if he/she asks to disarm you during a simply traffic violation. He said it's the same as denying him/her if they ask to search your vehicle.

The lawyer said the average citizen doesn't know they can deny a police officer if they tell you to give them your weapon. I want to make myself clear, a law abiding citizen may deny a police officer from taking your weapon during a simple traffic violation. A simple violation means not using your signal, a rolling stop, or a brake light being out.


Read the end of the paragraph below.


This is from the Indiana State Police website faq section:

Does Indiana statute require me to carry the handgun on my person concealed or exposed?

Indiana law is silent on this issue; however, carrying an exposed weapon in public may
alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private
property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted
areas when carrying firearms into public places. If approached by law enforcement for
official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, it is recommended
that you tell the officer in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or
have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement
officer does have the right to inspect the permit.

 

[birdhunter55]

As I stated before. A license is not a guarantee that someone isn't a threat. It just means that they can carry a handgun on their person to protect themselves.
The fact that a person has a license does not mean that the Officer must drop his guard.
Licensed people can be a threat just as easily as unlicensed people.
Mike

Nor is a uniform or a badge a guarantee that the individual wearing it isn't a threat. Looks like a stalemate to me!

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

So if you were in his shoes and you have the OP pulled over, see a gun sitting in plain view, and ask the OP about it. He doesn't answer your question, you just gonna wave him along and say "Have a nice day?"

I guess you arrest me, throw me in jail at 9pm on Friday night, do blood tests etc, get a search warrant for my car, put me in front of a judge on monday.

Then Tuesday Morning I go find a lawyer and sue the living bejesus out of the police department.

 

[Denny347]

I guess you arrest me, throw me in jail at 9pm on Friday night, do blood tests etc, get a search warrant for my car, put me in front of a judge on monday.

Then Tuesday Morning I go find a lawyer and sue the living bejesus out of the police department.

Yup, no middle ground. We will usually do nothing or arrest everyone. That's how we roll.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Yup, no middle ground. We will usually do nothing or arrest everyone. That's how we roll.

I hope no one here gets me wrong, I do have a lot of respect for the job cops do but just some of them are good, some are bad, some like the idea of citizens being armed and some think they should be the only ones allowed with a firearm.
I have came to the conclusion my run in with this particular cop was a cop in the later group, plus a possible ego tripper who gets his rocks off bossing people around. Or he was either unaware of any laws as his sister finally left him for his other brother and wanted a change of scenery from west Virgina.

I kid I kid.

 

[Joe Williams]

The search wasn't an illegal search, the OP implied consent the moment he complied with the officers request. snip

An even halfway decent attorney wouldn't have a problem proving that being required to open the trunk was an illegal search. The OP wasn't "asked" to open the trunk, he was ordered to do so to put the rifle in it. There was no legal basis whatsoever for that demand, and complying with it allowed the officer to conduct at least a visual, and illegal, search. Further, the OP states that the officer kept harrassing him, and the courts have made clear that that conduct from an armed officer is so intimidating that the encounter, and any searches resulting, are in fact not voluntary or consensual.

Yes, there are officers out there that will abuse you for exercising your rights. Those are the officers that cause problems not only for us, but for other officers, and those are the officers that are the target of my ire.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You sure assumed and fabricated a lot from I said. Do you hate cops for a living or just a hobby?

I never said anything about searching his trunk. I would not have, unless he got out of the vehicle and went to open it himself. If he said that he had a weapon in the trunk I would have left it at that. As I said, at that point I was concerned about public safety, his safety, and my safety and whether he may have had something debilitating his ability to safely operate a vehicle.

He can absolutely exercise his Constitutional right to not answer questions. However, after a stop that HE initiated I would have had both a moral and legal obligation to ensure his safety before allowing him to continue to execute the PRIVILEGE of driving on Indiana public highways, roads and streets.

I don't know why you think that in my mind being a prick would mean not answering my questions. It would be acting irrationally. Acting debilitated. Acting like a total ***hole for no apparent reason.

I pulled somone over once for erradic driving. It turns out he was hypoglycemic and was in insulin shock. He passed out while I had him stopped, and without treatment could have died. Instead, I called an ambulance and his family. Everything turned out fine. He was actually able to drive home. Didn't even get charged for the EMS to come save him. And I didn't write him a ticket for being sick. Bet you don't believe that, do you?

What do you think the outcome would have been if I would have taken your stance and just said "well, you haven't broken any laws, so you're free to die now"? How many lawsuits do you think I would have endured had he gotten into an accident and killed himself or someone else? For that matter, what do you think would have happened if I had just left him in that state and he died? But hell, anything so as not to trample his Constitutional right to go into diabetic coma.

I worked in a jurisdiction that had over twice as many reserves as full time officers. I never wrote a single traffic ticket; most of the reserves didn't. If someone was speeding I'd just hit my lights. They would slow down. As far as I was concerned that solved the problem.

You might want to just take a breath and think about the other consequences that can occur in a situation before you accuse good people of conspiracy, purjury, and murder. You don't sound very rational or smart when you just fly off making wild statements on one side or the other - you sound like a troll. Just sayin'.

So... if he chooses to exercise his Constitutional rights to not answer your questions, you see that as good reason to toss the Constitution aside, manufacture probable cause (lie about whether or not you actually thought he was under the influence, since being a prick to you when you demand he open his trunk and allow you to conduct an illegal search while claiming it's to put a weapon away when you have no legal right to make such a demand isn't actually probably cause) and get other officers involved in your conspiracy to deny an American citizen their civil rights... following which you'd no doubt perjure yourself in court to cover your illegal actions?

Heck, why not just prone 'em out, claim thay made a furtive movement, and enjoy the two weeks off?