So who was CCing (badly) at the Children's Museum today?

[Frank_N_Stein]

Actually, the opposite of Cover YA would be Flaunt YA. That is all. Return to the thread. Sorry Frank.

No worries, its not my first threadjack!

 

[CathyInBlue]

Not even with a coal shovel.

I thought FYA was "For Your Attitude".

 

[CathyInBlue]

Legally, the Indiana Code almost never imposes a duty for a LEO to arrest or take other action for a crime. The only three that come to mind right off the top of my head are that there are "shall arrest" provisions in the domestic battery, invasion of privacy and OWI statutes subject to certain conditions being met. There are also obligations to arrest people with active warrants; although I believe that is an obligation enforced through a judicial contempt action rather than a statute.

I don't know that there are any "must arrest" statutes. I believe you are referring to:

IC 35-33-1-1
Law enforcement officer; federal enforcement officer
Sec. 1. (a) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when the officer has:
(1) a warrant commanding that the person be arrested;
(2) probable cause to believe the person has committed or attempted to commit, or is committing or attempting to commit, a felony;
(3) probable cause to believe the person has violated the provisions of IC 9-26-1-1(1), IC 9-26-1-1(2), IC 9-26-1-2(1), IC 9-26-1-2(2), IC 9-26-1-3, IC 9-26-1-4, or IC 9-30-5; (Motor vehicle violations)
(4) probable cause to believe the person is committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor in the officer's presence;
(5) probable cause to believe the person has committed a:
(A) battery resulting in bodily injury under IC 35-42-2-1; or
(B) domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3.
The officer may use an affidavit executed by an individual alleged to have direct knowledge of the incident alleging the elements of the offense of battery to establish probable cause;
(6) probable cause to believe that the person violated IC 35-46-1-15.1 (invasion of privacy);
(7) probable cause to believe that the person violated IC 35-47-2-1 (carrying a handgun without a license) or IC 35-47-2-22 (counterfeit handgun license);
(8) probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated an order issued under IC 35-50-7; (Probation violation)
(9) probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated IC 35-47-6-1.1 (undisclosed transport of a dangerous device); (On an aircraft)
(10) probable cause to believe that the person is:
(A) violating or has violated IC 35-45-2-5 (interference with the reporting of a crime); and
(B) interfering with or preventing the reporting of a crime involving domestic or family violence (as defined in IC 34-6-2-34.5);
(11) a removal order issued for the person by an immigration court;
(12) a detainer or notice of action for the person issued by the United States Department of Homeland Security; or
(13) probable cause to believe that the person has been indicted for or convicted of one (1) or more aggravated felonies (as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)).
(b) A person who:
(1) is employed full time as a federal enforcement officer;
(2) is empowered to effect an arrest with or without warrant for a violation of the United States Code; and
(3) is authorized to carry firearms in the performance of the person's duties;
may act as an officer for the arrest of offenders against the laws of this state where the person reasonably believes that a felony has been or is about to be committed or attempted in the person's presence.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.6; P.L.320-1983, SEC.2; P.L.311-1985, SEC.1; P.L.319-1987, SEC.1; P.L.53-1989, SEC.6; P.L.160-1990, SEC.1; P.L.2-1991, SEC.102; P.L.1-1991, SEC.189; P.L.1-1992, SEC.178; P.L.242-1993, SEC.1; P.L.140-1994, SEC.3; P.L.216-1996, SEC.10; P.L.47-2000, SEC.2; P.L.222-2001, SEC.3; P.L.133-2002, SEC.59; P.L.221-2003, SEC.15; P.L.50-2005, SEC.1; P.L.171-2011, SEC.20.

Note that it says "may arrest".

 

[tbhausen]

Walking home from the bar was a criminal offense until just recently? Can someone please elaborate?

 

[jsharmon7]

Walking home from the bar was a criminal offense until just recently? Can someone please elaborate?

The public intox law used to be that any level of intoxication in public was a criminal offense. So, walking home peacefully from the bar after having a few beers could have landed you in jail. The law was changed recently and now you have to basically be causing a problem for it to be considered a crime.

 

[Fargo]

I don't know that there are any "must arrest" statutes. I believe you are referring to:
Note that it says "may arrest".

Nope, you cited the general arrest statute which is not what I am talking about. Certain offenses in the code include a shall arrest provision. For example, "Operating a Vehicle with .08 or Greater BAC" is "shall arrest" if there is PC and a chem test result to support the charge:

IC 9-30-6-3
Arrest; probable cause; evidence of intoxication; refusal to submit to test; admissibility
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person committed an offense under IC 9-30-5, the person may be arrested. However, if the chemical test results in prima facie evidence that the person is intoxicated, the person shall be arrested for an offense under this chapter, IC 9-30-5, or IC 9-30-9. (b) At any proceeding under this chapter, IC 9-30-5, or IC 9-30-9, a person's refusal to submit to a chemical test is admissible into evidence.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18.

Domestic Battery and Invasion of Privacy also include similar shall arrest provisions. Domestics are PC+injury if memory serves and IOP is if the defendant and the protected person are found together by the officer.



Best,

Joe

 

[Caleb]

My department policy says that if I am unarmed I don't have to get involved in situations that I might possibly interject in if I was armed. And like you said, it wasn't one of those "shall arrest" situations.

I do think you should have informed him of his action so he won't do it again

 

[sepe]

I do think you should have informed him of his action so he won't do it again

If the place was extremely busy, if he is anything like me he'll be doing everything he can to avoid future trips. The place itself was cool but snot nosed kids running into me while I'm standing just far enough away to keep an eye on things. A few times I took a shoulder to the man berries.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I do think you should have informed him of his action so he won't do it again

Would you have signed my overtime slip?

In all seriousness, why confront him? I was off-duty and with my family. What good would it have done? I wasn't dressed like an officer and for all he knew I was just some mope off the street trying to play police. If it was that big of a deal I would have followed him out and called 911. But then INGO would be *****ing about how an off-duty cop wanted to be a hero and got a more-than-likely-law-abiding citizen locked up for a felony that he probably wasn't even aware he was committing.

 

[MrsGungho]

Would you have signed my overtime slip?

In all seriousness, why confront him? I was off-duty and with my family. What good would it have done? I wasn't dressed like an officer and for all he knew I was just some mope off the street trying to play police. If it was that big of a deal I would have followed him out and called 911. But then INGO would be *****ing about how an off-duty cop wanted to be a hero and got a more-than-likely-law-abiding citizen locked up for a felony that he probably wasn't even aware he was committing.

you can't win frank... do good, you're a bad guy. Do bad, you're a bad guy.. I bet you're used to that though aren't ya?

 

[vitamink]

i explained FYA to Clay with the back story.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

you can't win frank... do good, you're a bad guy. Do bad, you're a bad guy.. I bet you're used to that though aren't ya?

Well at least that is one thing that is consistent in my life....

 

[MrsGungho]

Well at least that is one thing that is consistent in my life....

there is that... take it for what it is

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Of course you don't know there is a preschool there until AFTER you park, walk over the street, buy your tickets, and see the preschool sign around the corner. Of course you already committed a (strict liability) felony the moment you [STRIKE]turned your car off[/STRIKE] got out of your car.

Gotta love the stupid laws.

FIFY

(provided, of course, there were others in the car with you. IN law provides for dropping off/picking up as long as you're still "in control" of the vehicle. No time limit is given. According to the letter of the law, you can be parked for several hours. I know that I've waited for 30+ minutes before)

 

[indytechnerd]

You should have walked up and smacked his kid then told him that even though he pays your salary, you're the only one competent enough to carry a weapon there. I'm sure that would have worked out beautifully.

Alternatively, a business card with this on it:

 

[revance]

I would have politely told the man to be careful because the entire museum is considered a school because it houses a preschool. I have done this before and never had anyone go postal on me. I dont mention guns or carrying, but they know what i am talking about. You don't have to be a LEO, or be on duty to offer friendly advice.

I think the real question for Frank is this: would you have arrested him if you were on duty or discreetly given him a verbal warning?

 

[henktermaat]

Frank, you're one of the good'uns.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Why the heck are the tax payers getting gouged to run a preschool at a museum? It doesn't have any business being there to begin with.

 

[eldirector]

Why the heck are the tax payers getting gouged to run a preschool at a museum? It doesn't have any business being there to begin with.

How are taxpayers getting gouged? The Museum is a private non-profit, as is the preschool.

What "gouges" us citizens are these moronic laws that do absolutely nothing but criminalize otherwise law-abiding folks. They obviously don't stop someone from carrying at a school (the whole point of the thread).

 

[Caleb]

I would have politely told the man to be careful because the entire museum is considered a school because it houses a preschool. I have done this before and never had anyone go postal on me. I dont mention guns or carrying, but they know what i am talking about. You don't have to be a LEO, or be on duty to offer friendly advice.

I think the real question for Frank is this: would you have arrested him if you were on duty or discreetly given him a verbal warning?

This is the point I was trying to make...why not advise him of the school zone so he won't accidentally become a felon. I guess this is too much to ask of you frank.