LEO run in 2 times in 30 min.

[BloodEclipse]

Originally Posted by stiffy

I was not going to post this but i cant sleep right now... Over the weekend i was riding with a friend back to my place from broadripple, she was stopped by metro on kessler for a burnt headlight. He did the normal routine asker her if she had been drinking, leaned in to smell her breath and all that good stuff. After he decided she was ok he moved on to me. i told him that i had a couple beers so he asked for my ID. At that point i told him that i had my carry weapon on me(i didnt want to reach for the wallet and risk him seeing the gun). He asked where it was, i told him on my back. He asked that i pull it out slowly and hand it to him. I leaned over so it was completly visible and handed it to him. he went back to his car with the gun and both licenses for about 5 min. He brought it back unloaded and said have a nice night. We stopped and bought a new bulb but did not put it in at the store because i couldnt fit my hands behind the housing... anyway a mccordsville car ended up turning around and following us for a couple miles and hit his lights one house before mine. he asked for her license and registration, as she was getting it out she told him we were pulled over about 20 min ago for the headlight. i told him i had my carry weapon. he asked what it was, i said a 9mm. he asked what brand, i told him then he handed her stuff back and left without checking anything...

Those are the only run ins ive had and i didnt feel uncomfotable at any point. they were both polite and didnt even write a ticket for the headlight. ill have to remember to get names next time...

Why exactly would you have the need to produce ID in the first place?
So what if you had been drinking?
No harm in getting a ride home.

[stiffy]

Originally Posted by BloodEclipse

Why exactly would you have the need to produce ID in the first place?
So what if you had been drinking?
No harm in getting a ride home.

I'm under the impression that in indiana you have to produce it if they ask for it... but really there was no reason. i look young maybe he thought i wasnt 21 and could hit me for minor consumption? Although i only had a couple and was capable of driving... taking a ride from someone that has had nothing is always a better option.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by stiffy

I'm under the impression that in indiana you have to produce it if they ask for it... but really there was no reason. i look young maybe he thought i wasnt 21 and could hit me for minor consumption? Although i only had a couple and was capable of driving... taking a ride from someone that has had nothing is always a better option.

It's a catch 22 on the ID in Indiana if you have a handgun.

You do NOT have to produce ID unless you are doing something that requires is. Being unarmed in a car, the cop can go pound sand. He can ask you name, residence and DOB. Thats all you have to answer. Verbally. You cannot be compelled to produce ID for that.

Driving a car? Yes you must produce your DL.

Carrying a gun? Yes, you must produce your LTCH and a photo ID (which is normally a DL for most ppl).

Unarmed? Not required.

This isn't Nazi Germany.... yet.

[zebov]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It's a catch 22 on the ID in Indiana if you have a handgun.

You do NOT have to produce ID unless you are doing something that requires is. Being unarmed in a car, the cop can go pound sand. He can ask you name, residence and DOB. Thats all you have to answer. Verbally. You cannot be compelled to produce ID for that.

Driving a car? Yes you must produce your DL.

Carrying a gun? Yes, you must produce your LTCH and a photo ID (which is normally a DL for most ppl).

Unarmed? Not required.

This isn't Nazi Germany.... yet.

Actually it's even simpler than that. Unless the officer has some reasonable suspicion you've committed a crime, you do not have to identify yourself or answer any questions (Brown v. Texas 1979). An officer can't just stop anyone he/she wants and ask who they are, where they live, and when they were born.

[Indy317]

Originally Posted by BloodEclipse

Why exactly would you have the need to produce ID in the first place?

Originally Posted by stiffy

I'm under the impression that in indiana you have to produce it if they ask for it... but really there was no reason. i look young maybe he thought i wasnt 21 and could hit me for minor consumption?

Originally Posted by gomez.ra8

One lafayette officer refused to believe my permit was valid, and made me sit on the curb for about 20 minutes while he checked.

The only time someone is _required_ to identify themselves is for an ordinance or infraction violation:

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.

Now, if the officer thought the person looked to be under 21 years old, the officer has the right to detain the individual and investigate the crime of illegal possession (for alcohol). Technically, as soon as an ID is shown, and it is confirmed the person is 21, they should be free to leave. If you refuse to show an ID, then if the officer honestly believes the person is under 21, and they have probable cause to believe the person illegally consumed alcohol, they could arrest them. Obviously the charges would be dismissed in court later on.

Now with having the gun, this is the gray area that courts around the country are weighing in on. Right now, it seems to be in states where OCing is legal, no permit needed, and cops are detaining people when there is no violation of law. In Indiana, carrying is illegal in any manner, unless you have a permit and/or are a member of an exempted group. However, even if you have a permit, it still doesn't mean you are legal. People can get convicted of crimes which would negate their right to own/possess a handgun, yet due to paperwork issues, whatever, they still have that permit. Then the question becomes: If an officer stops someone with a gun, they display a permit, can the officer still investigate to make sure that:
#1: The permit is valid (dispatchers can do this via a computer)?
#2: Even if the computer system shows the permit is valid, can the officer then run a criminal history check to make sure this person wasn't one who has slipped through the cracks and some how got and/or still has a permit they shouldn't?

These are questions that will only be answered when judges rule on them. Until then, they are open to interpretation and are not set in stone as of yet.

Originally Posted by BloodEclipse

So what if you had been drinking?
No harm in getting a ride home.

As already discussed, there could be an under-21 issue. However, another issue would be if the passenger looks so intoxicated, that further investigation needs to be done. Or maybe the driver appeared so nervous, that the officer though something more was up. My wife is kinda like this...just can't handle stress at all. She crashed her car recently and was a total wreck. Thankfully I was close-by so I was able to help her out. An LEO would have thought she was crazy, (even I do when she ends up like she did), but some people are just like that. It is always best to investigate a little more if possible. Maybe such a person is being held against their will? Maybe they are wanted? Etc.. While one could get arrested for public intoxication in this instance, there was an appeals court ruling a while back where the judges basically wrote that the PI statue be over-looked when someone is doing the right thing by not driving.

That being said, I wouldn't care about the law so much. I would worry more about liability/trying to protect someone more than making an arrest. If an officer makes a legal stop, those people are under the officer's control and the officer is responsible for them in various manners. If passengers want to leave, they can. However, if an severely intoxicated person tries to leave, an officer might have to detain them and have them taken to the hospital/or arrest them for public intoxication since they might be a danger to themselves (walking/falling into the street, passing out when it is zero degrees outside, etc.). Even if the person doesn't try to leave the scene, if they appear to be so intoxicated, to the point they don't know what is going on around them...an officer has a decision to make. Does the officer let the totally passed out drunk female go, taking five guys word that they are her friends? What if it is just one guy? There are many reasons why officers may try to pry into things, even if they appear non-criminal. It isn't that the officer is just trying to find someone to arrest. If I had a daughter and she had been drugged and was in a car full of guys who were for the most part sober, I would rather her go to jail for PI and/or the hospital for evaluation rather than gang raped.

Just something to think about when viewing the job of an LEO.

[Kirk Freeman]

Now others will be on here soon complaining about you being disarmed and the first officer checkng your gun.

Well, fpd, I think it is more about the reckless circumstances that the officers created. By their waving around guns in public they put the public at large at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

E.g. the GIMP that stopped me in Broad Ripple had no idea how a 1911 worked. While he let me keep my other two carry guns, he waved my 1911 around at passing traffic, dog-walkers, joggers, moms with strollers and bicyclists on 54th and on College. Oh, yeah, he pointed it at my leg too.

I have a friend who has a similar story about ISP and a Walther P99. ISP could not figure out how to release the magazine and pointed it at the stopped car, traffic on I-65, the trooper's leg and belly, inter alia.

I just wish the police would have enough training* to realize that the less you handle firearms the less chance of an AD or ND.

I actually LIKE when they check my gun

Ummm, I don't. No basis to do so and creates a risk to public safety. Put me in the "no" column.


*Yes, I know most guns are not "gun people" and have minimal amounts of training time

[Pami]

Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman

*Yes, I know most guns are not "gun people" and have minimal amounts of training time

[inject humor]
I thought all guns weren't any kind of people. That's why they can't shoot themselves.
[/inject humor]

And to the OP: thanks for sharing this relatively positive encounter!

[Kirk Freeman]

Was going with "cops", but I like to keep it interesting.

Voice mail and typing=bad combination

[wtfd661]

Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman

Well, fpd, I think it is more about the reckless circumstances that the officers created. By their waving around guns in public they put the public at large at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Damn Kirk, I didn't realize from the OP that you were there and witnessed that, holy cow that puts the whole incident into a new light But I am glad that you were able to take a positive OP about how the person who was involved thought it went and change it to a bash on LEO's good job!!

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by wtfd661

Damn Kirk, I didn't realize from the OP that you were there and witnessed that, holy cow that puts the whole incident into a new light But I am glad that you were able to take a positive OP about how the person who was involved thought it went and change it to a bash on LEO's good job!!

WTFD, I don't see his post as a bash on LEOs. Personally, if I'm asked to hand over my firearm, I'll be dropping the mag as it leaves the holster and probably racking the slide back to hand it over unloaded, action open.

I don't speak for Kirk and I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think he was probably referring to the passing of a loaded firearm as being by definition reckless, no matter who's doing it. Similarly, if one person is passing a firearm to another, esp. one without any external mechanical safety other than it taking a deliberate pull of the trigger to fire it, (Yes, I'm thinking of Glocks specifically but not exclusively), all it takes is a slipped grip and a slight fumble and a round is fired in a random direction (due to the lost grip)

Again, ANYONE can do have this happen. The only thing that makes this particular situation seem like a bash on LEOs is that no one else has the backing of the law to compel someone to hand over their firearm.

To the OP: Did the officer ask if you'd been drinking or did you volunteer the info? I agree with telling the truth if asked, but I see no need to volunteer that you've engaged in completely lawful behavior.

Just my , you don't have to agree (I have no problem with it if you do, though! )

Blessings,
Bill