Traffic stop, officer confiscated my firearms.

[Benny]

OK OK. How do I say this as to not incriminate myself. ALLEGEDLY my 15 year old son was driving. He does not have his permit yet. This would not be uncommon in his area for a father to let his son drive the last couple miles home. This is out in the country.

The poor kid got screwed. They changed the law to where he had to be 15.5 for a learners permit. His two older sisters had their permits at 15. In may, they changed it back to 15, but they are not implementing the new policy until January 1, 2012. The day he turns 15.5! Like I said, ALLEGEDLY.

I'm sorry, but that PO "insulting" you on your parenting skills could possibly have given you some sound advice and you're to hard-headed to realize it.

If you are responsible for getting yourself and 2 others home safely, maybe you shouldn't drink next time(while putting your son in a position to get into trouble).

 

[jsharmon7]

 

[Benny]

Get back to work. You aren't fooling anyone as you sit on the side of the road pretending to clock speeders as you play on the internet.

 

[jsharmon7]

Get back to work. You aren't fooling anyone as you sit on the side of the road pretending to clock speeders as you play on the internet.

I'm not on duty tonight. Plus, I have one of those dummies like in Super Troopers. I put a hair dryer in his hand and go take a nap.

 

[TTravis]

With all that said though, and now that I'm leaning not to go after the cop. I still believe I should not feel bad about fighting the ticket. Why did he take my guns? Was he right to do so? There is no law against stupid.

 

[sloughfoot]

It is totally within your right to fight the ticket and file a complaint with his Internal Affairs Division.

I don't think anybody here would try to discourage you from doing any of that. We are all American Citizens still.

Regards... (but I am still giggling....)

 

[TTravis]

This PD does not have enough cops to even have an Internal Affair and they are all related anyway. I still have drive through this town from time to time.

 

[cobber]

Re PI, the PBT result is not admissible in court, as it is not reliable. The PBT does give PC to administer FSTs.

The PI statute concerns impairment due to the effects of alcohol or controlled substances. A person might blow .00 on the PBT, but be obviously intoxicated. A .00 does not mean he can't be arrested and prosecuted (and convicted). It helps if the defendant tells the officer he just smoked crack, etc.

As to getting an OWI conviction solely on the officer's testimony re odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, etc., without a Datamaster result? I can't see a judge convicting without SFSTs and the chemical test. To be guilty of OWI you have to either be over .08 or be intoxicated and operating as to endanger a person. Without field sobriety tests and chemical test? Wow.

 

[jbombelli]

That might make sense, but that would be new to me. Not aware of any IC that deals with guns and alcohol.

IC 35-47-2-7
Prohibited sales or transfers of ownership
Sec. 7. (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a person may not sell, give, or in any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun or assault weapon (as defined in IC 35-50-2-11) to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.
(b) It is unlawful for a person to sell, give, or in any manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun to another person who the person has reasonable cause to believe:
(1) has been:
(A) convicted of a felony; or
(B) adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person seeking to obtain ownership or possession of the handgun is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(2) is a drug abuser;
(3) is an alcohol abuser; or
(4) is mentally incompetent.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.33-1989, SEC.126; P.L.140-1994, SEC.8; P.L.269-1995, SEC.7.
**********************
IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies
Sec. 23. (a) A person who violates section 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, or 16 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates section 7, 17, or 18 of this chapter commits a Class C felony.
(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.
(d) A person who violates section 22 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior conviction of any offense under this subsection or subsection (c), or if the person has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.16-1984, SEC.20; P.L.140-1994, SEC.9; P.L.17-1997, SEC.7.


If you were drunk, I could very easily see *anyone* reasonably concluding you're an alcohol abuser.

 

[KG1]

I'm not on duty tonight. Plus, I have one of those dummies like in Super Troopers. I put a hair dryer in his hand and go take a nap.

In other words you took the night off and let your smarter partner handle the heavy lifting.

 

[lrahm]

I'm not on duty tonight. Plus, I have one of those dummies like in Super Troopers. I put a hair dryer in his hand and go take a nap.

That is too good. I might have to try that.

 

[Donnelly]

I'm not on duty tonight. Plus, I have one of those dummies like in Super Troopers. I put a hair dryer in his hand and go take a nap.

FTW!!

 

[TTravis]

IC 35-47-2-7
Prohibited sales or transfers of ownership
Sec. 7. (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a person may not sell, give, or in any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun or assault weapon (as defined in IC 35-50-2-11) to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.
(b) It is unlawful for a person to sell, give, or in any manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun to another person who the person has reasonable cause to believe:
(1) has been:
(A) convicted of a felony; or
(B) adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person seeking to obtain ownership or possession of the handgun is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(2) is a drug abuser;
(3) is an alcohol abuser; or
(4) is mentally incompetent.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.33-1989, SEC.126; P.L.140-1994, SEC.8; P.L.269-1995, SEC.7.
**********************
IC 35-47-2-23
Violations; classes of misdemeanors and felonies
Sec. 23. (a) A person who violates section 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, or 16 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates section 7, 17, or 18 of this chapter commits a Class C felony.
(c) A person who violates section 1 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony:
(1) if the offense is committed:
(A) on or in school property;
(B) within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property; or
(C) on a school bus; or
(2) if the person:
(A) has a prior conviction of any offense under:
(i) this subsection; or
(ii) subsection (d); or
(B) has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.
(d) A person who violates section 22 of this chapter commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior conviction of any offense under this subsection or subsection (c), or if the person has been convicted of a felony within fifteen (15) years before the date of the offense.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.16-1984, SEC.20; P.L.140-1994, SEC.9; P.L.17-1997, SEC.7.


If you were drunk, I could very easily see *anyone* reasonably concluding you're an alcohol abuser.

Depends on what you mean by drunk and alcohol abuser, but that code is quite convincing and I will not go after the officer after seeing it. I learned something tonight. I probably won't be sending him a Christmas card this year though and I don't expect to get one from him! Thanks.

 

[Benny]

There is no law against stupid.

True story.

BTW, did your son [allegedly] get a ticket? If not, chalk one up to bad decisions and call it a day...That guy cut you a break.

 

[TTravis]

True story.

BTW, did your son [allegedly] get a ticket? If not, chalk one up to bad decisions and call it a day...That guy cut you a break.

Well, if this was the case "ALLEGEDLY"
No, and I was happy about that. He told my son right away that he was not in any trouble for doing what his dad said was ok.

BTW: What is the difference between IC 9-24-18-4, which is what I was charged with, and 9-24-18-3 which I though might be more appropriate?

Does it matter?

 

[sloughfoot]

This PD does not have enough cops to even have an Internal Affair and they are all related anyway. I still have drive through this town from time to time.

There is ALWAYS a way for a citizen to file a complaint. IA, County Sheriff, ISP, County Prosecutor, Police Chief, Town Marshall.

If you think you were treated unfairly or wrongly, you have the right to go that route. No matter what.

If you contact the Officer, I'll bet he will tell you how to file a complaint of his behavior. I always did. The phone number they called the next day was written on a piece of paper by me.

 

[Benny]

Well, if this was the case "ALLEGEDLY"
No, and I was happy about that. He told my son right away that he was not in any trouble for doing what his dad said was ok.

BTW: What is the difference between IC 9-24-18-4, which is what I was charged with, and 9-24-18-3 which I though might be more appropriate?

Does it matter?

IC 9-24-18-3
Permitting unlicensed person to drive
Sec. 3. (a) A person that has a motor vehicle in the person's custody may not cause or knowingly permit a person to drive the vehicle upon a highway unless the person obtains a license or permit under this article.
(b) A person who violates this section commits a Class C infraction.

IC 9-24-18-4
Permitting unlawful use of vehicle
Sec. 4. (a) A person may not authorize or knowingly permit a motor vehicle owned by the person or under the person's control to be driven by a person who does not have a legal right to do so or in violation of this title.
(b) A person who violates this section commits a Class C infraction.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.12.

Were you on a highway?

 

[TTravis]

There is ALWAYS a way for a citizen to file a complaint. IA, County Sheriff, ISP, County Prosecutor, Police Chief, Town Marshall.

If you think you were treated unfairly or wrongly, you have the right to go that route. No matter what.

If you contact the Officer, I'll bet he will tell you how to file a complaint of his behavior. I always did. The phone number they called the next day was written on a piece of paper by me.

The main thing I was concerned about was why he kept my guns. I now understand after seeing that code. As I now see it, he had no choice. I was wrong but am gad you guys set me straight. I mean I am really glad because I thought my 2A was infringed, and that bugged me.

The trial date is 11/15/2011. I'll post an update and let you know how it went.

Thanks everyone.

 

[TTravis]

Were you on a highway?

I'm not sure if I would call it a highway.

We were westbound on East Greencastle Road, Just west of White Lick Creek and outside Mooresville town limits. It is not a numbered highway as far as I know.

 

[Benny]

I'm not sure if I would call it a highway.

We were westbound on East Greencastle Road, Just west of White Lick Creek and outside Mooresville town limits. It is not a numbered highway as far as I know.

Then that should answer your question, shouldn't it?