Sheriff Deputy tries to get me to leave Anderson Public Library.

[ashby koss]

You handled this perfectly.

1) you didn't get in any trouble legally
2) you informed him correctly, and he hopefully learned for future events
3) you brought his lack of knowledge about the code to the attention of other library staff
4) your son got to play
5) you didn't turn him into a JBT with your smart-assery

Despite possibly going a bit too far in "being complacent" with giving him information, its a fair trade off really. Question their authority on the small stuff and you can lose the war due to ego.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

IC 35-47-14-3 Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Indiana Code 35-47-14

OC legalities:
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. A law enforcement officer does have the right to inspect the permit. (wording is per indiana state police website)

In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations was unconstitutional.

Malone v State 49A02-0701-CR-18, says that your sidearm cannot be seized without either A) a warrant, B) RABCOS, or C) RAS, but Malone was on his own front porch, not out and about.


This info, along with other court findings case law and ICs are stored in the notes portiin of my phone. I would advise anyone who carries to do this and keep that info handy if you are stopped.

I just took a picture of your post and stored it in the notes portion of my phone. thanks.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Officers realize that a citizen's requirement to follow their orders does not extend beyond a defined context. But they also realize that not all citizens know enough to determine, in the moment, when a particular order falls outside of that context, and/or even if the citizen knows or suspects that it has, they will follow it anyway out of a normal response to an authority figure.

If officers would want all citizens to follow all of their orders without question, then maybe they should make it a policy not to give any invalid orders, and to correct and penalize each other when one does.

 

[Mark 1911]

Sorry, I don't give 3 craps who you are. You are NOT removing my gun from its holster. Period.

The officer had no legal reason to disarm the OP. Therefore, the officer should not have done so. However, once the officer initiates this, even though it is illegal, what are the options here? Serious question. Anyone?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If the officer tried to take my gun from it's holster and I physically prevented him from doing that, I see no way that it would end well for me. I don't see any way that my word that he had nothing to worry about against his word that he was doing it for his own safety while determining whether I was permitted, would carry any weight. And I'm not sure that the language in the IC codes pertaining to seizure of a firearm applies in the case of an officer "holding" it until he determines that you are properly permitted.

I would never physically resist an officer unless I was ready to go to jail and take matters up in court.

 

[Mark 1911]

I would not resist either. At most I might turn my holster side away from him and try to ask him what he was doing and say I do not consent, but if he was intent on disarming me, I don't think I have many options. Please correct me if I am wrong anyone. I think it best to take it up with his supervisors afterwards.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would not resist either. At most I might turn my holster side away from him and try to ask him what he was doing and say I do not consent, but if he was intent on disarming me, I don't think I have many options. Please correct me if I am wrong anyone. I think it best to take it up with his supervisors afterwards.

This is pretty much what I was thinking....something like: "Officer think it's safer for all of us if the gun stays right where it is. However if you insist on disarming me, I will not resist but I do not consent".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

In my famous Subway encounter, the officer disarmed me. He didn't ask, he said "keep your hands above your waste", and removed my gun from the holster and unloaded it in the crowded restaraunt.

Going forward, I will be practicing the "I don't consent" and "It's safer where it is..."

 

[Somemedic]

And I'm not sure that the language in the IC codes pertaining to seizure of a firearm applies in the case of an officer "holding" it until he determines that you are properly permitted.

I would never physically resist an officer unless I was ready to go to jail and take matters up in court.

If that library is like most its wired for video. That may serve you well. But reading the IC pertaining to the seizure of a weapon without a warrant seems fairly clear. It would be nice to have some case law on it and maybe it will take one of us to take one for the team but as it reads the officer was in violation of that code. He OP should without a doubt follow up with the chain of command with an email to the chief and then a visit. QUOTE THE LAWS that I put up previously. .. it tends to catch their attention.

 

[Somemedic]

I just took a picture of your post and stored it in the notes portion of my phone. thanks.

Tyler.... get the whole thing sir. As I stated before this stays on my phone fir quick reference in the event there is jack booted thuggery about. Edit as need be, the interpretation are paraphrased by either myself or CathyInBlue. IAAL but this and a smile will get you a lot further...

(Adam) Starr v State, 49A04-0912-CR-677 (2010) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...6221001lmb.pdf You are only required to ID yourself if you are suspected of an infraction or violation, period.

(Ken) Gunn v State, 49A02-1102-CR-82 (2011) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...0241103pss.pdf
The law is what it is. It is unreasonable for the police to apply their own misunderstanding of it as if it were law.

Mark) Clarke v State, 49A05-0508-CR-435 (2006) http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions...9290602pds.pdf
If overly persistent police venture from consensual encounter to investigatory detention, once the suspect no longer feels free to leave or disregard the police's orders, without RAS, searches and seizures are thereafter illegal.

State v (Wesley) Brown, 63A04-0506-CR-302 (2006) http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions...1170601ewn.pdf Search warrants supported only by unsworn testimony are defective on their face.

(Gregory) Finger v State, 49S02-0311-CR-587 (2003) FINGER v. STATE, No.

State v Richardson:
Once a valid LTCH is presented all questioning about the weapon should cease.

State v Washington:
He possessed a valid permit, violated the Fourth Amendment when the officer lacked an articulable basis of concern for officer safety.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Clarke v State was overturned by the SC of IN. CLARKE v. STATE, No.?49S05-0612-CR-496., June 26, 2007 - IN Supreme Court | FindLaw

We hold that a police officer who neither explicitly nor implicitly communicates that a person is not free to go about his or her business may ask questions of the person to investigate allegations of criminal activity without implicating the Fourth Amendment or requiring the advisement of rights under the Indiana Constitution.

 

[revance]

You let that go on way too long. You should have just told him to arrest you or get lost.

 

[Bung]

I had my son there, my wife was indisposed, if he did decide to arrest me, I wouldn't trust the state to care for my child until my wife could claim him.

 

[revance]

Sorry, I would not have allowed him to relocate me. That is 100% being detained. If he wants to detain and relocate you, force him to do it properly where there is a police report. The officer would have had to wait an hour for family services to arrive and other officers would be called to the scene. This would all create a paper trail and I'm sure before it was completed one of the other officers would set him straight.

I highly doubt he would have tried. Instead he got what he wanted... to bully you around.

I would have done more than legally required. I would have provided my LTCH and not resisted being disarmed. But if you want to relocate me from a place I am legally entitled to be, you better get a social worker for my child, put cuffs on my wrists, and file an arrest report.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Sorry, I would not have allowed him to relocate me. That is 100% being detained. If he wants to detain and relocate you, force him to do it properly where there is a police report. The officer would have had to wait an hour for family services to arrive and other officers would be called to the scene. This would all create a paper trail and I'm sure before it was completed one of the other officers would set him straight.

I highly doubt he would have tried. Instead he got what he wanted... to bully you around.

I would have done more than legally required. I would have provided my LTCH and not resisted being disarmed. But if you want to relocate me from a place I am legally entitled to be, you better get a social worker for my child, put cuffs on my wrists, and file an arrest report.

You really want to go up against several police reports all saying you needed to be arrested for whatever reason? It isn't as fun as it sounds.

 

[revance]

I want proof so I can sue. It is violation of state law for them to make you leave a public library unless it is a school, courthouse, or other exempt place. This officer was in the wrong in many ways.

 

[revance]

Before being escorted downstairs the LEO had verified his LTCH. Any further detainment was unlawful.

 

[hntrroy]

Bung, you did perfect! Alll these people that are criticizing you were not there in your shoes. You gave a good example of how to defuse a possible traumatic experience for your son. I agree that your rights were violated, however, your mind was where it should have been, on your son. You stated your concerns to the LEO and he knew how you felt. Great job. I am sure that he is now educated and hopefully won't create another situation like that. I would not even try to second guess you because I wasn't there either. The LEO did violate the law, but you stayed calm and the siutation passed without any serious drama.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Bung, you did perfect! Alll these people that are criticizing you were not there in your shoes. You gave a good example of how to defuse a possible traumatic experience for your son. I agree that your rights were violated, however, your mind was where it should have been, on your son. You stated your concerns to the LEO and he knew how you felt. Great job. I am sure that he is now educated and hopefully won't create another situation like that. I would not even try to second guess you because I wasn't there either. The LEO did violate the law, but you stayed calm and the siutation passed without any serious drama.

THIS

plus a follow up with the sheriff to have him explain why your rights were violated (and what he will do to prevent this and other officers from violating others rights) should round out the encounter nicely. Feet need to be held to the fire.

My only criticism is I would have called for a supervisor when I realized my rights were being violated. But that's just me. You did good.

 

[revance]

I appoligize Bung, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of doing wrong. Being there is different than talking about it.

Stories like these just tick me off. That officer knew the law. Preemption was a big deal. It was all over the media, there is no excuse for LE to not know.