Told I had to inform.

[mainjet]

if i recall correctly, if there is a restraining order, BOTH parties have to adhere. meaning, if party a has an order against party b and party b has to stay 500 feet from party a, then party a cannot purposely put himself somewhere that party b is just so party b has to move. well say said place is a cigar shop that b frequents and a has never been, but knowing b hangs out there, a cannot start hanging out there just to **** off b. so if the police get a restraining order against you, then you win because they would have to stay away from you as well. win!

 

[Indy317]

That's not how it works...

So somehow "Defendant Robert Richardson was stopped for driving his pickup truck without wearing a seatbelt. The police officer‟s subsequent inquiry regarding a “large, unusual bulge” in his pocket led to the discovery of cocaine. The trial court concluded that this inquiry went beyond that au-thorized by Indiana‟s Seatbelt Enforcement Act. We agree with the trial court‟s determination." now means "If someone shows a LTCH on any traffic stop, officers can't ask about handguns."

I really wish I had taken the classes some folks here took. How some of you folks are drawing your conclusions given the verbiage of Richardson....wow.



Pretty soon folks here will be saying Miranda comes into play as soon as an officer looks at you.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So somehow "Defendant Robert Richardson was stopped for driving his pickup truck without wearing a seatbelt. The police officer‟s subsequent inquiry regarding a “large, unusual bulge” in his pocket led to the discovery of cocaine. The trial court concluded that this inquiry went beyond that au-thorized by Indiana‟s Seatbelt Enforcement Act. We agree with the trial court‟s determination." now means "If someone shows a LTCH on any traffic stop, officers can't ask about handguns."

I really wish I had taken the classes some folks here took. How some of you folks are drawing your conclusions given the verbiage of Richardson....wow.



Pretty soon folks here will be saying Miranda comes into play as soon as an officer looks at you.

I hope for your sake you are not really a LEO and just play one on the internet. I am astounded at your willful ignorance of Indiana case law in the matter of searches and LTCH holders.

From Washington:

Washington alleges that, because he was completely cooperative with Officer Reynolds and made no furtive movements, the officer had no articulable reasons to believe Washington was dangerous. Therefore, absent a reasonable suspicion that Washington was dangerous or might access the car to gain immediate control of the weapon, Officer Reynolds’ search of the car was unreasonable

No seatbelt infraction on that one.

 

[Hammerhead]

There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an “unusual bulge” will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. 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.

Read the whole ruling. You're quoting the part where they agree with the trial court. This section is where they state a valid LTCH ends any further inquiry.

 

[Hoosierdood]

This is why we need neg rep.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This is why we need neg rep.

HERE HERE

 

[jeremy]

I really wish I had taken the classes some folks here took. How some of you folks are drawing your conclusions given the verbiage of Richardson....wow.

You are right, I do not know the Law, or the intricacies of it...

But the Lawyers I pay have a pretty good understanding of it.

Someday you might get the privilege to pull me over and arrest me for what you feel is the correct interpretation of the Law and Courts Decisions. It might even stick and I loose my LTCH, I also might win and get the privilege of turning your Badge into a Belt Buckle as well....

 

[2A_Tom]

Please link Richardson and Washington.

I googoled them but could not hind the right cases.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln read law, good enough for them, good enough for me. It is. Interesting that the law library is usually at the county court house where you can not carry.

 

[Hammerhead]

Richardson

Washington

Washington was referenced in Richardson.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I was stopped for rolling through a stop sign. As al.......edited for brevity..........ad passed my car.

Hopefully for the police officer that offender is not an INGO member!

I am not sure but I think I won that one.

BTW I started my voice recorder immediately when pulled over and e-mailed the recording to myself for posterity.

The only thing you need to inform this idiot of is that he's an idiot. Then tell him who works for whom.....

 

[2A_Tom]

Please link Richardson and Washington.

I googoled them but could not hind the right cases.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln read law, good enough for them, good enough for me. It is. Interesting that the law library is usually at the county court house where you can not carry.

 

[Goober135]

Please link Richardson and Washington.

I googoled them but could not hind the right cases.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln read law, good enough for them, good enough for me. It is. Interesting that the law library is usually at the county court house where you can not carry.

Richardson

Washington

Washington was referenced in Richardson.

Richardson - CLICK ME!

Washington - CLICK ME!

 

[Indy317]

I hope for your sake you are not really a LEO and just play one on the internet. I am astounded at your willful ignorance of Indiana case law in the matter of searches and LTCH holders.

I'm only reading what is printed on the court ruling. I've already printed the basic summery finding of the court. People can take that to mean whatever you want it to mean. I will take it to mean whatever I want it to mean. I'm not scared of getting sued because I ask someone if they have a handgun on them after I know they have and/or present a LTCH.

Someone keeps writing on here how their lawyer will sue the officer. For what, I don't know. Instead of continuing to post this threat of a lawsuit, why don't they actually post their lawyers name and phone number? Surely a lawyer who thinks such a case is a slam dunk payday would want tens of thousands of gun owners to know their contact info?

From Washington:

No seatbelt infraction on that one.

This is a case about an illegal search which resulted when an officer took a person who had a gun in the car out of the car, handcuffed him, and had him stay out of the car. If one wants to hold Washington upon a pedestal, I guess that means officers can remove a person with a LTCH from the vehicle and handcuff them? That is what happened in Washington and I don't recall any comments in the ruling chiding law enforcement about such actions.

Read the whole ruling. You're quoting the part where they agree with the trial court. This section is where they state a valid LTCH ends any further inquiry.

Yes, but your doing the exact same thing. You take one sentence out of the entire case, which is based upon a specific Indiana law concerning seat belt enforcement and applying that logic to the entire Indiana Code. Yes, they said once the presentation of a valid LTCH has been done, all questioning should cease. So that is the rule of law, when dealing with the underlying issue: Further investigation due to the type of stop this was. This was a stop under the seat belt enforcement act, which limits unrelated investigations by LE. No other traffic law has such limitations that I know of. Not only that, there is no way to know if such questioning would be validated by the court had the officer actually saw a gun and not a "bulge."

But the Lawyers I pay have a pretty good understanding of it.

Someday you might get the privilege to pull me over and arrest me for what you feel is the correct interpretation of the Law and Courts Decisions. It might even stick and I loose my LTCH, I also might win and get the privilege of turning your Badge into a Belt Buckle as well....

I'm not sure why I would arrest you or why an arrest is at issue in this case. The debate here (at least for me) is Can an officer ask about handguns if they know the person has a LTCH? And who are these "lawyers" that everyone talks about? I sure there are plenty of officers that ask about firearms during traffic stops. This is a windfall for citizens and lawyers alike if what some of you claim is true. Surely most of the lawyers out there want to make money, especially those who sue for damages and the like. Where are the day time law firm commercials that say "Did an officer know you had a LTCH and still asked you about guns? If so, your rights have been violated. Call so and so law firm today to protect your rights!"

I find it suspicious that folks keep talking about lawyers, but never post their information so some of us could follow up with said lawyers.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What??? You do like to switch your story around! You edited my post and dropped out the important part...

An officer can ASK anything they want none of us are arguing that. The only thing we are concerned with is the ACTION after the LTCH is validated (which should be done first)!

A cop CANNOT search me based solely on the fact that I have a gun. A cop CANNOT disarm me based solely on the fact that I have a gun.

They MUST have an articulated reason why they could do that.

 

[2A_Tom]

Hey goob
My server hadn't updated that post so i didn't see it before i posted my request. even so thank you very much for your help.

 

[2A_Tom]

Here is the letter that i wrote to the Gary Chief

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } To: Chief of Police, Gary, Indiana


Sir,


Recently I was stopped for a traffic violation, not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. The officer and I conversed politely for a moment and he informed me of the violation. He told me he would let me off with a warning. I thanked him. Until then it was completely routine.
Then out of the blue he asked me if I was carrying a pistol. I said “Yes, Sir”, to which he responded “You have to inform me”. (This was news to me, because I have studied IC 35-47 to insure that I am in total compliance with the law.) I said “Not according to the law.” To which he responded “You’re supposed to inform me.” I began to say “According to Indiana Code It is not required to inform the police if you are carrying.” But I was cut off at Code… by his next statement “I could take you to court.” At that I was so taken aback that I just looked at him unbelievingly. He said, ”For running the stop sign.” …”Do you want a ticket.” I said, “No.” At that point he handed me back my ID and said, “You can go.”
My question to you is since I posed no threat to the officer, why would I want to heighten his awareness and put him on edge. I have heard that citizens with a valid LTCH are being disarmed for no valid reason. This is number 1 a safety hazard, (unholstering a sidearm in public) and number 2 a violation of a citizens civil rights, (which could lead to costly and embarrassing civil law suits).
However, I am a reasonable man and have made one or two mistakes in the past, so if I am mistaken and there is an Indiana Code that addresses informing the police please reference it to me. I am a law abiding citizen and I desire to remain so. If there is a city ordinance under IC 35-47-11 please inform me of this also.
If I am correct in my assertion That IC is silent on this issue, then it may be expedient for your department to train your officers accordingly.
Please allow me to say this is not a complaint. I only desire information in order to remain a good citizen.
Thank You very much for your indulgence and help.


BTW I know that -11 was repealed, just wanted to see if he does.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Yes sir...
I wasn't aware of that officer..
Yes sir...
Yes sir...
Yes sir...

I'm going to issue you a warning this time...

Thank you sir....
Thank you good citizen...
Have a nice day...

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^ That's how you handle problems... don't just complain to some "randoms" on the web, call em out

Rep!

Edit: For Blue

 

[jedi]

&

Keep us posted on what occurs.

-Jedi

 

[Roadie]

I'm only reading what is printed on the court ruling. I've already printed the basic summery finding of the court. People can take that to mean whatever you want it to mean. I will take it to mean whatever I want it to mean. I'm not scared of getting sued because I ask someone if they have a handgun on them after I know they have and/or present a LTCH.

Someone keeps writing on here how their lawyer will sue the officer. For what, I don't know. Instead of continuing to post this threat of a lawsuit, why don't they actually post their lawyers name and phone number? Surely a lawyer who thinks such a case is a slam dunk payday would want tens of thousands of gun owners to know their contact info?



This is a case about an illegal search which resulted when an officer took a person who had a gun in the car out of the car, handcuffed him, and had him stay out of the car. If one wants to hold Washington upon a pedestal, I guess that means officers can remove a person with a LTCH from the vehicle and handcuff them? That is what happened in Washington and I don't recall any comments in the ruling chiding law enforcement about such actions.



Yes, but your doing the exact same thing. You take one sentence out of the entire case, which is based upon a specific Indiana law concerning seat belt enforcement and applying that logic to the entire Indiana Code. Yes, they said once the presentation of a valid LTCH has been done, all questioning should cease. So that is the rule of law, when dealing with the underlying issue: Further investigation due to the type of stop this was. This was a stop under the seat belt enforcement act, which limits unrelated investigations by LE. No other traffic law has such limitations that I know of. Not only that, there is no way to know if such questioning would be validated by the court had the officer actually saw a gun and not a "bulge."




I'm not sure why I would arrest you or why an arrest is at issue in this case. The debate here (at least for me) is Can an officer ask about handguns if they know the person has a LTCH? And who are these "lawyers" that everyone talks about? I sure there are plenty of officers that ask about firearms during traffic stops. This is a windfall for citizens and lawyers alike if what some of you claim is true. Surely most of the lawyers out there want to make money, especially those who sue for damages and the like. Where are the day time law firm commercials that say "Did an officer know you had a LTCH and still asked you about guns? If so, your rights have been violated. Call so and so law firm today to protect your rights!"

I find it suspicious that folks keep talking about lawyers, but never post their information so some of us could follow up with said lawyers.

Several attorneys on INGO have backed up "our" interpretation of Richardson, but you, as a LEO, apparently know more than they do, so I was curious as to where you obtained your Law Degree and what State you passed the Bar in.. just curious.

(BTW, I had the relevant posts I am referring to saved on my home PC, but the Power Supply went out recently.)