Surrounded by cops today

[Happyguy]

I can see the headline now. Man With Electric Drill Robs Check Casher

 

[USMC_0311]

oh i think i just sharted myself alittle from laughing AT you so hard. i know guys like you. I think they masterbate in the mirror. what a life im missing. if only i had more guts.

You owe me!! Coffee up my nose from LMAO! All over my work shirt.

 

[Denny347]

What kind of policy is that?? Can any officers out there explain the reasoning?

I dono, he said uniformed Sheriff so it is NOT IMPD rather it was MCSD and I doubt there is a written policy regarding that.

 

[shooter521]

This thread has gotten sideways and WAY too personal. Let's dial down the rhetoric a bit and return to discussing the incident in the OP, shall we?

 

[Gabriel]

What kind of policy is that?? Can any officers out there explain the reasoning?

(reference not shaking hands if you don't want to go back and find what the quote is referencing)

Honestly? It's because with the majority of people we deal with, we really don't want to touch them if we don't have to. I doubt it's anyone's policy, it's simply for health reasons. Saying that it's policy is a way to not have to shake someone's hand with out just saying that the officer doesn't really want to touch you.

It isn't anything personal, it's that spreading germs and diseases (and how not to) is drilled into us during training. I still do it anyway, but I carry hand sanitizer in my car and use it immediately afterward (but I made a habit of using it everytime I get back in the car after a call whether I really need to or not).

 

[Gabriel]

This thread has gotten sideways and WAY too personal. Let's dial down the rhetoric a bit and return to discussing the incident in the OP, shall we?

My bad. I was feeling a little crazy yesterday I guess. I get bored easily.

 

[E5RANGER375]

(reference not shaking hands if you don't want to go back and find what the quote is referencing)

Honestly? It's because with the majority of people we deal with, we really don't want to touch them if we don't have to. I doubt it's anyone's policy, it's simply for health reasons. Saying that it's policy is a way to not have to shake someone's hand with out just saying that the officer doesn't really want to touch you.

It isn't anything personal, it's that spreading germs and diseases (and how not to) is drilled into us during training. I still do it anyway, but I carry hand sanitizer in my car and use it immediately afterward (but I made a habit of using it everytime I get back in the car after a call whether I really need to or not).

you think the secret service would be letting the president shake peoples hands if there was some huge risk there?

 

[samot]

NICE !

Honestly? It's because with the majority of people we deal with, we really don't want to touch them if we don't have to. I doubt it's anyone's policy, it's simply for health reasons. Saying that it's policy is a way to not have to shake someone's hand with out just saying that the officer doesn't really want to touch you.

It isn't anything personal, it's that spreading germs and diseases (and how not to) is drilled into us during training. I still do it anyway, but I carry hand sanitizer in my car and use it immediately afterward (but I made a habit of using it everytime I get back in the car after a call whether I really need to or not).

 

[shooter521]

you think the secret service would be letting the president shake peoples hands if there was some huge risk there?

Is the President dealing with skels, freaks and scumbags on a daily basis?



Oh wait, there's Congress...



Nevermind.

 

[mrjarrell]

Can't have the praetorians touching the unwashed masses. Wouldn't be seemly or befitting their station.

 

[brotherbill3]

on not shaking hands

The Sheriff that walked out with me said that the policy was to keep someone from thinking I was bribing him ... I was wondering for what I'd be bribing him for? carrying my weapon in a wrapper so secure and identifiable ... to where everyone could see exactly what he handed me? ... anyway back to the original thread - sorry for sidetracking ...

"Brother" Bill

 

[Indy317]

That was done out of spite because they had already determined that you were a law abiding citizen.

LTCH doesn't = law abiding citizen. It just means he can't be arrested for carrying a handgun. Plenty of license holders have went out and committed horrible, violent acts.

The unloading of the gun might also be due to the paranoia factor? I am sure there are some cops that have an "Everyone is out to kill me." line of thinking. Then again, it might be because the officer wanted to be mean.

And you are not taking legal action because......?

My guess is that you haven't offered to pay his legal fees. It will take a lawsuit if folks want to even try to get a judge to say disarming a person with a license is a no-no, absent any criminal activity, or that taking time to call in a license is a no-no, or checking for felonies is a no-no. We had a similar court ruling, but that court took this into context with the stop being based on a seat-belt violation, which means you can't investigate for anything else unless the officer sees something in plain view.

The Indiana Courts recently ruled that once a LTCH is produced all inquires and searches related to firearms must stop immediately, excluding extenuating circumstances.

It wasn't this cut and dry. Neither of those cases involved a possible burglary/robbery in progress call. In one case, the gun wasn't on the person's body, in the other, the officer didn't even see a gun, only a bulge and the stop was solely based on Indiana's seat belt laws. In the Richardson case, the court did state this: "And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning."

Remember though, Richardson has to do with enforcing a law that specifically limits police conduct. This case had to do with a possible burglary/theft/robbery. Would the courts make the same ruling? I don't know. What the OP needs to do is print out the Richardson and Washington rulings, take them to various attorneys, and ask them if he has a case based on the time line of events, the court rulings, etc.. If they don't think he has a case, they will definitely take the case if he pays them by the hour.

Here is the Washington ruling:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

and the Richardson ruling:
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

if the OP wants to print them off and do some lawyer shopping.

But once a LEO is shown the LTCH, then they can't base a pat down or any other searches on the mere presence of a weapon since the weapon is lawfully possessed. Now, what else is there? A citizen complaint that they are being robbed and a repairman making an obvious repair to a building. What is the connection? What is there to make a cop think that a crime is occuring?

If you are being detained for a criminal violation involving a violent act, license or not, the officers will still have the right to pat you down, and take your weapon, for safety while they investigate the issue at hand. Folks are making too many broad statements on this thread, but it is telling how no one has offered to start a fund to help the OP actually go to court over this. Filing complaints will do nothing, only a court or jury finding and verdict in favor of the OP will do anything. Such a ruling will cause officers to be trained. Some may still do it, but it will at least make future lawsuits that much easier for those folks to win. Here is the thing, I don't think the OP has a case, even based on Washington or Richardson. As such, I don't think any lawyer will take this for free, with a cut of any settlement. This is the kind of case that would likely go to trial. If the lawyer isn't sure of winning anything, they are going to want to be paid hourly. So who here wants to start a monetary gift fund for the OP, so that he can pay the lawyers to file a lawsuit on this?

To the OP: If you feel your rights were violated, filing a complaint won't do much. All that will result in is them maybe admitting things could have been handled differently. If you think your rights were violated, and that the law is on your side, you should start printing out those laws, court rulings, etc. and start lawyer shopping. Their response will tell you right away if you have a case or not. There have been many police shootings, and other incidents, where lawyers are named. Contact those lawyers, as they obviously have no problems in suing the cops. Good luck.

 

[MinuteMan47]

HERE'S A QUESTION....

If LEOs don't shake hands because of "germs", then why do they want to disarm someone? That pistol was in the guys HAND at some point. Wouldn't the same germs be transferred?!

 

[E5RANGER375]

LTCH doesn't = law abiding citizen. It just means he can't be arrested for carrying a handgun. Plenty of license holders have went out and committed horrible, violent acts.

you are partialy right. it does mean the citizen is law abiding in the sense that they went through the dog and pony show process to get the LTCH and pay the king to acknowledge their own rights. just like a citizen who goes and gets a drivers license is law abiding. that being said ...... it doesnt mean that they wont make mistakes (either accidental or intentional) and then become law breakers. I think i deserve the bennefit of the doubt by the police. also i deserve for them to do their job by the laws standards and nothing more. if their department policy (their department isnt the law) is they get my LTCH and still ask for my DL and also wanna run my guns serial number when i was just walking down the street, then guess, what?? they arent gonna be enforcing policy that day, because im gonna tell them to go get bent if they persist in harrassing me. they get my LTCH and a smile if they are nice. i wont be rude. why?? because i keep my mouth shut when i talk to cops on official business. so its impossible for me to be rude or disrespectful. i will listen to all their smart comments and just stay quiet.

 

[Eddie]

If you are being detained for a criminal violation involving a violent act, license or not, the officers will still have the right to pat you down, and take your weapon, for safety while they investigate the issue at hand. .

I'm in absolute agreement with this statement. I think though that the distinction here is that in the situation that the OP described, there was no violent act, only a vague report of someone trying to rob the store and a person who was near the store repairing a light. How much investigating does this take? There's no suspect desccription and the OP works in the same strip mall. Does it really take twenty minutes to sort this one out?

 

[Dr Falken]

Well I read up to page ten or so, but the thing that I think is being overlooked is right of trespass, which it seems that the OP had. At the point that it was determined he had a right to be there, everything should have stopped.

 

[IndyMonkey]

LTCH doesn't = law abiding citizen. It just means he can't be arrested for carrying a handgun. Plenty of license holders have went out and committed horrible, violent acts.

The unloading of the gun might also be due to the paranoia factor? I am sure there are some cops that have an "Everyone is out to kill me." line of thinking. Then again, it might be because the officer wanted to be mean.



My guess is that you haven't offered to pay his legal fees. It will take a lawsuit if folks want to even try to get a judge to say disarming a person with a license is a no-no, absent any criminal activity, or that taking time to call in a license is a no-no, or checking for felonies is a no-no. We had a similar court ruling, but that court took this into context with the stop being based on a seat-belt violation, which means you can't investigate for anything else unless the officer sees something in plain view.



It wasn't this cut and dry. Neither of those cases involved a possible burglary/robbery in progress call. In one case, the gun wasn't on the person's body, in the other, the officer didn't even see a gun, only a bulge and the stop was solely based on Indiana's seat belt laws. In the Richardson case, the court did state this: "And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning."

Remember though, Richardson has to do with enforcing a law that specifically limits police conduct. This case had to do with a possible burglary/theft/robbery. Would the courts make the same ruling? I don't know. What the OP needs to do is print out the Richardson and Washington rulings, take them to various attorneys, and ask them if he has a case based on the time line of events, the court rulings, etc.. If they don't think he has a case, they will definitely take the case if he pays them by the hour.

Here is the Washington ruling:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

and the Richardson ruling:
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

if the OP wants to print them off and do some lawyer shopping.



If you are being detained for a criminal violation involving a violent act, license or not, the officers will still have the right to pat you down, and take your weapon, for safety while they investigate the issue at hand. Folks are making too many broad statements on this thread, but it is telling how no one has offered to start a fund to help the OP actually go to court over this. Filing complaints will do nothing, only a court or jury finding and verdict in favor of the OP will do anything. Such a ruling will cause officers to be trained. Some may still do it, but it will at least make future lawsuits that much easier for those folks to win. Here is the thing, I don't think the OP has a case, even based on Washington or Richardson. As such, I don't think any lawyer will take this for free, with a cut of any settlement. This is the kind of case that would likely go to trial. If the lawyer isn't sure of winning anything, they are going to want to be paid hourly. So who here wants to start a monetary gift fund for the OP, so that he can pay the lawyers to file a lawsuit on this?

To the OP: If you feel your rights were violated, filing a complaint won't do much. All that will result in is them maybe admitting things could have been handled differently. If you think your rights were violated, and that the law is on your side, you should start printing out those laws, court rulings, etc. and start lawyer shopping. Their response will tell you right away if you have a case or not. There have been many police shootings, and other incidents, where lawyers are named. Contact those lawyers, as they obviously have no problems in suing the cops. Good luck.

Quality information. thanks

 

[MinuteMan47]

HERE'S A QUESTION....

If LEOs don't shake hands because of "germs", then why do they want to disarm someone? That pistol was in the guys HAND at some point. Wouldn't the same germs be transferred?!

**Crickets**


Nothing?!

How about doing a pat down? Think of all the "GERMS"...!

 

[IndyMonkey]

**Crickets**


Nothing?!

How about doing a pat down? Think of all the "GERMS"...!

One is a choice, one is part of the job.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

Jumping in with my .

On a traffic stop, is it "reasonable for officer safety" to take your car keys with your license and registration? How about when returning the keys the officer throws them down the road telling you not to get them and start your car until he has left?

If prevailing (with some exception) LEO attitude is that every citizen is a threat no matter the situation, is it any wonder that the growing attitude of the citizenry is that the growing LEO power is a threat to their liberties in the same way?