Indiana Court of Appeals and Handgun Possession

[T.Lex]

Because the case wasn't decided on the basis that it was Malone's dwelling... In fact, I don't believe the word even appears in the opinion.

Uh, the first sentence includes "standing on the front porch of his home."

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03200808jsk.pdf

The case focuses more on how to establish "officer safety" - basically articulable facts that an officer can state that caused him to be concerned. But, it does necessarily go into whether having a gun on one's porch is sufficient under Terry.

 

[Fargo]

Uh, the first sentence includes "standing on the front porch of his home."

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03200808jsk.pdf

The case focuses more on how to establish "officer safety" - basically articulable facts that an officer can state that caused him to be concerned. But, it does necessarily go into whether having a gun on one's porch is sufficient under Terry.

My bad, that will teach me to stop assuming that the section titled "Facts and Proceedural History" actually includes the facts relied on...

 

[T.Lex]

My bad, that will teach me to stop assuming that the section titled "Facts and Proceedural History" actually includes the facts relied on...

Welcome to the world of appeals. Clearly, you are new around here.

The last paragraph also mentions that he was on his own porch.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. It is a published case that can support the proposition in the new case: that possessing a firearm not RAS, standing alone. In Malone, the officers would not necessarily have known that he was the owner of the property, which would've been the basis for the exception/defense.

That can be analogized with the Larry - officers seeing someone with a handgun would not necessarily know if the possessor had a Larry just like officers at a location would not necessarily be familiar with the chain of title for that parcel.

 

[HoughMade]

I've had decisions where I kept checking the caption because it sounded nothing like the case I had briefed.

 

[2A_Tom]

Sorry, my mistake about the reference.

Having read it I see nothing that would suspend the 4th amendment.

 

[T.Lex]

Sorry, my mistake about the reference.

Having read it I see nothing that would suspend the 4th amendment.

Which one - Pinner (the new case) or Malone (the porch case)?

 

[2A_Tom]

The archived IC 35-47-2

 

[T.Lex]

The archived IC 35-47-2

Ah, right. Now I understand a couple of your other posts, too.

It is interesting to be reminded of the evolutionary arc of that chapter since I became an attorney in 1995. Incrementalism, while frustrating at times, works.

 

[Ericpwp]

Originally Posted by paragraphfromState'sBrief

The totality of the circumstances supported Officer Palmer’s reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous and/or that criminal activity was afoot. All of this evidence supported any reasonable person’s belief that Defendant was carrying a handgun for which he had no license, see Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1, or that some other criminal activity was “afoot.” Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (stating that police may, without a warrant, stop an individual for investigatory purposes if, based upon specific, articulable facts, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity “may be afoot”)). As this Court has stated, “[p]rotecting the public from gun violence is a legitimate and paramount concern of law enforcement, and the State is legitimately concerned with deterring gun violence and possession of firearms by unlicensed individuals. Grayson v. State, --- N.E.3d ----, 2016 WL 881951, slip op. at 8 (Ind. Ct. App. March 8, 2016).

Incrementalism, while frustrating at times, works.

Give them an inch and they'll take "afoot".

 

[T.Lex]

Hey ya'all, check out this case cited by the State:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03081603pdm.pdf

This is looking more transfer-worthy as there may be a split of authority developing.

 

[2A_Tom]

Originally Posted by paragraphfromState'sBrief

The totality of the circumstances supported Officer Palmer’s reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous and/or that criminal activity was afoot. All of this evidence supported any reasonable person’s belief that Defendant was carrying a handgun for which he had no license, see Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1, or that some other criminal activity was “afoot.” Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (stating that police may, without a warrant, stop an individual for investigatory purposes if, based upon specific, articulable facts, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity “may be afoot”)). As this Court has stated, “[p]rotecting the public from gun violence is a legitimate and paramount concern of law enforcement, and the State is legitimately concerned with deterring gun violence and possession of firearms by unlicensed individuals. Grayson v. State, --- N.E.3d ----, 2016 WL 881951, slip op. at 8 (Ind. Ct. App. March 8, 2016).

I love this line. That was thrown in to garner the support of Shannie, Bloomy, and the media.

 

[T.Lex]

I love this line. That was thrown in to garner the support of Shannie, Bloomy, and the media.

Improbable to an extreme. They are not the audience for that brief. (In fact, if you look at the brief, I'm not sure who the intended audience was. And that sucks.)

That was included to try to win the case. Check out the opinion from which it comes.

 

[2A_Tom]

Was that not in grape crayon?

 

[T.Lex]

Was that not in grape crayon?

haha

No, I'm totally serious.

Wait... was yours a grape vintage that I missed?

 

[2A_Tom]

Mine was in Pinot Noir. Very dark grape.

 

[T.Lex]

Mine was in Pinot Noir. Very dark grape.

hahah

Ok. Dude, my reading comprehension has been totally out of whack with respect to your authorship today.

 

[ATM]

Hey ya'all, check out this case cited by the State:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03081603pdm.pdf

This is looking more transfer-worthy as there may be a split of authority developing.

...Officer Schultz asked if he could look through the vehicle, and Grayson gave the officers permission to search...

Why do citizens continue to waive their rights at every opportunity? The value of maintaining a right (and the potential injury of discarding it) often increases with reflective hindsight.

 

[KLB]

Why do citizens continue to waive their rights at every opportunity? The value of maintaining a right (and the potential injury of discarding it) often increases with reflective hindsight.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts when I read that part.

 

[T.Lex]

Why do citizens continue to waive their rights at every opportunity? The value of maintaining a right (and the potential injury of discarding it) often increases with reflective hindsight.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts when I read that part.

People under stress do strange things, often counter-productive things.

Interacting with police during a stop is stressful, even if you aren't doing anything wrong. Its even more stressful (I imagine) when you know you are doing something wrong. And most people don't want to lie. They can and do, but under stress, it can be even more difficult to pull it off.

So, they give off cues that they're lying, which can contribute to RAS, then they give consent because they are stressed out.

Jedi mind tricks, sorta.

 

[2A_Tom]

To re-re-re-hash another point,

Though the officers asserted before the trial court that Pinner could have walked away, we do not believe any reasonable citizen would have felt free to disengage from the officers

Am I free to leave officer?

Am I being detained?