Show ID?

[cce1302]

But do you stop a person just walking around in his yard? Or a guy wearing black with a ski mask on, peering through windows at 11pm? Do you feel you would be/are justified in stopping a guy in his yard for no other reason that he is in his yard?

Yeah I found that kind of funny, too. I've never had a cop pull into my yard and ask why I'm walking around in my own yard, even when I'm open carrying (which I normally do in my yard).

 

[Agent 007]

Yeah I found that kind of funny, too. I've never had a cop pull into my yard and ask why I'm walking around in my own yard, even when I'm open carrying (which I normally do in my yard).

Walking around in your yard, even with a firearm, is not an illegal act. Carrying a handgun in public is. With certain exceptions.

 

[Rookie]

But do you stop a person just walking around in his yard? Or a guy wearing black with a ski mask on, peering through windows at 11pm? Do you feel you would be/are justified in stopping a guy in his yard for no other reason that he is in his yard?

Ski mask or not, I would question someone wondering around a house/yard at 11pm. Wouldn't you?

Just to be clear. I wouldn't jump out with weapon drawn, and yell for the person to reach for the sky. I would simply ask him/her if they were alright or needed help. Regardless of the person's intent, I would have figured out what is going on without "infringing" on their rights.

The content of this thread is clear to me. Some people have a chip on their shoulder and don't want to be bothered by police officers, but they have no problem drawing attention to themselves. If you don't want the attention, then make sure you aren't doing something that will draw attention. Face it, OC while legal, is taboo. People are going to be shocked, surprised, nervous, interested, whatever. If you aren't willing to deal with the results of your decision (man with gun, police officer asking if you have a permit, etc.), then you should re-think your position.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Perhaps this case law would be useful?

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)

held that law enforcement cannot stop and frisk a citizen based solely on an anonymous tip describing only innocent behavior and which also does not sufficiently predict the future actions of its subject.

In 1995 the Miami-Dade Police received an anonymous tip that a young black male was at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a firearm. The police went to the bus stop and saw three young black men, one was wearing a plaid shirt. Although, the officers did not observe any criminal or suspicious behavior, acting on the tip, one policeman frisked the wearer of the plaid shirt and found a pistol tucked in a pocket.

The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.
The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun

Thus, IMO and IANAL, this sets precedent that since carrying a handgun is not unlawful, any search and/or seizure without reasonable articulate suspicion of a crime having been committed, being committed, or about to be committed, is unlawful.

This tells me that since open carrying a handgun in Indiana is NOT a violation of law, so long as a license is held, a police officer may not simply detain someone to produce an LTCH without having observed some actual crime or suspicious behavior indicating a crime is about to be committed.

 

[Denny347]

But do you stop a person just walking around in his yard? Or a guy wearing black with a ski mask on, peering through windows at 11pm? Do you feel you would be/are justified in stopping a guy in his yard for no other reason that he is in his yard?

It all falls back on the legal notion of "Totality of the Circumstances". My ability to articulate my reasoning. If you are shopping at Kroger while OCing and nothing else, NO I cannot demand, coax, trick, coerce, grab, your ID/LTCH. I sure can walk up and ask you if you have one or ask to see one. You sure can decline to present those items and walk off. At that point there cannot be anything more than a consentual encounter. I can ask if you have your LTCH and you can respond "yes" and that will have to be the end of it.

 

[Joe Williams]

In my opinion there should be some common sense involved. Why be a dick to the cop if you have nothing to hide. The officer doesn't know you from any other BG until you prove him wrong. He sees a man with a gun and doing his job to make sure you are legally carrying and not some "thug". Just my 2 cents.

Same reasoning applies when they want to search your house, too, I'm sure. After all, why be a dick if you have nothing to hide? The cop doesn't know if you are the neighborhood drug dealer or not if you don't let him look.

Carrying a gun is not a criminal act, and the officer most emphatically does not have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are a criminal simply for carrying a gun. I find it repulsive that people think it reasonable for ANYBODY to assume a person exercising their Constitutional rights is a thug.

There are Supreme Court cases on the subject. For those who value freedom and liberty I suggest looking them up.

 

[ruger7722]

you let them search and they will leave you w/ a mess to clean up.i got pulled over on the way back from florida,in indy i got pulled over for speeding.i let them search my truck.they used knives to tear seats and liner.and a few of my bags of clothes.i sued them,all i got was 500.00.i was told thats all the city is responsible for.yeah let them search.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The intent of the legislature is clear from the statute. In bringing a case against a person for carrying a handgun in public, the prosecutor does not even have to prove the absence of a license. The language could not be more clear. Carrying a handgun in public is inherently a crime, by statute. Only the exemptions codified in statute make it a lawful activity.

And in IC code its the same for driving with out a license.

Given the small number of LTCH holders compared to the general population of the state, it is AT LEAST reasonable for a police officer to believe a crime may be occurring if a person appears to be armed in a public place.

There was a estimated 300,000 ltchs in IN in 2004 Which is about 1 in 15 adults thats a small number? And I would assume that number has increased. Especially since the ISP has stated they are receiving a record number of aps.

Until carrying a handgun openly is as common as driving a car, you will not find a court that will say that it is not reasonable for an officer to investigate such an incident. The courts will err on the side of public safety, as opposed to the extremely minute infringement of rights to show a valid LTCH, which takes about 60 seconds on a slow day. The court has approved much broader infrigements of rights for other investigatory stops, as there are several exceptions to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement. What makes you think they will side with the citizen who is engaged in an activity that is codified as a crime who refuses to dispel the suspicion of the crime through something as easy as showing your LTCH? It is not a huge infringment to require a licensed individual to show a LTCH upon demand. I can't see the courts saying that it is.

So as long as its a "small infringement" its all right? How about a small infringement on your 1st amendment right? You have free speech but you can't use it against the govt? 3rd you only have to house 2 or 3 soldiers in your home against your will instead of 20? etc.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think you guys are missing the point. If you are carrying a gun especially if you don't conceal it you must expect that someone will call the police. During the encounter with the police they have the right to detain you while they determine if a crime has been committed. During that time they DO have the right to ask you for your ID and Carry License. If you refuse or fail to provide a carry license and your ID card or Drivers license. You will go to Jail.
Easy solution, Conceal your weapon.
snip
.

The United States Supreme Court says you are wrong. On pretty much every count.

And no, I do NOT have to accept that citizens or police will harrass me for violating the law. Nor do I.

Now, it's true that if an officer detains me without RAS or probable cause, I will spend a night in jail. But, I will do so with a smile on my face, because the criminal with a badge who put me there will be putting a few bucks in my pocket, while at the same time enabling me to drive another nail in government tyranny. Win-win, for me.

 

[Agent 007]

Perhaps this case law would be useful?

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)

Thus, IMO and IANAL, this sets precedent that since carrying a handgun is not unlawful, any search and/or seizure without reasonable articulate suspicion of a crime having been committed, being committed, or about to be committed, is unlawful.

This tells me that since open carrying a handgun in Indiana is NOT a violation of law, so long as a license is held, a police officer may not simply detain someone to produce an LTCH without having observed some actual crime or suspicious behavior indicating a crime is about to be committed.

However, if the pistol toter would have been open carrying, this would have provided "sufficient corroboration," and I'm betting that a conviction for carrying a handgun without a license would have been upheld. This calls to mind the "plain view" doctrine. The quoted case deals more with the unreasonableness of the SEARCH, rather than any issue pertaining to the producing of a LTCH. I would agree with the court in this case. (Not that they care what I think. ) Open carry involves no search.

We really need some specific case law pertaining to the demand by LE to present a valid LTCH when asked, not case law about a pat down search based on an anonymous tip. The court did not make a "firearms exception" to the Terry Stop rule, however, this does not equate to a defacto legality in the US of open carrying a handgun without regulation.

 

[Joe Williams]

As was the situation you described earlier. If an officer sees a man with a gun and asks to see ID and LTCH I believe that is a reasonable request. He has no reason to believe you are legally carrying unless you provide proof.

More importantly, he has no reason to believe you are NOT legally carrying.

Do you really feel that carrying a gun is somehow an indicator of criminal activity? Are you really that ashamed of guns, and the Constitution?

 

[Denny347]

Yeah I found that kind of funny, too. I've never had a cop pull into my yard and ask why I'm walking around in my own yard, even when I'm open carrying (which I normally do in my yard).

If I can articulate that a reasonable person would believe a crime is afoot, the burden has been met that allows me to investigate further. Cutting your own grass, doing yard work, etc does not fit. Looking through windows, hiding behind bushes when cars pass, would fit. You might still be the property owner but a reasonable person would be led to believe that a crime was/or about to occur.

 

[Joe Williams]

If you don't present a LTCH when asked, how do we know you have one? If you don't, you are committing a crime. And in Indiana you can be arrested for carrying a handgun without a license if your permit is expired or not on your person.

I don't personally have a problem with OC. I don't do it myself, simply because I don't want anyone to know whether or not I'm carrying a gun. I don't want the attention that it brings. They try to do something to me or in my presence, they will probably find out. Like another poster put, maybe if there was more OC it wouldn't be such a big deal.

As far as presenting the LTCH to an LEO when asked, like Denny317 said if you are OC'ing and I ask for it and you refuse to present it the handcuffs will go on until I verify that you do have one and that it is valid. Why make the situation worse by not presenting it when asked? Both you and the LEO know that there are at least 2 guns involved in the situation, and things could go to **** very quickly.

Oh, I will present my LTCH upon demand. Then you will be served to appear in federal court to justify detaining me. Since detaining me without RAS is a federal civil rights violation. And the courts have unequivocally held that engaging in lawful activity is NOT RAS.

 

[Agent 007]

So as long as its a "small infringement" its all right? How about a small infringement on your 1st amendment right? You have free speech but you can't use it against the govt? 3rd you only have to house 2 or 3 soldiers in your home against your will instead of 20? etc.

Don't kill the messenger, I'm just sharing information. According to the Supreme Court, yes, there are several things that are "small infringements" that are acceptable under the Constitution. Like I said earlier, you can disagree all you like, but the law is the law. There is no society on earth where a person has an absolute right to do anything they want. I'm not arguing about how it SHOULD be, I'm just telling you the way I see it, from my perspective. I'm somewhat familiar with the courts and the justice system in general.

And you can knock off the hyperbole. Presenting a government issued LTCH to a police officer is hardly the same as banning free speech against the government or quartering soldiers in your home.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
If I see you carrying, it is reasonable for me to assume that you don't have a LTCH. I have the right to detain you and confirm you do or don't have a LTCH.

The US Supreme Court says that is not true. Detaining someone simply to confirm LTCH without another violation makes you a criminal with a badge. You have violated the civil rights of a citizen if you have done so. Lots of folks are becoming quite proactive in forcing the police to obey the law in this matter.

 

[Rookie]

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.
<A name=IC34-28-5-3.5>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.2

I'm waiting for it. "But I'm not doing anything wrong!!!" Good for you. Does the officer know that? Shouldn't it be his job to find out one way or the other? Back to the person wondering around the yard at 11pm. Wouldn't a reasonable person want to know if his actions were legal?

Let's try this. You are walking out of the local walmart. You see me out of the corner of your eye. My actions (ducking behind cars, running through open spaces, etc.) lead you to believe that I am up to something. In the end, I was sneaking up on my wife who just happened to be parked beside you. According to some arguments, since I didn't do anything illegal, you have no right to be concerned, and, if you ask me what I'm doing, you are infringing on my rights.

 

[Denny347]

Here's your answer to the original question:

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.

We do have many city ordinances that have nothing to do with driving. This law usually is enforced during a traffic stop however.

 

[Agent 007]

The US Supreme Court says that is not true. Detaining someone simply to confirm LTCH without another violation makes you a criminal with a badge. You have violated the civil rights of a citizen if you have done so. Lots of folks are becoming quite proactive in forcing the police to obey the law in this matter.

Please cite the specific case law, relevant to the enforcement of firearms law in INDIANA, that leads you to this belief. Otherwise, you are way out of line calling a police officer a criminal with a badge. Highly educated attorneys get paid to argue about just this kind of issue. It's not as black and white as you think it is, otherwise there would be no need for attorneys and courts. Until this particular issue has been settled by the courts, your opinion doesn't mean jack ****. Cite the case law, and put this issue to bed for good, if you can.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Oh, I will present my LTCH upon demand. Then you will be served to appear in federal court to justify detaining me. Since detaining me without RAS is a federal civil rights violation. And the courts have unequivocally held that engaging in lawful activity is NOT RAS.

What exactly is RAS? The only thing I can come up with is Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. What justification do you have to serve me with papers to appear in federal court? If YOU are carrying a gun YOU have to prove you are doing so legally.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

However, if the pistol toter would have been open carrying, this would have provided "sufficient corroboration," and I'm betting that a conviction for carrying a handgun without a license would have been upheld.

I'm sure it would of also. Because its illegal to OC in florida