SBPD LEO Encounter

[Birdman002]

In this case it probably had something to do with the five police cars racing up and having guns pointed at you like it was a felony stop or something, the OP was probably a little rattled at that and not feeling the least bit cheerful.

I actually did thank them for what they are doing. Regardless of why they stopped me I appreciate law enforcement for what they are doing.

 

[jgreiner]

I just told them that my wallet was in my front pocket

That was the part that pissed me off the most he reached into my pocket. I am sure that is out of the probable cause/ reasonable suspicion

OCing a handgun does not warrant probable cause.

 

[92ThoStro]

OCing a handgun does not warrant probable cause.

It was the holster

It was also done for national security

And for the children

 

[reesez]

OCing a handgun does not warrant probable cause.

I don't think so either..........

It was the holster

It was also done for national security

And for the children

Fixed

 

[KW730]

So what was the crime reported? The person who called it in should be charged with falsely reporting a crime.

I would assume the crime reported was that someone was carrying a handgun. Once again, this is an illegal act unless you are an excepted person.

Similarly, if you lock yourself out of your house and decide to climb through a window. A neighbor sees a body going in through a window and calls the police. They have every right to investigate the report of residential entry, they can't automatically know that you own the house.

 

[reesez]

I would assume the crime reported was that someone was carrying a handgun. Once again, this is an illegal act unless you are an excepted person.

Similarly, if you lock yourself out of your house and decide to climb through a window. A neighbor sees a body going in through a window and calls the police. They have every right to investigate the report of residential entry, they can't automatically know that you own the house.

Good point.

 

[Bunnykid68]

OCing a handgun does not warrant probable cause.

According to current it law it does though.

 

[MikeDVB]

Drop leg holster = mall ninja

Having a drop leg holster doesn't make you anything but somebody who carries a firearm.

Do you think it's a silly way to carry? Sure you do. Do any of us that have drop leg holsters care? Nope. Keep on trolling trolling trolling...

If you think it makes sense to carry one if these around when you aren't going into battle, I'm going to discount everything you say. Sure, it is your right... That doesn't make it right though.

I ordered mine so I can carry my firearm below my winter coat for easier access should I need it.

Freaking hilarious.

The only thing hilarious is you projecting your feelings onto others as though it's gospel. You remind me a lot of Piers Morgan - I'm willing to bet in a live debate you'd raise your voice/yell/talk over whoever you were debating.

If you think otherwise, I'll throw you in the same class as the mall ninja idiots.

You're welcome to do what you want, good for you!

 

[griffin]

I agree that dispatchers should be trained to ask a little more information.

The Lansing, MI police and dispatchers have been trained not to go apesh*t when some doofus makes a MWAG call. This is from one of their training bulletins:

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT "OPEN CARRY" OF FIREARMS
...
So how are we going to handle this type of call?

RETHINK ‘MAN WITH A GUN’ CALL

Historically the ‘Man With a Gun Call’ may have prompted a full court press that urgent police action was required. Not necessarily so anymore.

911 Center / Dispatch Considerations

If a complaint comes through dispatch, staff needs to ask for more information than what has been asked in the past. At one end of the spectrum is the phrase “man with a gun”. With the prevalence of Concealed Pistol Licenses and Open Carry laws, people may be seen in public with handguns. At the other end of the spectrum might be a call that there is an active shooter. The person merely possessing an open carry gun should prompt a very different police response than the call of an active shooter, for example.

KEY: THE FOCUS IS WHAT IS THE PERSON WITH THE GUN DOING WITH THE GUN?

-Ask what the specific behavior the subject engaged in led to the complaint.
-Ask what the subject is specifically doing at the location.
-Ask if other people are with the subject.
-Ask if others are visibly armed.
-Ask if other people are behaving normally.
-Ask if the caller is on private property and are they the owner/agent.
-Ask the caller if the only reason for the call is that the subject is armed.

 

[LPMan59]

OCing a handgun does not warrant probable cause.

since carrying a handgun is a crime in Indiana, yes it is. I guess I don't understand the confusion.

Now, it is probably safe to assume that someone who OCs a pistol is smart enough to know the law (ie he needs a LTCH). But then again, people get arrested for carrying in Chicago and NYC who should know better, too.

 

[griffin]

There is am I.D. law let me look for it.

FOUND IT
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5

That is for a vehicle moving violation, not walking down the street.

 

[Bunnykid68]

since carrying a handgun is a crime in Indiana, yes it is. I guess I don't understand the confusion.

Now, it is probably safe to assume that someone who OCs a pistol is smart enough to know the law (ie he needs a LTCH). But then again, people get arrested for carrying in Chicago and NYC who should know better, too.

But those in Chicago and NYC were definitely not OC

 

[EvilBlackGun]

... and don't use Latin if you don't know Latin ...

... "per se: intrinsically; by, of, or in itself or themselves; additionally:==>

I don't see that the police did anything wrong per say, besides over react.

In over-reacting one of their guns may have gone off! THAT would definitely be "anything wrong!" If a citizen is walking, the citizen cannot be required to show a driver license (unless in a liquor-store.) We don't have "walking licenses (yet)" but if a citizen "looks different" the citizen may be asked for a Green Card. But that is for another topic.

 

[reesez]

That is for a vehicle moving violation, not walking down the street.

It still applies to when you are asked for ID.

Police-citizen encounters

In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. “Stop-and-identify” laws pertain to detentions.

It is important to note that different obligations apply to drivers of automobiles, who generally are required to present a driver's license to a peace officer upon request.

[edit] Consensual

At any time, a peace officer may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the officer also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[2] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[3] A person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”

[edit] Detention

A peace officer may briefly detain a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. An officer may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if the officer reasonably suspects that the person to be detained may be armed.

A peace officer may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[4] However, many states have “stop-and-identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to a peace officer, and in some cases, provide additional information.

Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to identify himself. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[5] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[6] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop-and-identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court's opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop-and-identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.

The validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name remains unresolved as of January 2008.

 

[qwerty]

That is for a vehicle moving violation, not walking down the street.

Chapter 5 deals with Infraction and Ordinance Violations, not necessarily limited to vehicles. It applies to foot traffic as well. There is nothing in that chapter that that limits it to moving violations.

 

[griffin]

It still applies to when you are asked for ID.

So IN is a stop-and-ID state? I didn't think it was.

ETA: did some checking and I see that it is. Didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[reesez]

So IN is a stop-and-ID state? I didn't think it was.

Yes sir.
You can be arrested for at not at least stating your information when asked. Also before that you could be arrested and held for 72 hours until you are identified.

 

[mrortega]

The fact is, the officers were doing their job. And according to the story we get here, nobody broke any law and no rights were violated.

If you are going to OC, especially like a dork, expect to get hassled by the cops. If you don't like it, complain to the department (see where that gets you), call a lawyer (see where that gets you), at least carry a camera with you.

By the way, can we revisit the driving a car analogy. That hasn't been covered enough.

I'd say having a cop stick his hand into my pocket is a violation of my rights. He had no right to do a "search." Maybe next time op can carry some type of sharp object and let the LEO learn a lesson. (As an aside, there are a couple of female Evansville LEOs who are welcome to do a pocket search on me any time they want )

 

[bigus_D]

Having a drop leg holster doesn't make you anything but somebody who carries a firearm.

Do you think it's a silly way to carry? Sure you do. Do any of us that have drop leg holsters care? Nope. Keep on trolling trolling trolling...

I ordered mine so I can carry my firearm below my winter coat for easier access should I need it.

The only thing hilarious is you projecting your feelings onto others as though it's gospel. You remind me a lot of Piers Morgan - I'm willing to bet in a live debate you'd raise your voice/yell/talk over whoever you were debating.

You're welcome to do what you want, good for you!

Having a drop leg holster is fine. Doing your shopping in it is another matter.

I'm not an INGO troll. You are mistaken.

What I'm doing is projecting a little common sense, or common perception, into this myopic pro-gun groupthink.

I know I'm welcome to do what I want. I also accept the, sometimes blatantly obvious, repercussions of my actions...

 

[j706]

Pretty much. I don't blame them for their response I just want to know what the call was put out to the officers as. I can't wait to go in and make a deal out of this. I am a law abiding citizen and to be treated like that I was hoping they were gonna slap the cuffs on me or something haha Really get some compensation

Dude you don't have a valid complaint. I would guess they responded the way they did based off the call they received.