Traffic stop, officer confiscated my firearms.

[finity]

I also read in the OP that they were going to tow your vehicle. If they really were, they are allowed to do an inventory of your car and trailer. There is a lot of straw grasping going on here. MOVE ON!!!!!

So a cop can say they are "going to" tow your vehicle for no reason then "inventory" it (IOW, do a search of it) then change their mind? I know that the 4A is pretty much worthless as far as the actuality of it's enforcement so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the answer to that will be "yes".

I just read all 14 pages of this thread. I would kindly suggest you consider paying the fine and letting it go. I see all kinds of bad things that could come out of this stop for you. It is obvious that your intentions were not criminal but the fact remains that your actions were in fact criminal on more than one charge.

Keep in mind the officer and or PO have two years to file any additional charges on you. If you go in to court and tick off the judge and PO with petty little theory's you are very likely going to irritate some folks. They will be looking at the fact that you was given a pretty good break but decided to make waves. Also seeing that you was mailed a summons you can be assured the PO is familiar with your case. They more than likely ran a triple III on you and saw that you had not been in any trouble to speak of, if any.

If we are talking about Hendricks County you might want to really reconsider. They have the man power,the time and the space to accommodate you and they will do so in a heartbeat. I work in Hendricks County and I can assure you they don't play down at 51 W Main.

Lawyers? They want your money and they will be more than happy to assist you in ticking off the court. Pay the stupid fine man and be done with it. There is much more at stake here than a little 150.00 fine. Something to consider. Good luck to you.

Ah and now comes the threats & intimidation tactics so happily used by those who are ENTRUSTED to provide fair & balanced application of the law to the citizens within the limits of law & the various Constitutions.

Such actions aren't very becoming of law enforcement but sadly, it is pretty well accepted par for the course.

He was .07% BAC, I wouldn't let him have them either.

And what legal theory or authorization would you use to take his guns away aside from the fact that is just what you wanted to do? Last I knew, that wasn't (supposed to be) a good enough reason to take someone's property away from them.

I am not a lawyer and I have no dog in this fight.

But for those of you saying that him coming up with a positive defense is gaming the system, then I guess every positive defense for every suspect is "gaming the system."

I had a buddy that drove home drunk one night. The cop initially pulled him over for "not having yellow turn signals" on the front of his car. His front turn signals were white. I don't recall the outcome, but he paid a fine and whatever else. However, after he initially told me what the PC was that the officer pulled him over for, I looked up the IC. There is no law in the IC that says you have to have yellow turn signals. The law does (or did) state that they could be any other color but green, red, or blue, and could be yellow or lighter.

I told him that if he fought the ticket, the officer wouldn't have had the PC to pull him over based solely on the "no yellow turn signals." He didn't fight it, but it was a positive defense and wasn't "gaming the system."

If the original reason, and only reason, for the stop was a BS infraction that furthered the fishing trip the officer was on, then the stop or any tickets/charges aren't valid. You can't say that it was inevitable discovery either.

Cases get tossed when cops don't follow the law or procedure properly. If the officer in the OP's case pulled him over for something that wasn't valid, anything found after that isn't admissible.

He may or may not win when he gets to court. But stop telling him he shouldn't have his day there. That's the whole point of the judicial system. Traffic court sucks. He still has a right to keep from being wrongfully charged. No matter what he may or may not have done, there's no reason that LEO should have pulled him over in the first place on some bogus charge, especially if he can prove it.

he should be thankful that supposed honest people with a badge didnt damage or steal his weapons? its getting bad when people actually expect that out of cops and are willing to tolerate it. but they did steal his ammo so i guess any other crime they commit shouldnt be a surprise.

+1. great post.

I tried to rep you but I need to spread it around first.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And what legal theory or authorization would you use to take his guns away aside from the fact that is just what you wanted to do? Last I knew, that wasn't (supposed to be) a good enough reason to take someone's property away from them.

I'll be honest, the taking of the weapons had me a bit confused tool. If I intended to take the firearms, I simply would have arrested him outright, had the vehicle towed, and had the mother come and pick the son up.

 

[lrahm]

So a cop can say they are "going to" tow your vehicle for no reason then "inventory" it (IOW, do a search of it) then change their mind? I know that the 4A is pretty much worthless as far as the actuality of it's enforcement so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the answer to that will be "yes".



Ah and now comes the threats & intimidation tactics so happily used by those who are ENTRUSTED to provide fair & balanced application of the law to the citizens within the limits of law & the various Constitutions.

Such actions aren't very becoming of law enforcement but sadly, it is pretty well accepted par for the course.



And what legal theory or authorization would you use to take his guns away aside from the fact that is just what you wanted to do? Last I knew, that wasn't (supposed to be) a good enough reason to take someone's property away from them.





+1. great post.

I tried to rep you but I need to spread it around first.

I probably would have taken his for a datamaster test and locked him up. I really don't think that we are getting the true and real story here.

 

[TTravis]

I probably would have taken his for a datamaster test and locked him up. I really don't think that we are getting the true and real story here.

Now that is the second time you accuse me of not being truthful or complete in telling the story. I take offense to that.

Below is the first time along with the response I gave:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrahm
He tested .07%. I don't think that we will ever get the whole and real story. It has bounced around several different times. If he tested .08 % BAC he is considered too drunk to drive. He is arrested. At .07% he could and should have been tested to see if he was going up at the time of the stop, if he was driving. .

I've told the story and laid everything out there as completely and honestly I possibly can. The only thing I left out is I did request to be tested again after standing around in front of that cop car for nearly an hour. He declined to test me saying something about not having another mouthpiece.

What is it that you think I am being untruthful about????

 

[TTravis]

Yesterday I thought I would do some followup and see if the PD happened to get together dome of my discovery information even though I requested it to be available by 11/1/2011.

I went to the local traffic court clerk and asked if my request for discovery was valid and in an acceptable format. All they could tell me was that it was forwarded to the county prosecutor office and I would have to contact them.

It was 12:something and the prosecutor office was out to lunch, so I stopped by the PD and asked if they had anything available to me. I spoke to the records person there and she said my lawyer should have received an arrest packet at my initial hearing. I explained that I was representing myself, and there was no information about my case at the initial hearing other than what I was being charged with. At that time a captain walked up in a helpful way and told me that they normally prepare a report for the prosecutor and submit it in the form of a report of probable cause to file charges.

I asked if they could tell me what the probable cause was, but he only said that I would have to contact the prosecutors office.

Now I believe that there would have been a police report at the station that they could have shared with me or read the information.

I plan to go to the police station Monday (Columbus Day) or Tuesday and hand them a letter requesting the police report and any other public information as per IC 5-14-3. What I want is something that would indicate their probable cause.

Later in the afternoon I called the prosecutors office and asked what was the status of my probable cause (I meant discovery) request. They said they had it and that it was a valid request. They said they were working on the request.

Is what I described how it normally works?

 

[Hammerhead]

I don't know, but I'd say yes. With the sheer number of cases normally being run through the system at any given time, it might just take a few days for things to be gathered up.

 

[lrahm]

Now that is the second time you accuse me of not being truthful or complete in telling the story. I take offense to that.

Below is the first time along with the response I gave:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrahm
He tested .07%. I don't think that we will ever get the whole and real story. It has bounced around several different times. If he tested .08 % BAC he is considered too drunk to drive. He is arrested. At .07% he could and should have been tested to see if he was going up at the time of the stop, if he was driving. .

I've told the story and laid everything out there as completely and honestly I possibly can. The only thing I left out is I did request to be tested again after standing around in front of that cop car for nearly an hour. He declined to test me saying something about not having another mouthpiece.

What is it that you think I am being untruthful about????

From what I understand is that you were driving then your son was driving. You were given a PBT and tested .07%. I know that you stated that you would tell the whole story after a court hearing. That's fine, aything you print out or write possibly could be of value. I am not doubting your story. To me things just aren't adding up. If you were driving and tested .07%, you should have been taken for a test on the datamaster (you could have been going up, the PBT might be off or an insufficient sample was given). The officer might be remiss if he didn't take you, if you were driving. I wasn't there and will not pass judgement. I too will wait ... for the rest of the story.

 

[TTravis]

From what I understand is that you were driving then your son was driving. You were given a PBT and tested .07%. I know that you stated that you would tell the whole story after a court hearing. That's fine, aything you print out or write possibly could be of value. I am not doubting your story. To me things just aren't adding up. If you were driving and tested .07%, you should have been taken for a test on the datamaster (you could have been going up, the PBT might be off or an insufficient sample was given). The officer might be remiss if he didn't take you, if you were driving. I wasn't there and will not pass judgement. I too will wait ... for the rest of the story.

I am happy you are not doubting my story. That makes me feel better. I think you have a pretty good idea of the situation without me incriminating myself before the trial.

You stated you you would have done if I was driving. What would you have done if I was not the one driving? Does it matter if I was driving or not? I was the only one in the vehicle with a drivers license and the one ultimately responsible for the vehicle and how it is used.

 

[lrahm]

I am happy you are not doubting my story. That makes me feel better. I think you have a pretty good idea of the situation without me incriminating myself before the trial.

You stated you you would have done if I was driving. What would you have done if I was not the one driving? Does it matter if I was driving or not? I was the only one in the vehicle with a drivers license and the one ultimately responsible for the vehicle and how it is used.

I know that your son was with you and somehow he was driving and you were ticketed because he was underage.

I have been in court a few times (too many to count). I cannot tell you what to do and won't. I will say that I have never seen a person defend themseve and win.

 

[LionWeight]

I have laid everything there is to know out there. I don't think there is any way to look at this in it's parts, alcohol, no license, guns being taken, and break it down. I gave the who picture, even though there are parts I am not proud of.

By your logic, a person cannot go to a restaurant and have a beer with his steak and be safe driving. Every veteran walking out of the American Legion, or VFW should be arrested for PI, if they have any alcohol in them at all, as soon as they walk out the door. I believe that the .08 limit is out there for a reason, and better thinkers than me set it at that level. All this stuff about "any alcohol at all is dangerous and illegal", I don't believe is a practical application of law enforcement. I've not had a drink (I only drink beer) since August 15 when I was fishing. I have only consumed about a case in total so far this year. It is not like I am in the habit of drinking and driving, but I do believe there has to be a reasonable limit other than 0.

I appreciate you LE guys speaking from experience. I know you have to deal with a lot of messy stuff. But I would like to know honestly, how many of these accidents are caused by people that are tested to be below the legal limit of .08 when alcohol is involved compared to those that are relay drunk. Some of the stuff that makes the news, the level is way high. I can't imagine what it would be like to even try to drive at 2.0 or above and those are the people need to go to jail. I appreciate that drugs and other things may cause impairment but I am talking only about alcohol here.

I don't understand you. There are several points that you contradict yourself on. One is the fact that you want to teach your son to look for a technicality to beat something YOU created. You say you weren't buzzed, but you put your son behind the wheel. He has not been through drivers training to learn how to drive safely. There are a couple things wrong with this. If you weren't even buzzed at all, why put him behind the wheel? You say it's a technicality, but it's ILLEGAL. You keep defending his ability and his maturity to be able to drive. How about yours? YOU broke the law whatever the reason was that you got pulled over. YOU caused your son to break the law. You put him and EVERONE else on the road that day in harms way of an inexperienced driver. YOU don't want to listen to what anyone else has to say on the issue.

I'll say it.

SIR, I DON'T APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING ME, MY FAMILY AND EVERYBODY ELSE WHO HAD NO PART IN YOUR BAD CHOICE IN JEOPARDY FOR YOUR LEISURELY DRINKING AND FISHING OUTING.

Just like all the people who don't agree with OC and CC. They don't have to like it it's the law. You don't have to like the fact that your son is getting screwed, but it's the law.

Good luck in court, I think your gonna need it. I just hope at some point you understand what the REAL problem here is.

 

[Hammerhead]

You do realize that there are kids on IN roads who're driving trucks, tractors and other farm equipment at the age of the OPs son and younger everyday? You do realize that you do not need to go through driver's ed to get a license? You do realize that your opinion doesn't change these facts, or that it is entirely possible that the OPs son could easily be just as mature and responsible as these other farm kids?

I drove before I was licensed, had a permit, or had been through driver's ed. I never put anyone in danger, and was being instructed on proper driving technique. I wasn't even a farm kid.

 

[public servant]

You do realize that your opinion doesn't change these facts

You do realize that your opinion doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal?

 

[newtothis]

You do realize that there are kids on IN roads who're driving trucks, tractors and other farm equipment at the age of the OPs son and younger everyday? You do realize that you do not need to go through driver's ed to get a license? You do realize that your opinion doesn't change these facts, or that it is entirely possible that the OPs son could easily be just as mature and responsible as these other farm kids?

I drove before I was licensed, had a permit, or had been through driver's ed. I never put anyone in danger, and was being instructed on proper driving technique. I wasn't even a farm kid.

You are referring to what some places refer to as "farm plates" which allow minors to drive farm equipment (and trucks with proper dmv-approved truck tags) on country roads. Im pretty sure that isnt applicable to this instance because the minor was driving in an instance that was illegal (the adult supervising was impaired, which in-and-of-itself can be a can of worms), regardless of having a permit or not.

Your statement is flawed; youre making suppositions that we cannot prove to be correct or not, and even it they were correct they wouldnt be applicable in this instance.

 

[chandler10r1]

Count your blessings

In Indiana officer descretion starts at .05 BAC. It appears the officer did not feel you were impaired enough to be arrested, but still felt you shouldn't be driving. And why in the world would the officer let you leave with your guns WHILE YOU ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. We dont have the full story, because you chose not to give it. So, this half sided story can not properly be examined by any one. However, I believe any officer in this situation SHOULD secure the firearms. If they didn't they would be derelict in their duty. I cant imagine the civil suit filed if he had let you leave with your guns and you hurt yourself or someone else.

 

[Hammerhead]

You do realize that your opinion doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal?

Allegedly. And I never said otherwise.

You are referring to what some places refer to as "farm plates" which allow minors to drive farm equipment (and trucks with proper dmv-approved truck tags) on country roads. Im pretty sure that isnt applicable to this instance because the minor was driving in an instance that was illegal (the adult supervising was impaired, which in-and-of-itself can be a can of worms), regardless of having a permit or not.

Your statement is flawed; youre making suppositions that we cannot prove to be correct or not, and even it they were correct they wouldnt be applicable in this instance.

LionWeight was implying that the OP's son being allegedly behind the wheel was putting people in danger because he was inexperienced. LionWeight was inferring something that he doesn't know for a fact. We do not know the OP's son, or his experience, or his training. Implying that he's a dangerous driver is a supposition not supported by fact.

My examples of kids driving weren't mentioning this incident, and weren't implying that this was the case we're discussing. I was merely refuting the fact that young people are inherently dangerous, immature, incapable, inexperienced, or improperly trained to be driving by stating that there are children who do so regularly. I was also stating that it is possible that the OP's son could have the same experience as any of the other kids who do drive under these circumstances.

I was merely providing a differing opinion to these two sentences:

"You keep defending his ability and his maturity to be able to drive."
"You put him and EVERONE else on the road that day in harms way of an inexperienced driver."

My statement was a logical rebuttal to the apparent inexperience or danger of young drivers. Perhaps I should have quoted them specifically initially. That might have made my thought clearer.

I wasn't there, and I can't say what happened between the OP, his son, and the law. That's something the OP has to deal with. Young people do drive under certain circumstances, and are not always inherently immature, inexperienced or dangerous.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

In Indiana officer descretion starts at .05 BAC. It appears the officer did not feel you were impaired enough to be arrested, but still felt you shouldn't be driving. And why in the world would the officer let you leave with your guns WHILE YOU ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. We dont have the full story, because you chose not to give it. So, this half sided story can not properly be examined by any one. However, I believe any officer in this situation SHOULD secure the firearms. If they didn't they would be derelict in their duty. I cant imagine the civil suit filed if he had let you leave with your guns and you hurt yourself or someone else.

.05? really? is that why the law so clearly states .08? What about me with my CDL? Is it still .05, .08 or .04 or a whole new set of numbers for the officer to play with? Soooo, let's just pretend I'm in a CMV and we're going to use the .04 number...so where does officer discretion kick in there? Okay now lets just pretend I'm in my personal car with my class A cdl where is the line there? How many officers in here can tell me, without looking, what is the legal limit for a person holding a CDL when they are in their personal vehicle? Is it the same as everyone else in their personal vehicle and if not, why the potentially career ending double standard? If the limit is less than for any non-cdl holder, where does the imagined officer discretion kick in?

 

[Denny347]

.05? really? is that why the law so clearly states .08? What about me with my CDL? Is it still .05, .08 or .04 or a whole new set of numbers for the officer to play with? Soooo, let's just pretend I'm in a CMV and we're going to use the .04 number...so where does officer discretion kick in there? Okay now lets just pretend I'm in my personal car with my class A cdl where is the line there? How many officers in here can tell me, without looking, what is the legal limit for a person holding a CDL when they are in their personal vehicle? Is it the same as everyone else in their personal vehicle and if not, why the potentially career ending double standard? If the limit is less than for any non-cdl holder, where does the imagined officer discretion kick in?

.08 is the legal "per se" minimum. You blow .08 and the State will presume you are intoxicated and that is a violation of either 9-30-5-1(a) or 9-30-5-1(b). Operating a motor vehicle in a manner that endangered a person, while intoxicated is a seperate charge under 9-30-5-2. As far as a CDL, I really don't care. If you are driving bad enough to get my attention and you are drunk, your CDL is the last thing on my mind. If you are not driving poorly, blow WAY under the legal limit, then you will get the same courtesy CDL or not.

 

[LionWeight]

Allegedly. And I never said otherwise.



LionWeight was implying that the OP's son being allegedly behind the wheel was putting people in danger because he was inexperienced. LionWeight was inferring something that he doesn't know for a fact. We do not know the OP's son, or his experience, or his training. Implying that he's a dangerous driver is a supposition not supported by fact.

My examples of kids driving weren't mentioning this incident, and weren't implying that this was the case we're discussing. I was merely refuting the fact that young people are inherently dangerous, immature, incapable, inexperienced, or improperly trained to be driving by stating that there are children who do so regularly. I was also stating that it is possible that the OP's son could have the same experience as any of the other kids who do drive under these circumstances.

I was merely providing a differing opinion to these two sentences:

"You keep defending his ability and his maturity to be able to drive."
"You put him and EVERONE else on the road that day in harms way of an inexperienced driver."

My statement was a logical rebuttal to the apparent inexperience or danger of young drivers. Perhaps I should have quoted them specifically initially. That might have made my thought clearer.

I wasn't there, and I can't say what happened between the OP, his son, and the law. That's something the OP has to deal with. Young people do drive under certain circumstances, and are not always inherently immature, inexperienced or dangerous.

This is silly. OP stated there were 3 people in the car. Himself, his father and an underage unlicensed driver. He never mentions his father. He admits he wasn't driving. Can we come to the decision that SOMEONE was driving? If not he or his father, and underage and unlicensed person was "allegedly" driving. OP also stated that his son had not had drivers education yet.

OP had 4 issues. 1. alcohol 2. boating 3. "allegedly" having an unlicensed underage operator 4. firearms Combine any 2 and it is a dangerous situation or we wouldn't be chatting about his. Unless IN is different than MI you are responsible for your child until they are 18. He was in the vehicle while his son "allegedly" operated the vehicle illegaly. Ergo he is responsible for this act.

OP also stated that when asked by the officer if there were any other weapons in the vehicle he told him "if you look in the tackle box in the back you'll find a very sharp pair of clippers". Under the circumstances he would have been better served not twisting the tigers tail. OP asked for opinions and I'm sorry that you take exception to mine. I keep my opinion the same. If his son has not been trained. is not licensed and they have decided to mix all 4 items above. They are a danger on the road and the officer was doing his job protecting others from OP's bad decisions. Instead of "manning up" to his wrongs. He's going to continue to teach his son that it's ok to break the laws you don't agree with. When he continues that behavior and breaks one that OP doesn't like, where will OP stand then? He's only doing what his father taught him.

You also mention that I'm making an assumption about his experience. OP stated that his son is 15 and has not had drivers ed. But you may be right. Considering the other errors in judgment, his son just may be experienced. And that is my logical conclusion.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

.08 is the legal "per se" minimum. You blow .08 and the State will presume you are intoxicated and that is a violation of either 9-30-5-1(a) or 9-30-5-1(b). Operating a motor vehicle in a manner that endangered a person, while intoxicated is a seperate charge under 9-30-5-2. As far as a CDL, I really don't care. If you are driving bad enough to get my attention and you are drunk, your CDL is the last thing on my mind. If you are not driving poorly, blow WAY under the legal limit, then you will get the same courtesy CDL or not.

So, what IS the legal limit for a person holding a class A CDL? I'll tell you, it is .04 and that limit is the same for said CDL holder even when they are in a personal vehicle. So, let's say I blow a .05 or .06 when driving my ford taurus, but my license is a class A, are you saying you would let me go? I hope so, but the limit is .04.

 

[lrahm]

What would it have hurt if he woud have simply called someone to come pick them up. He's drinking, this all could have been avoided. I've picked up people in the middle of the night who were too drunk to drive. Saved a lot of problems.

No, a child under 16 should not and cannot drive on the roads of Indiana, especially pulling a trailer. This is a disaster waiting to happen.