Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[Bunnykid68]

If you'd have taken your own advice here ☝, you'd have known that this ☟ is asinine.

QFT

 

[aikidoka]

Yes. REad the Seizing property without a warrant statute.

Well, that's interesting info. I know now, if they go for my gun, saying something like "I'm going to take this" or "can I take this", I should say "I do not consent to my property being taken".

I really couldnt tell what he said as he reached for my gun so I just moved my arms out of the way to avoid giving him an excuse to do something else to me. Now I'm better informed AND have a digital recorder.

 

[Hoosierdood]

A lot of young people on a gun forum on a Friday night....

The Founding Fathers could have done us all a favor by adding common-sense limits to the right to keep and bear arms. We have so many kids today carrying guns who have no clue whatsoever as to what their rights truly are and what responsibilities they have while exercising the right.

Educate yourselves regarding your rights, your responsibilities, and what is codified regarding your interaction with law enforcement. To the educated, those of you who come here and whine about your "rights" are truly annoying. Even more, you are a part of the problem that threatens the rights of all of us. If you're going to carry a gun, learn the rules that come with it. Again, AS EXPLAINED BY THE OP, nothing improper happened in this traffic stop. EDUCATE YOURSELVES.

Wrong, wrong and DEAD WRONG!

Maybe you need to educate yourself. I have so far stayed out of this thread since much of the information has been covered ad nauseum. However, this statement is so completely full of FAIL, that I am obliged to answer.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the officer had a legitimate reason to order the OP out of the vehicle and confiscate his weapon. (nevermind that State vs. Richardson says they don't have that right once the LTCH is produced). The part that I am particularly interested in is the fact that an officer gained access to the OP's vehicle without permission and retrieved a rifle. That is a violation of the 4th amendment. Once the OP was out of the vehicle, there was no reason to search the car, even if the officers knew that he had a firearm in there.

I am not just spouting my opinion here. This has been established in the case of State vs. Washington. He was stopped for a headlight being out. He was ordered out of the vehicle. The officer searched his vehicle to retrieve the firearm, and found a bag of weed. The IN Supreme Court ruled that the search was a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

Here are the Cliffs notes:

In the present case, prior to the search for the handgun, Officer Reynolds did not express any concerns for officer safety. He had initiated a traffic stop on Washington because one of Washington’s headlights was not working. Officer Reynolds approached the driver’s side of the car to speak with Washington. As a matter of his own practice, the officer inquired as to whether Washington had any weapons or guns in the car, and Washington replied that he had a handgun, which was located underneath the driver’s seat.
Washington also informed Officer Reynolds that he had a valid permit for the handgun. Although Washington admitted that a handgun was present inside of the car, he was at all times totally cooperative with Officer Reynolds. The testimony at the suppression hearing indicated that, during the traffic stop, Washington made no furtive movements, answered the officer’s questions, and showed no disrespect to the officer. At the time he searched for the handgun, Officer Reynolds had no information that any crime or violation of law had been or was about to be committed, except for the inoperable headlight infraction. Further, at the suppression hearing, Officer Reynolds did not testify that he had any specific concern for officer safety during his traffic stop of Washington. He merely testified that, as a matter of general practice, he inquired as to whether Washington had any weapons, and when Washington stated he had a handgun, Officer Reynolds searched under the driver’s seat to retrieve it. As in Malone, we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, the search of Washington’s car for a handgun was not justified. Here, because neither of these conditions was satisfied, the search was illegal, and the trial court should have suppressed the evidence.

ETA: Don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/in-gunsearch.pdf.

Take your own advice and EDUCATE YOURSELF!

 

[Hoosierdood]

Let me just add that the US SUPREME COURT ruled in the 2009 case of Arizona v. Grant that a search of a vehicle was only justified if the passenger compartment was immediately accessible to the individual. If the individual is removed from the passenger compartment, a warrant must be obtained in order to search the vehicle.

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/07-542/

 

[Jack Burton]

Purple? Not at all. A lot of people who frequent gun forums need to grow up and accept the awesome responsibility that comes with our right to carry.

The cops in this scenario, given the description provided by the OP, did nothing wrong.

And this, dear friends, is why we still have to struggle for our rights to keep and bear arms even though it is in the Constitution and there have been hundreds of millions of law abiding firearm owners through the history of the country.

Far too many of our own people think nothing of stabbing us in the back.

 

[Jack Burton]

So when officer friendly took my firearm, then after giving up on his claim that I couldnt OC with the license berated me about choosing to OC, he was supposed to keep my firearm? He threatened to do so when I wanted to reload in their presence since IMO a scene had been created by them but he was by law supposed to keep it?

Yes, by law if you are disarmed the police must keep your gun and then go before a judge to explain, in excruciating, specific detail, why he had reason to believe that you were a threat to him at that time.

That is the only, legal reason he can remove a firearm from an otherwise legal carrier. If the court doesn't agree then the gun comes back to us.

If he cannot justify it, then the court will look very unkindly on his actions. If he perjures himself with lies, then even worse will happen.

There are a number of us here who will refuse to accept our gun back if a police officer removes it from us. If the word gets out about the bind that officers are willingly putting themselves into then I think the incidents such as this will quickly come to a stop.

 

[iChokePeople]

Yes, by law if you are disarmed the police must keep your gun and then go before a judge to explain, in excruciating, specific detail, why he had reason to believe that you were a threat to him at that time.

That is the only, legal reason he can remove a firearm from an otherwise legal carrier. If the court doesn't agree then the gun comes back to us.

If he cannot justify it, then the court will look very unkindly on his actions. If he perjures himself with lies, then even worse will happen.

There are a number of us here who will refuse to accept our gun back if a police officer removes it from us. If the word gets out about the bind that officers are willingly putting themselves into then I think the incidents such as this will quickly come to a stop.

+1.

 

[KG1]

Let me just add that the US SUPREME COURT ruled in the 2009 case of Arizona v. Grant that a search of a vehicle was only justified if the passenger compartment was immediately accessible to the individual. If the individual is removed from the passenger compartment, a warrant must be obtained in order to search the vehicle.



Arizona v. Gant - 07-542 (2009) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

All good points. This post and the previous one but unfortunately I think he's to busy right now to care about such things like being educated.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/221749-the_drinking_lamp_is_lit.html

 

[CX1]

There are a number of us here who will refuse to accept our gun back if a police officer removes it from us. If the word gets out about the bind that officers are willingly putting themselves into then I think the incidents such as this will quickly come to a stop.

This is all well and good but how do you prevent the officer from returning your weapon at the scene?
As in the OP:

They put both my XD and my AR in the backseat and the magazines on the front seat.

If you could have jumped in the car, raised all the windows and locked the doors then what?
The officer I would imagine could then simply place your weapons on top of your car.
So then if you drive off, the weapons fall to the ground can you then be charged with littering? (sounds silly I admit, but I am asking in all seriousness)

I understand the principle of the thing. They took your weapon without cause and they should have to give you a receipt and explain it to a Judge. I get that concept. I like that concept.
I just don't understand how to properly refuse your weapon back or what to do if they return it to your 'possession' by placing it in your car.
Yes your car should be locked when you exit it during the stop, but say they simply toss them in the drivers compartment while you are re-entering the vehicle?
Can you legally stand at the side of the road outside your vehicle until the officers give up and leave? Or could they claim something outlandish like since your car is not moving they will call and have it towed?

 

[VN Vet]

This is a great thread. Keep it going. The comments are great, intertaining and educational.

 

[jbombelli]

A lot of young people on a gun forum on a Friday night....

The Founding Fathers could have done us all a favor by adding common-sense limits to the right to keep and bear arms. We have so many kids today carrying guns who have no clue whatsoever as to what their rights truly are and what responsibilities they have while exercising the right.

Educate yourselves regarding your rights, your responsibilities, and what is codified regarding your interaction with law enforcement. To the educated, those of you who come here and whine about your "rights" are truly annoying. Even more, you are a part of the problem that threatens the rights of all of us. If you're going to carry a gun, learn the rules that come with it. Again, AS EXPLAINED BY THE OP, nothing improper happened in this traffic stop. EDUCATE YOURSELVES.

 

[indyjoe]

Ike can see what you did there...

 

[Jack Burton]

This is all well and good but how do you prevent the officer from returning your weapon at the scene?
As in the OP:

If you could have jumped in the car, raised all the windows and locked the doors then what?
The officer I would imagine could then simply place your weapons on top of your car.
So then if you drive off, the weapons fall to the ground can you then be charged with littering? (sounds silly I admit, but I am asking in all seriousness)

I understand the principle of the thing. They took your weapon without cause and they should have to give you a receipt and explain it to a Judge. I get that concept. I like that concept.
I just don't understand how to properly refuse your weapon back or what to do if they return it to your 'possession' by placing it in your car.
Yes your car should be locked when you exit it during the stop, but say they simply toss them in the drivers compartment while you are re-entering the vehicle?
Can you legally stand at the side of the road outside your vehicle until the officers give up and leave? Or could they claim something outlandish like since your car is not moving they will call and have it towed?

Good questions and the only real answer is, "We'll have to wait and see."

Yes, your windows and doors should be shut as you get out of the car.

I think that if you notify the officer up front that you're going to refuse the gun then he will be put into such a bind that he's going to have to do some quick thinking -- which is not the place he wants to be in because it causes him to lose focus on what he is supposed to be thinking about.

I would tell him that I will refuse the gun if he attempts to return it to me before he takes it. I will (quickly) explain that he is going to have to go to court and testify why he took the gun. If he comes back with a "I'll put it on your roof" I'll state that is fine, I will take a picture of it on the roof and have him explain to his superiors just how the gun happened to fall onto the side of the street, because I am not going to touch it to remove it before I drive away. It is fully his responsibility for it's safekeeping, it is no longer mine, and if he wants to share with the world his negligence that is fine with me. At that point I am simply not legally responsible for the firearm. "Mr. Officer, you've got a choice at this point... I recommend that you choose wisely."

We'll see.

 

[bigus_D]

For the record and things i missed typing out in my rush to get the OP posted..

The Employees of the convience store love me and know I am armed. They have wanted to take pics with my firearms (not allowed)

I was clearly in uniform marked security

thirdly my AR was secured in the vehicle and anything short of a cutting torch or my key wasnt getting it out of the vehicle while I shopped.


Does anyone know how to get a name and or badge number for a traffic stop where no ticket was given.

I've gotta see a pic of this plainly visible, locked up in the back seat, so secure, grabbed by cop while I wasn't paying attention, AR. I CALL BS.

(going back to 'read' the other posts after the one I quoted)

 

[CX1]

Good questions and the only real answer is, "We'll have to wait and see."

Would you happen to know what level(for lack of a better word) of Judge would hear this type of issue? Or maybe a better way to ask would be what court hears these issues? If it is the same type of Judge that seems to rubber stamp no knock warrants I could see this not turning out how you and I might like.

 

[bigus_D]

After reading the posts up until the boobs explosion after which i just stared scanning for a pic of the gun rack the op claims to use... I think this entire story Is full fail. Op, please show me your at setup!!! Sounds sweet! Personally, I'd never leave a weapon in plain sight, locked or not... But I really want to see how you do it!

 

[Jack Burton]

Would you happen to know what level(for lack of a better word) of Judge would hear this type of issue? Or maybe a better way to ask would be what court hears these issues? If it is the same type of Judge that seems to rubber stamp no knock warrants I could see this not turning out how you and I might like.

Here is the specific law for this...

Indiana Code 35-47-14

It references: If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.

Here's the info on the courts

courts.IN.gov: Indiana Trial Courts: Types of Courts

 

[iChokePeople]

After reading the posts up until the boobs explosion after which i just stared scanning for a pic of the gun rack the op claims to use... I think this entire story Is full fail. Op, please show me your at setup!!! Sounds sweet! Personally, I'd never leave a weapon in plain sight, locked or not... But I really want to see how you do it!

Rack. Nice. I see what you did there.

 

[whoismunky]

I tried to rep you but apparently I've repped you too recently, lol. You're always tellin it like it is, glad to have people like you around

That is above Our Paygrades...

I believe, last time I checked anyway, We were a State and Country ruled by Laws. The Laws have been written and Case Law established interrupting those Laws as to what an LEO can and cannot do. Yet many blatantly, ignore those with the excuse of it's for Officer Safety, and we just want to go home at the end of the shift.
What about the Safety of the Person that was Disarmed Illegally?!
Don't most peoples want for nothing lore than to get home at the end of their shifts?!

The Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines are well defined already, but oft times are ignored...

 

[long coat]

Here is the specific law for this...

Indiana Code 35-47-14

It references: If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.

Here's the info on the courts

courts.IN.gov: Indiana Trial Courts: Types of Courts

Would that still work if the LEO never thought you were dangerous? The LEO took it for "safety", not because he thought you were dangerous.