Stopped by LEO, gun taken for officer safety, how not to take it back

[foszoe]

How about all those stories of police impersonators? Those are fun stories too. I'm glad you have no problem with being disarmed for officer safety, but I have a problem being denied Charles' safety especially because I don't give reasons to.

i would hear them on the scanner calling me in.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see except your personal safety is the same thing as officer safety because you are a LEO.

You could not go about disarming someone as a civilian for your own personal safety because of a 6th sense vibe in the same fashion you could as a LEO.

Nor is it a civilian's job to keep everybody safe.

 

[jbombelli]

Nor is it a civilian's job to keep everybody safe.

Warren v. District of Columbia,
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,
Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department.


According to the Supreme Court it's not the duty of the police to keep us safe, either.

 

[Tydeeh22]

i would hear them on the scanner calling me in.

isn't it illegal to have a scanner on and in your vehicle while traveling.. (even the apps available for smartphones.)?

 

[jbombelli]

isn't it illegal to have a scanner on and in your vehicle while traveling.. (even the apps available for smartphones.)?

Depends. People with a Ham license, volunteer firefighters, reserve cops, the press ...

I *think* all these guys can travel with scanners in their vehicles.

 

[rgrimm01]

Nor is it a civilian's job to keep everybody safe.

Is it LE's job to keep everyone safe or to keep some semblance of order?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Warren v. District of Columbia,
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,
Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department.


According to the Supreme Court it's not the duty of the police to keep us safe, either.

Have you ever met an officer that subscribes to that ruling?
There are plenty of things that are "according to the Supreme Court..." that I'm sure you dont agree with, no?

 

[Double T]

Nor is it a civilian's job to keep everybody safe.

LEO are civilians just like everyone else, they just take an oath to enforce the laws of the land. Would you like military presence everywhere for our "protection"?

Did not think so. Therefore, citizens are responsible for their own protections. Subjects expect the state to protect them.

I will gladly protect myself and anyone else near me, which is why I hate our LEO dept denied me. Silly politics.

 

[downzero]

If there's any doubt that producing a valid LTCH eliminates any suspicion of danger, I suggest that y'all read this case:

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

There is another case regarding open carry and an investigatory detention based on no suspicion at all except for that open carry in Indiana (I believe in a movie theater), but I cannot find it at this time. I will continue searching for it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is another case regarding open carry and an investigatory detention based on no suspicion at all except for that open carry in Indiana (I believe in a movie theater), but I cannot find it at this time. I will continue searching for it.

Are you certain you are not thinking of a case in New Mexico?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

isn't it illegal to have a scanner on and in your vehicle while traveling.. (even the apps available for smartphones.)?

You are thinking of Indiana's Police Radio statute, IC 35-44-3-12.

A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) possesses a police radio;
(2) transmits over a frequency assigned for police emergency purposes; or
(3) possesses or uses a police radio:
(A) while committing a crime;
(B) to further the commission of a crime; or
(C) to avoid detection by a law enforcement agency;
commits unlawful use of a police radio, a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) do not apply to:
(1) a governmental entity;
(2) a regularly employed law enforcement officer;
(3) a common carrier of persons for hire whose vehicles are used in emergency service;
(4) a public service or utility company whose vehicles are used in emergency service;
(5) a person who has written permission from the chief executive officer of a law enforcement agency to possess a police radio;
(6) a person who holds an amateur radio license issued by the Federal Communications Commission if the person is not transmitting over a frequency assigned for police emergency purposes;
(7) a person who uses a police radio only in the person's dwelling or place of business;
(8) a person:
(A) who is regularly engaged in newsgathering activities;
(B) who is employed by a newspaper qualified to receive legal advertisements under IC 5-3-1, a wire service, or a licensed commercial or public radio or television station; and
(C) whose name is furnished by his employer to the chief executive officer of a law enforcement agency in the county
in which the employer's principal office is located;
(9) a person engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling police radios; or
(10) a person who possesses or uses a police radio during the normal course of the person's lawful business.
(c) As used in this section, "police radio" means a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes and that:
(1) can be installed, maintained, or operated in a vehicle; or
(2) can be operated while it is being carried by an individual.
The term does not include a radio designed for use only in a dwelling.

 

[jedi]

Warren v. District of Columbia,
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,
Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department.


According to the Supreme Court it's not the duty of the police to keep us safe, either.

sry jbombelli I have to spread the rep before I can give it to you again.
but

isn't it illegal to have a scanner on and in your vehicle while traveling.. (even the apps available for smartphones.)?

Depends. People with a Ham license, volunteer firefighters, reserve cops, the press ...

I *think* all these guys can travel with scanners in their vehicles.

Correct. It is ILLEGAL to have a scanner in your vehicle unless you are except. For us civilians the easiest route is to get an "ham radio" license from the FCC.

The grey area is the "radio apps" for the smartphones. The case can be made for/against them as being legal. To date that I know of no court case has come about regarding those apps. This is a case where technology has jumped ahead of the laws and no one has yet to get caught by this law.

 

[downzero]

Are you certain you are not thinking of a case in New Mexico?

No, it's definitely an Indiana case and probably 3-4 years ago that I have in mind. I think I blogged about it at the time, which is why I thought I'd be able to find it.

The standard is "armed" and "dangerous." If both are not present, your fourth amendment rights are violated. The real problem, after the fact, is proving damages.

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

This is a case where technology has jumped ahead of the laws...

This is always the case. New tech comes out, people either find a way to abuse it or the law makers don't like something about it, but laws are always REactive to technology.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Correct. It is ILLEGAL to have a scanner in your vehicle unless you are except. For us civilians the easiest route is to get an "ham radio" license from the FCC.

The grey area is the "radio apps" for the smartphones. The case can be made for/against them as being legal. To date that I know of no court case has come about regarding those apps. This is a case where technology has jumped ahead of the laws and no one has yet to get caught by this law.

Agreed. A typical smart phone is not capable of sending or receiving police band radio signals, it would be rerouted to the phone. there is no mention of this in the law that I am aware of.

 

[downzero]

This is always the case. New tech comes out, people either find a way to abuse it or the law makers don't like something about it, but laws are always REactive to technology.

I kinda like it that way. I wouldn't want the laws changing as fast as technology.

From the walls of the Jefferson Memorial:

 

[downzero]

Agreed. A typical smart phone is not capable of sending or receiving police band radio signals, it would be rerouted to the phone. there is no mention of this in the law that I am aware of.

Also, that would go for any type of device that connects to the internet. There are "online" scanners that you can use your computer to listen to police radio. Therefore, any smartphone--even one without that app--when combined with a laptop computer and tethering, could be a police scanner.

So not only is it an 'uncommonly silly' law in the sense that it potentially bans smartphones with that app, it further bans anyone from having a tether-able smartphone + a laptop in their car. Enforcement of that law in that manner would be borderlining on the absurd.

 

[jedi]

Agreed. A typical smart phone is not capable of sending or receiving police band radio signals, it would be rerouted to the phone. there is no mention of this in the law that I am aware of.

(c) As used in this section, "police radio" means a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes and that....

----
The million dollar question is a smart phone a "police radio" per the text above? That is where my "a case for/against" can be made in court. Smart phones are cabpable of receiving signals transmitted by feqs assigned by the FCC. The law does not state that those freq have to be via "the airways" as most radios pick up the signal.

but this is for a conversation for another topic.

 

[jedi]

. Enforcement of that law in that manner would be borderlining on the absurd.

No it won't. Matter of fact this is a good source of revenue. LEO stops you for traffic violation, sees your smartphone, BAM! now they can get you for consipracy to have police scanner without a license as well since you have a smart phone and another charge against you.

But if you are willing to pay $500 and be good for a year they will drop teh charges. Oh my oh my all the revenue we can make with this law the way it is written.

Note the LACK of purple. We already see this with ATF and having a set of washers and getting hit with consipracy to make a silencer, etc.. Now why our reps have not gotten on the bandwagon on this one is beyond me. guess we are not so strapped for cash as IL is.

 

[downzero]

I'm not oblivious to the fact that these and asset forfeiture laws are terribly abused. What I'm saying is that the people who elected the representatives who passed that law never expected it to be enforced in that manner. I am not suggesting that our proactive law enforcement types wouldn't jump at the opportunity to enforce such an absurd law if it meant sticking it to people from out of town rather than raising taxes.