+1 to Westfield Police

[INGunGuy]

So whose words were you twisting if not mine? I'm the only one that commented in the "INGO member in handcuffs" thread. Your avatar is a representation of ribbons/medals you earned during military service, right? From your military service you should know that there is something called chain-of-command and that people on the bottom rung of the chain usually don't perform functions reserved for those higher up the chain. Its not that it isn't ok for me to arrest another LEO, its just not my arrest to make.

I wasnt calling out YOU personally, only how it seems to represent LEO in general. As for the chain of command, I will agree, but should I have pushed the final checker/trouble shooter out of the way of a turning E-2 prop-arc or waited for guidance from the COC? Can you pick and choose who to arrest when you WITNESS them committing a crime?

INGunGuy

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I wasnt calling out YOU personally, only how it seems to represent LEO in general. As for the chain of command, I will agree, but should I have pushed the final checker/trouble shooter out of the way of a turning E-2 prop-arc or waited for guidance from the COC? Can you pick and choose who to arrest when you WITNESS them committing a crime?

INGunGuy

Saving a coworker from a potentially deadly situation is totally different than arresting one. When it comes to arresting another LEO, especially one from my department, due to my current rank and position I am not allowed to make that decision.

 

[INGunGuy]

Saving a coworker from a potentially deadly situation is totally different than arresting one. When it comes to arresting another LEO, especially one from my department, due to my current rank and position I am not allowed to make that decision.

So are you attempting to convey that if you WITNESSED a LEO beating the crap out of their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend you would NOT arrest them?

INGunGuy

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

So are you attempting to convey that if you WITNESSED a LEO beating the crap out of their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend you would NOT arrest them?

INGunGuy

No, you are taking my words and twisting them again. If the LEO was from my department I would have to contact a supervisor who would either make the arrest themselves or contact the on-call Internal Affairs supervisor who would respond to the scene to complete the investigation/arrest. If it was an officer from another department the rules are different and I would be allowed to make the arrest.

 

[sigsoldier]

These threads always make for a good read...

I will say that I was pulled over by the ISP a few weeks ago in Bloomington for speeding. The very first thing he asked me is if I had a weapon in my vehicle. This is the first time that I've been pulled over in Indiana, and I was very surprised that he asked me that. My only guess was that he saw my Hoosier Veteran license plate and assumed I would be armed, but after reading some of the replies here, it seems to be the new protocol.

 

[Rob377]

The issue at hand is that Washington v Indiana makes it illegal for an officer to seize a gun absent any other PC or RAS of a crime being committed or about to be committed. So upon giving the LEO the LTCH, any seizure is illegal. Also anyone who knows anything about weapons knows a holstered weapon is a "safe" weapon and a unholstered weapon is an accident waiting to happen.

The lack of common sense with current LEO's is really scary. Why anyone would want to handle another person's weapon on the side of a busy street/highway is absolutely asinine.

Why is it that we as the citizens will be arrested for breaking the law, but a LEO wont? I mean there is already a LEO on here that refuses to arrest an officer for breaking the law, does that also mean that officer wont arrest me for breaking the law? I mean what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. And no I am not talking about speeding or running a damn stoplight. I am talking about something that has been ruled on by the INSC as illegal activities.

INGunGuy

Washington v. Indiana did not say that improper seizure of a firearm by an LEO is a criminal offense. It said that any evidence obtained as a result is subject to the exclusionary rule.
It seems like you're confusing "illegal search" with "arrestable criminal offense" These are not interchangeable.

Also, consent removes the 4th Amendment violation. If you consent to a search or seizure, thats it, game over. No illegal seizure there. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)

and it's not just reasonable suspicion of a crime: "As in Malone, we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, the search of Washington's car for a handgun was not justified." Washington, at 113.


Another minor point, but Washington v Indiana was not a INSC case. It was decided at the Court of Appeals level. 922 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

 

[Hornett]

I have this figured out.
You can solve this problem for $100 bucks.

Everyone keep a Phoenix HP22A in thier car.
You can find them for $100 if you look around.
For those who don't know, they are cheap but very functional little .22 LR handguns.
So, anyway, the HP22A is manufactured in Kalifornia and has about 17 safeties.
It has a safety on the slide like a Smith and a safety on the frame sort of like a 1911.
You cannot remove the magazine without putting the 1911 safety on, you cannot take the safety off again without reinserting the magazine.
The net result is a pesty little gun that cannot be unloaded.
You cannot move the slide with the safety on and you can't get the last round out of the chamber.
The only way is to remove all the bullets from the magazine, reinsert it, take the safety off, and then remove the last round from the chamber.

So, when you get pulled over be sure that you show your LTCH right up front, then when he asks for your weapon, hand him your HP22A.
OF course this could possibly make your stop take 45 minutes or so while the officer tries to unload your pistol, but it sure could be fun while it lasts.
The when the officer returns your gun say "How did you do that? I have been trying to get that thing unloaded for 2 years!"
Should be good for getting proned out and handcuffed eventually.

 

[bassplayrguy]

If this leo is from the same Dine family that are all cops in Greenwood, you are lucky with him. The dines are known to be jackasses to people. Very arrogant.

 

[INGunGuy]

OK, I want to say that I am sorry if I offended anyone using bad information on Washington. I have officially pulled my head out of my arse and will no longer base any of my opinions on anything that I read on the Internet.

INGunGuy

 

[Rookie]

New to the forum, interesting thread. I am more interested in the question as to how the officer knew to ask about the possible weapon ( sorry not up to speed on all the abbreviations yet). I know that a few months ago I was pulled over for a illegal u-turn, and I was NOT asked by IMPD about any weapons in the car, but at that time I didn't have a permit, but now that I have one, I will be? Mind you, it would only make sense, from their perspective, for the State Police to dump all that data into their system, and I guess I just assumed it would be. I have read on other national forums that many states put this info right on your drivers license. Does anyone know the real story here in Indiana ?
Paul

A vast majority of the time they are fishing.

 

[Hammerhead]

Actually, when it comes to court rulings, you need to remember that Washington stated that cooperating up to and including providing your LTCH was not PC or RAS for a search, and that officer safety was moot because he was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. Richardson is where the presentation of a valid LTCH removes any further inquiry into a firearm. And Terry is where the committed/committing a crime or being dangerous is grounds for search and seizure, and the legal carry of a firearm does not meet that burden.

Taking all three of these rulings, you get that if you're not committing or have committed a crime or not being dangerous, you're cooperating, and you present a valid LTCH, removing your firearm from your possession is not legal.

IANAL, TINLA

 

[Roadie]

Actually, when it comes to court rulings, you need to remember that Washington stated that cooperating up to and including providing your LTCH was not PC or RAS for a search, and that officer safety was moot because he was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. Richardson is where the presentation of a valid LTCH removes any further inquiry into a firearm. And Terry is where the committed/committing a crime or being dangerous is grounds for search and seizure, and the legal carry of a firearm does not meet that burden.

Taking all three of these rulings, you get that if you're not committing or have committed a crime or not being dangerous, you're cooperating, and you present a valid LTCH, removing your firearm from your possession is not legal.

IANAL, TINLA

Exactly..

OK, I want to say that I am sorry if I offended anyone using bad information on Washington. I have officially pulled my head out of my arse and will no longer base any of my opinions on anything that I read on the Internet.

INGunGuy

I believe the Richardson Ruling says what you were trying to convey..

In the Richardson ruling, the court document states "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."

..for further reference, I saved(with permission) GunLaywer's take on it..

i agree, but I suggest that the Washington (Indiana Court of Appeals) and Richardson (Indiana Supreme Court) cases provide exactly that clarification.

To be specific;, based on these decisions: In Indiana, during a traffic stop, if the driver of the stopped vehicle produces a valid LTCH and admits to the presence of a firearm within the vehicle, absent any separate basis for a "reasonable belief" that the driver is dangerous or engaged in other illegal behavior, the officer is not legally authorized to take any further action with respect to that firearm, and any such action, including a search of the vehicle or the forcible seizure of that firearm, is illegal.

IMO, that is exactly what these cases say, thus removing any uncertainty in this area of Indiana law.

I think it is pretty clear that the INSC Rulings, and what they teach in the Academy as SOP, are at odds with each other, legally..
---


..and I still say, a LEO asking for the gun makes no sense logically, or from a safety standpoint. If the citizen IS a bad guy, giving them permission to handle their weapon is extremely unsafe, and it would make it even EASIER for that bad guy to shoot the Officer.

 

[Rob377]

Actually, when it comes to court rulings, you need to remember that Washington stated that cooperating up to and including providing your LTCH was not PC or RAS for a search, and that officer safety was moot because he was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. Richardson is where the presentation of a valid LTCH removes any further inquiry into a firearm. And Terry is where the committed/committing a crime or being dangerous is grounds for search and seizure, and the legal carry of a firearm does not meet that burden.

Taking all three of these rulings, you get that if you're not committing or have committed a crime or not being dangerous, you're cooperating, and you present a valid LTCH, removing your firearm from your possession is not legal.

IANAL, TINLA

IAAL, and this is spot on, with the caveat that "illegal seizure" does not mean "arrestable criminal offense." If you're really ticked off about it, file a §1983 action against the CLEO and officer involved. You'll probably lose, but it'll make them think twice about their policy.

 

[INGunGuy]

IAAL, and this is spot on, with the caveat that "illegal seizure" does not mean "arrestable criminal offense." If you're really ticked off about it, file a §1983 action against the CLEO and officer involved. You'll probably lose, but it'll make them think twice about their policy.

So to make sure I am understanding you, a LEO can commit a crime and get off Scott free, but if I commit a crime I go to jail for it?

INGunGuy

 

[Indy317]

Actually, when it comes to court rulings, you need to remember that Washington stated that cooperating up to and including providing your LTCH was not PC or RAS for a search, and that officer safety was moot because he was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. Richardson is where the presentation of a valid LTCH removes any further inquiry into a firearm. And Terry is where the committed/committing a crime or being dangerous is grounds for search and seizure, and the legal carry of a firearm does not meet that burden.

Taking all three of these rulings, you get that if you're not committing or have committed a crime or not being dangerous, you're cooperating, and you present a valid LTCH, removing your firearm from your possession is not legal.

I still thing we have yet to see a final conclusion on this. For starters, they never said it is "illegal" to secure a weapon on a traffic stop. In one case, it was all about a seat belt stop, meaning any further questioning about anything outside the seat belt issue wasn't allowed.

Look at what they wrote: "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."

What does questioning have to do with securing a weapon for officer safety?

In the other case, the guy was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. I saw nothing in the ruling that made me think the judges disagree with this person being handcuffed solely on the basis of officer safety.

Officers are securing guns and/or people all the time on traffic stops. If this was such a violation of rights, attorneys would be down at the courthouse filing lawsuit after lawsuit. Yet, no one seems to want to fight this practice, which strikes me as odd since it seems a majority of people here think these few court rulings are a slam dunk when it comes to officers securing handguns on traffic stops.

 

[Rob377]

So to make sure I am understanding you, a LEO can commit a crime and get off Scott free, but if I commit a crime I go to jail for it?

INGunGuy

It doesn't look like you are.

illegal seizure is not a criminal offense.

Not hiring someone because of their race or sex is also "illegal," but you can't be put in jail for it.

A cop that forgets to give a criminal in custody the Miranda warning and asks questions, his interrogation is "illegal" but he won't be put in jail for it.

 

[Rob377]

I still thing we have yet to see a final conclusion on this. For starters, they never said it is "illegal" to secure a weapon on a traffic stop. In Washington, it was all about a seat belt stop, meaning any further questioning about anything outside the seat belt issue wasn't allowed.

Look at what they wrote in Washington: "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."

What does questioning have to do with securing a weapon for officer safety?

In Richardson, the guy was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. I saw nothing in the ruling that made me think the judges disagree with this person being handcuffed solely on the basis of officer safety.

Officers are securing guns and/or people all the time on traffic stops. If this was such a violation of rights, attorneys would be down at the courthouse filing lawsuit after lawsuit. Yet, no one seems to want to fight this practice, which strikes me as odd since it seems a majority of people here think these few court rulings are a slam dunk when it comes to officers securing handguns on traffic stops.

It is likely illegal to take the gun, BUT, because there is some uncertainty here, the offending officers/departments would be found to have qualified immunity. Even if plaintiffs won, damages resulting from having a cop take your gun for 5 minutes would be nominal at best. You might be able to get attorney's fees , but that's an even longer shot.
Basically, the simple economics of filing such a case suck. If you've got a couple thousand bucks to burn and it happens to you, go for it. I'm sure there are some pro-gun attorneys that might take the case for a reduced rate, myself among them.

 

[Hammerhead]

I still thing we have yet to see a final conclusion on this. For starters, they never said it is "illegal" to secure a weapon on a traffic stop. In one case, it was all about a seat belt stop, meaning any further questioning about anything outside the seat belt issue wasn't allowed.

Look at what they wrote: "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."

Because Officer Eastwood's further questioning was specifically about the firearm. The conversation continued and the court says it shouldn't have. She should have ended the stop after writing the warning/ticket for the seat belt.

What does questioning have to do with securing a weapon for officer safety?

Because Officer Eastwood then proceeded to remove Richardson from the vehicle and secure the weapon. It wasn't her place to do so, hence the court ruling that she didn't have PC or RAS to continue after the LTCH had been produced. She used the admission of a gun in his pocket to be PC for a Terry stop, and it wasn't. He was cooperating, and she went fishing, and the court says that's not allowed. She was safe, he didn't go for his weapon. Why should she drag him out and "secure it"?

In the other case, the guy was out of the vehicle and handcuffed. I saw nothing in the ruling that made me think the judges disagree with this person being handcuffed solely on the basis of officer safety.

In Washington, the court agreed with him being handcuffed away from his vehicle. However, they ruled the search for the weapon wasn't acceptable as officer safety wasn't a concern because he was outside the vehicle and handcuffed.

Officers are securing guns and/or people all the time on traffic stops. If this was such a violation of rights, attorneys would be down at the courthouse filing lawsuit after lawsuit. Yet, no one seems to want to fight this practice, which strikes me as odd since it seems a majority of people here think these few court rulings are a slam dunk when it comes to officers securing handguns on traffic stops.

It is a violation of rights. It is illegal. The culture of "officer safety first" needs to be adjusted. Notice I didn't say stopped or ended. It needs to be adjusted so that the police understand we're not the bad guys.

 

[Indy317]

Because Officer Eastwood then proceeded to remove Richardson from the vehicle and secure the weapon. It wasn't her place to do so, hence the court ruling that she didn't have PC or RAS to continue after the LTCH had been produced. She used the admission of a gun in his pocket to be PC for a Terry stop, and it wasn't. He was cooperating, and she went fishing, and the court says that's not allowed.

I don't agree. The essential finding of the court was "The trial court concluded that this inquiry went beyond that authorized by Indiana‟s Seatbelt Enforcement Act." I think a lot of people don't understand that this case is special in that it deals with an initial stop due to not wearing a seat belt. Trigg v. State and Baldwin appear to play a big part in this ruling. It sounds like one of those two cases had the court state “the result of actions or behavior on the part of the defendant after the initial stop that led a police officer to fear for his safety.” Basically, if we are dealing with a stop based solely on a seat belt violation, officers have limitations when it comes to firearms.

The court also wrote "The search is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to permit the officer to pursue the investigation without fear for his or her own safety and that of others." Why would the court state such a thing if they were saying it is wrong for officers to confiscate firearms from those they have stopped?

I don't think this case means much at all. We have wording that is somewhat in conflict with what some here are saying about what the case means in terms of seizing a firearm:
"The search is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to permit the officer to pursue the investigation without fear for his or her own safety and that of others."
"The Court concluded that where circumstances existed beyond the seat belt violation itself, a limited search for weapons was not prohibited by the Act."
"(where a defendant is cooperative, a limited pat-down search for weapons during a seat belt stop is usually unreasonable, but ultimately concluding that the limited search for weapons was reasonable given the police officer‟s knowledge of the defendant's violent conduct on two prior occasions)"

This case doesn't say what most here want it to say. I think everything about asking about a weapon, showing the license should have terminated any questioning about the gun, etc. are all connected to the underlying issue: This was a traffic stop with much tighter restrictions upon police officers.

In Jones v. State of Indiana, an officer stops Jones for possibly not having headlights on. Once stopped, the headlights are on, and Jones admits he has a handgun and a license to carry. It is not noted if the officer asked about a handgun, or if Jones just admitted this outright. A back-up officer arrived and took control of and secured Jones' handgun. Another officer had the license checked for status, which came back revoked. The man was arrested and found guilty. Reading the ruling, the court says nothing about confiscating the handgun, or even detaining the individual while a computer check is ran on the license.

The court seemed to have an issue with the fact the officer could say for sure if the headlights were on, and it sounds like they were telling the defense that they should have moved to suppress prior to trial, but unfortunately, they could dismiss the verdicts based on what may have been a bad move by the defense counsel.

 

[sgreen3]

I think this would kind of fall under "choose your battles". I just got my LTCH and just started carrying and have not been pulled over with my pice. I just think it could go very badly if you choose to be stubbern with a leo. Granted I dont want ne one to infringe on my rights, but are you prepaired for the storm that would surly insue if you were to take it that far. The money you would be out for lawyers, and court fees. Not to forget its pretty much your word against the leo's. So would you really win? For me personally I will comply with all commands, and will not lie to the leo ( I dont see how lying to a person that can take you to jail can be a good thing, especially over firearm possession) But I will say that I would insist the Leo remove my weapon, rather than me doing it in front of him. Like posted earlier what if his partner seen me doing that and he was not aware of the other leo telling me to. Could go real bad real quick. So to the OP, you did what you thought was right, you didnt get into trouble, you got your pistol back and you were on your way and the leo's were respectful. I think you did a pretty good job