What to do when stopped for carrying a long gun...?

[femurphy77]

Ok, I pretty much know what I need to provide and/or do when stopped for a "man with a gun" call when carrying a handgun. Basically give your LTCH when asked, and that's all that's needed.

Let's say I got a hair up my ass and decided to go on a walk and slung a long gun or shotgun across my back, and was then subsequently stopped by the police. Would I need to provide any information to the officer? I know I am not required to provide ID, but if asked for a LTCH and not carrying a pistol, would I still need to provide it? You don't need any permits, licenses, special permission slips to carry a long gun or shotgun, but would this be a case where I would need to show ID?

This part really stuck out for me, so as not to misunderstand; you're saying somebody/thing/action ticked you off so you threw a rifle across your back and went for a walk to. . . .

 

[KW730]

Question, are police officers REQUIRED to tell you what infraction or ordinance violation your accused of?

Yes, it is a right guaranteed by the constitution. When they must tell you is up for debate though.

 

[Rookie]

Ok, when must they tell you? It seems you could be set up for failure if you refuse and they have you dead to rights on an infraction you've never heard of.

 

[KW730]

Ok, when must they tell you? It seems you could be set up for failure if you refuse and they have you dead to rights on an infraction you've never heard of.

I have no idea in the time frame but I believe you have a right to know at the time you are detained.

Just say something along the lines of, "I will gladly identify myself when you articulate what crime or ordinance violation you suspect i have or am about to commit "

 

[rvb]

...If I really want to ID you, there is nothing that prohibits me from watching you until you do commit an infraction or ordinance violation. I studied up on all the petty ordinances just for the open air dope dealers hanging on out corners. I learned real quick that there's lots of ordinances that even apply to pedestrians or bicycle riders, and then so did they. Even something with a $12 fine is enough for the Refusal to ID code.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

-rvb

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have no idea in the time frame but I believe you have a right to know at the time you are detained.

Just say something along the lines of, "I will gladly identify myself when you articulate what crime or ordinance violation you suspect i have or am about to commit "

Negative. I've had someone claim this in court and lose. Refused to ID on a traffic stop and ended up going to jail.

On a traffic stop I always got the license and registration and THEN informed what the violation was. The reason for that is simple. I'm not going to argue with you on the road side. Once I have your license if you want to argue, I can just walk back to my car and complete what I need to do.

 

[KW730]

Negative. I've had someone claim this in court and lose. Refused to ID on a traffic stop and ended up going to jail.

On a traffic stop I always got the license and registration and THEN informed what the violation was. The reason for that is simple. I'm not going to argue with you on the road side. Once I have your license if you want to argue, I can just walk back to my car and complete what I need to do.

Wouldn't this be different though since it is a crime to operate a vehicle without a license and you are already required to provide a driver's license when stopped while operating a vehicle?

 

[Car Ramrod]

This part really stuck out for me, so as not to misunderstand; you're saying somebody/thing/action ticked you off so you threw a rifle across your back and went for a walk to. . . .

Um, no.

"An action of a sudden & unexpected nature. Something done by a person that is uncharacteristic for that person to do."

 

[AndersonIN]

I have no idea in the time frame but I believe you have a right to know at the time you are detained.

Just say something along the lines of, "I will gladly identify myself when you articulate what crime or ordinance violation you suspect i have or am about to commit "

Leo: "Why did I detain you? Well I believe you're BadGuy Junior and I think you're wanted in 12 states."

BadGuy Junior: Well no I'm not! So it's really nice you told me so we both didn't have to waste the time of me getting out my ID! Thank you officer and now I'll be on my way!"

 

[KW730]

Leo: "Why did I detain you? Well I believe you're BadGuy Junior and I think you're wanted in 12 states."

BadGuy Junior: Well no I'm not! So it's really nice you told me so we both didn't have to waste the time of me getting out my ID! Thank you officer and now I'll be on my way!"

That's exactly how it would play out if the officer can't articulate why he believes the person he has stopped is BadGuy Jr....

Assuming the officer has RAS or PC, BadGuy Jr denying who he is doesn't change that he is still required to prove his identity.

 

[Rookie]

Negative. I've had someone claim this in court and lose. Refused to ID on a traffic stop and ended up going to jail.

On a traffic stop I always got the license and registration and THEN informed what the violation was. The reason for that is simple. I'm not going to argue with you on the road side. Once I have your license if you want to argue, I can just walk back to my car and complete what I need to do.

So, what about the original scenario?

 

[stephen87]

Negative. I've had someone claim this in court and lose. Refused to ID on a traffic stop and ended up going to jail.

On a traffic stop I always got the license and registration and THEN informed what the violation was. The reason for that is simple. I'm not going to argue with you on the road side. Once I have your license if you want to argue, I can just walk back to my car and complete what I need to do.

Different scenario, entirely. If stopped for a traffic violation, you MUST provide your driver's license. If not, there's an extra ticket for not having it on you.

If stopped for carrying a long gun, you are not required to provide anything.

IC 9-24-13-3
Possession and display of licenses and permits
Sec. 3. An individual holding a permit or license issued under this article must have the permit or license in the individual's immediate possession when driving or operating a motor vehicle. The permittee or licensee shall display the license or permit upon demand of a court or a police officer authorized by law to enforce motor vehicle rules.

There is no law saying that someone stopped for carrying a long gun must ID themselves. Two different ball games.

 

[inccwchris]

Might want to cite some IC for this. You HAVE to ID yourself.

Showing an LTCH is where firearms questioning ends regarding handguns. Since it is not required for a long gun, you need to provide either an LTCH or ID yourself to get them from actually cuffing you and taking you in for refusal to ID.

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

By not IDing, you COULD be a felon with an illegal item in your possession. If you are not, why chance a misdemeanor?

Uh guys, one thing you are forgetting is that an ordinance or infraction is not something considered criminal, it is civil in nature. The only punishment that can come from an infraction or ordinance violation is a fine:ex seatbelt violation, littering, speeding, texting while driver as a minor etc etc.

Refusal to identify applies only to the driver of the motor vehicle. Technically speaking since in Terry vs Ohio, it was established that an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop someone for a brief amount of time to question them. During a terry stop you are required to produce name and DOB. Nothing more unless asked, be advised that refusing to ID or answer questions can lead to an officer having probable cause to detain you.

 

[stephen87]

Uh guys, one thing you are forgetting is that an ordinance or infraction is not something considered criminal, it is civil in nature. The only punishment that can come from an infraction or ordinance violation is a fine:ex seatbelt violation, littering, speeding, texting while driver as a minor etc etc.

Refusal to identify applies only to the driver of the motor vehicle. Technically speaking since in Terry vs Ohio, it was established that an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop someone for a brief amount of time to question them. During a terry stop you are required to produce name and DOB. Nothing more unless asked, be advised that refusing to ID or answer questions can lead to an officer having probable cause to detain you.

Reread the IC. Refusal to identify does not apply only to the driver of a vehicle. Refusal to identify applies to anyone suspected of committing an ordinance violation or infraction. It could be a traffic violation or it could be a simple noise ordinance. Refusal to ID when not committing an infraction or violation cannot lead to you being detained, imo.

Any LEOs care to chime in?

 

[KW730]

Reread the IC. Refusal to identify does not apply only to the driver of a vehicle. Refusal to identify applies to anyone suspected of committing an ordinance violation or infraction. It could be a traffic violation or it could be a simple noise ordinance. Refusal to ID when not committing an infraction or violation cannot lead to you being detained, imo.

Any LEOs care to chime in?

You are correct. Frank has also already agreed.

 

[stephen87]

I meant specifically for the refusal to identify portion.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I meant specifically for the refusal to identify portion.

Frank agreed with that.

 

[inccwchris]

Reread the IC. Refusal to identify does not apply only to the driver of a vehicle. Refusal to identify applies to anyone suspected of committing an ordinance violation or infraction. It could be a traffic violation or it could be a simple noise ordinance. Refusal to ID when not committing an infraction or violation cannot lead to you being detained, imo.

Any LEOs care to chime in?

Unless of course the officer can articulate that he had reasonable suspicion to stop you under Terry V Ohio. In that case even if you are not committing a crime, you can and in some cases will be detained for refusing to give a name and ID. Not saying you should be, but technically the framework is layed for it to happen legally. Remember in Terry V Ohio it was found that reasonable suspicion is all that is required to make initial contact. If at any time that officer feels he has probable cause to detain and you refuse to ID, that would be PC for an arrest. Its not really about what you think is going on, its all on the officers shoulders to prove in court. If he or she feels they have cause, they will take action and according to the law and court ruleing the basic authority is laid out in Terry V Ohio.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Refusal to identify applies only to the driver of the motor vehicle. 0

You may wish to amend this.

There are many infractions that I can commit while not driving a motor vehicle.

E.g., being in the city park break dancing with rhino after dark.

 

[stephen87]

Unless of course the officer can articulate that he had reasonable suspicion to stop you under Terry V Ohio. In that case even if you are not committing a crime, you can and in some cases will be detained for refusing to give a name and ID. Not saying you should be, but technically the framework is layed for it to happen legally. Remember in Terry V Ohio it was found that reasonable suspicion is all that is required to make initial contact. If at any time that officer feels he has probable cause to detain and you refuse to ID, that would be PC for an arrest. Its not really about what you think is going on, its all on the officers shoulders to prove in court. If he or she feels they have cause, they will take action and according to the law and court ruleing the basic authority is laid out in Terry V Ohio.

Again though, it does not just apply to drivers as you said. It applies to anyone suspected of violating an infraction or ordinance violation.