Show ID?

[Frank_N_Stein]

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.

"A criminal with a badge." Good one. I enforce the laws of the State of Indiana as they are written. You don't agree with it so you call me a criminal. As Agent007 said, provide your USSC case law and I'll shut up.

 

[Rookie]

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

Just because it's usually enforced during a traffic stop doesn't mean it can't be used elewhere - can it?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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.

The same can be said to you (except the part about a leo), do you have any case law regarding this? Also can you find anything in IN code stating you have to? If not same as OC/CC it doesn't specify which so you can do what you want.

 

[Denny347]

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.

Depends on the reason we were called to the scene in the first place. I do not believe Mr. Stein is referring to the situation of us stopping you for nothing more than OCing and cuffing you till we confirm the LTCH. I do believe he is referring to us getting dispatched to the scene where the caller stated there was a crime in progress or similar that required us to investigate once we arrived. At the end of that investigation we might determine that the caller was full of BS but during our invest I would say that we are quite legal to ask for those items. Example, we arrive to the scene of a verbal disturbance and determine that one party is armed. It is quite resonable to inquire if that person was carrying legally and determine who they are. You stiil are not compelled to give us what we ask for but depending on the circumstances you could en up being detained in handcuffs. If a person calls us to the scene just because you are shopping while OCing, it would be unlikley that we would even bother the carrier. However, worse case for this particular situation is me walking up to the carrier nicely and asking if they have a permit with a wink. They reply "yes" and I can give the caller my assurance that you were legit. It is 100% consentual and I might even sidetrack about guns in general. I have heard several runs where the officer on the radio tells the call-taker that if the person is not doing anything other than OCing there is nothing we can do outside of asking them to leave if directed by the property owner.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Your right. The law just says you have to have it on you. Not present it when asked.

If you were getting out of a car and walking into a store would LE be justified in asking for your DL just be sure you were licensed to drive?

Doesn't sound right, does it?

You're close. You don't actually have to have the license in your possession at the time of contact, but it will prevent you from having to go see the judge, having to recover your firearm from the evidence room, etc.

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) ...
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

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.

Agreed, you don't have to be a d!ck to them, however, you also don't have to agree to a search just because you are asked to do so. "Officer, with all due respect, I do not consent to any search." If they have probable cause to search, they don't have to ask you. If they just want to see if there's something for which you can be arrested but have no evidence of anything at present, even if it's not their intention, that uniform and badge can be very intimidating. My question is, "Why do you have to prove your innocence of a crime in response to his suspicion? What happened to the presumption of innocence that is so central to the foundation of the American justice system?

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.

He also has no reason to believe I am not carrying within the law unless he has evidence to the contrary.

To travel down the road of "I have nothing to hide, so therefore, I should allow ______." is to turn this into a police state. This is not liberty. This is not freedom. This is not America. I prefer the America of our Founders. We would not have all the modern conveniences that have made us soft and weak and willing to capitulate to, rather than to question "authority".

The redoubtable Rhino has said many times, "Police should have no authority over anyone who has committed no crime." I find no issue with that statement. If there is no reason to suspect someone of a crime, there is no reason to detain that person in any way.

I do not agree with IN law requiring a LTCH. I do, however, comply with it. If I am OCing, or if my shirt gets caught in the wind and my pistol becomes visible, I will comply with the law and show my LTCH in response to the request of the officer who asks.

I believe the original question was what section of the IC includes that requirement, however, and though I've just looked, I cannot find any such statute. I do not question it's existence, but I also would like the citation, if anyone knows it.

Thanks to all and

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Agent 007]

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

I believe that there are states where you must show your LTCH upon demand by an officer. As far as I know, none of those laws has been ruled unconstitutional. Still waiting on some relevant case law, though, pertaining ONLY to the requirement to present the LTCH to an officer. Sounds like Joe Williams might be a test case pretty soon, if we can't find any case law on the net.

 

[Denny347]

Just because it's usually enforced during a traffic stop doesn't mean it can't be used elewhere - can it?

No certainly not. However the law was written for traffic enforcement and local ordinances. about half of our local ordinances have something to do with driving/parking/traffic. The other half is usually quality of life stuff, loud music, animal laws, stuff like that. It come down to how well you know the ins/outs of the law and apply it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I wish someone would come up with some fresh names for police.

And is "bacon with a badge" any fresher or would that a stale take of of "pig"?

 

[Denny347]

This is actually pretty darned fun. Love the civility guys. Good stuff. Kudos to you all.

 

[Fenway]

Agreed, Interesting discussion and lets do our best to keep this civil as the pages mount up.

Thanks

This is actually pretty darned fun. Love the civility guys. Good stuff. Kudos to you all.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Well I'm pretty sure it wasn't Joe that made the post on opencarry. I'm pretty sure it was the OP in this thread, Since they both have the same handle. And the OP in that forum asked smokin357 to please refrain from those kinda comments. And is "bacon with a badge" any fresher or would that a stale take of of "pig"?

I realized my mistake of who I quoted after I quoted it. I apologize for the mixup. I tried to change it but I guess I was already quoted. Call me whatever you want, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What they said.

 

[Agent 007]

The same can be said to you (except the part about a leo), do you have any case law regarding this? Also can you find anything in IN code stating you have to? If not same as OC/CC it doesn't specify which so you can do what you want.

I'd have posted the case law by now, if I could find any. I'll look later tonight, gotta go get groceries right now. Not everything is in the statutes, which is why we have case law. It would be impossible to codify every little nuance of life. There's nothing in the law that requires police to read you your rights, either. That's a product of case law. (Miranda v. Arizona)

Like I said earlier, if it was a black and white issue, there wouldn't be a need for case law. No two people will look at the same thing and see it in exactly the same way. That's why we have so many damn lawyers.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The post has gone off in two directions, one question was the original post and the second is the scenario about police just randomly asking for ID. USSC has answered the question about random stops and us asking for ID so I will not everyone with the details. However, if I get called to a business where the caller stated that there was a person with a gun, it is a bit different. This only applies to my dept and Indianapolis in general. We normally ask what the person is doing with said firearm. If there is a disturbance and the person has a gun, but never came into play, we give that more attention obviously. If the person is just shopping and the caller noticed that the shopper was OCing, well treat that differently (usually). I speak in generalities because each incident can be different and require a different response. However, if I am there for a disturbance and see you OC...I WILL ask for LTCH and ID. You fail to provide me with LTCH, it is jewelry time. If the person is doing nothing other than OCing, we may just talk to the caller (if it is not annon) and let them know IN carry laws. I've been known to check for a LTCH from a person who was doing nothing else by simply asking "You have a permit for that correct?" and when they reply "Yes" I move on. Lasts 5 seconds. It is really a non-issue. I cannot remeber EVER getting a call of someone OC and they called us just for that reason alone. There is usually a disturbance involved with it, big difference. Now on the same note, there is no permit required to carry a rifle in Indiana but bet your butt that you will get stopped and questioned if you are walking through city streets carrying a rifle/shotgun. Of course I do work the one of the crappiest areas of the city.

My previous post was based on everything up to post #29 (where I left my computer this AM)
Denny: BIG on the highlighted lines above! THANK YOU! Education is the key to both protecting our rights and to minimizing (or, dare I suggest, eliminating!) these idiotic MWG calls and letting you guys concentrate on busting real criminals.
Yet another big on you asking, "You have a permit?" and taking a "Yes" (or more likely, "Yes, sir." ) at face value. That is the primary reason, but all of the above is getting you rep'd.

I just wanted to make note of this and to thank you for addressing this issue this way. It is noticed and appreciated.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I realized my mistake of who I quoted after I quoted it. I apologize for the mixup. I tried to change it but I guess I was already quoted. Call me whatever you want, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Okay and I'll edit my post if you want. And I don't call LEO's anything other than sir or ma'am for the most part, in casual conversation I might refer to them as cops but thats about it. The "bacon in a badge" comment was meant as a joke about you wishing that people would come up with fresher names for police.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Okay and I'll edit my post if you want. And I don't call LEO's anything other than sir or ma'am for the most part, in casual conversation I might refer to them as cops but thats about it. The "bacon in a badge" comment was meant as a joke about you wishing that people would come up with fresher names for police.

You don't have to edit anything, I appreciate the explanation. I'll un-bunch my panties now.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When I pull someone over for a traffic/equipment infraction, it is because I saw that infraction being committed in my presence. I have the right to stop you and enforce the violation of that infraction. Since you are driving a car I have the right to ask for your DL. I don't know that everyone driving past/around me is doing so legally, and I really don't have the time to check. I'd be spending my entire 8.5 hour day running traffic and the citizens of my beat wouldn't be getting any police service.

I cannot stop every car I see just to see if they are 100% law-abiding. I have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver is violating the traffic code. The same goes for carrying without a license. 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.

No sir. You have the power to detain someone as an officer of the law. You have rights as a citizen. This is not just semantics. You have the right to go home at the end of your shift to your family. You have the power to use (or to abuse) the law to make that happen.

Further, you seem to be making the argument that because OC is so rare, you can stop everyone you see OCing to ask if they have a LTCH because you assume they do not. Would that argument still hold if, instead of 6% of the adult, non-felon population held LTCHs, it was, say, 96%? You don't stop every driver around you, even with, let alone without an infraction, because there are so many you would be running traffic all day; is a violation of someone's rights acceptable only if there are only a few who exercise that particular right?

This is not asked in a spirit of argument, but to point out the inconsistency I see in your logic. If I'm misreading your point, I'd be glad to read your clarification of it.

Thanks for your service. Stay safe.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

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.

Actually most of us do not have a "chip on our shoulders" and while I don't want to be bothered by police officers, I do not generally argue when I have been caught for some kind of infraction. What I was taught is that in the United States one is innocent until proven guilty. It is one of the fundamental reasons I have spent years of my life living in the suck.

As far as OC being taboo I have never personally seen or experienced this. I OC more often than not simply because it is more comfortable. Matter of fact I OC almost all the time when I am in Kokomo. Never have I had anyone say a foul word about it. What I was taught growning up was that only people to hide something carry concealed.

YMMV!

 

[Bill of Rights]

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. ...

IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.

Article II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Article I, Sec. 32.

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Carrying a firearm off of one's own property is "otherwise prohibited". The two Constitutions seem to provide the "legal authority" by protecting the inherent right.

Just because the legislature passed a law does not make that law Constitutional, and SCOTUS has held many times that an unConstitutional "law" is no law at all, and therefore unenforceable.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying anyone will "win" this argument when, as Denny so aptly put it, "it's jewelry time", and sadly, I'm not sure the current Court has the stones to follow the precedent set so many times.

To paraphrase Mr. Reagan, "We didn't leave America, America left us."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Fair enough. However, as Denny said earlier, his department (IMPD) is being proactive about educating people to make it less taboo. That would be an excellent approach if more departments followed that example on this subject. This is win-win: Peaceable LTCH holders stop getting hassled by ignorant citizens, and good cops get to concentrate on busting bad criminals. Now if we can just convince the courts to hang on to them once they get them....

Blessings,
Bill