We finally have a legal directive that was issued to ALL employees on how to deal with armed citizens. This is coming ahead of the NRA Convention but it is not JUST for that. This sounds like the work of our dept lawyer who is a fellow officer and a firearms instructor. I'm happy to see this addressed in a common sense and LEGAL manner. I am not posting the actual bulletin but rather I cut/posted the body. I added/deleted/changed nothing. I think this addresses our most common complaints here in this board.
Officers confront armed persons on a daily basis. The most important mission for officers is the
preservation of life. Officers should remember to use good officer safety tactics in all situations they
encounter; however, all tactics and practices used by officers must be in accordance with legal
principles and department policy. This bulletin will address the actions an officer may take and actions
an officer should avoid when confronting an armed citizen.
Legal basis for detention
An officer may detain an individual temporarily for criminal investigation purposes only when the officer
has developed reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Reasonable suspicion exists
where the facts known to the officer and the reasonable inferences therefrom would cause an ordinarily
prudent person to believe that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Perez v. State, 981
N.E.2d 1242, 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive
or environmental factors.
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable
suspicion for detention. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Where a
state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify
an investigatory detention.”). Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to
point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO
Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun
solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.
Officers lacking reasonable suspicion, but still having a need to investigate further, may have a
consensual encounter to gain additional facts as needed. The encounter must be voluntary, and a
reasonable person should feel free to leave or stop answering questions at any time. If the person
refuses to talk or attempts to leave, and the officer has not developed reasonable suspicion, then the
person must be allowed to leave and/or stop answering questions. Drayton v. U.S., 536 U.S. 194
(2002).
Handling firearms
If during the course of a detention, the officer reasonably believes the handgun should be removed, he
or she may do so. Handguns being returned to persons should be done in a “safe manner.” The
practices of field stripping semi-auto pistols and/or confiscating live ammunition are prohibited.
Private property
Businesses and property owners may prohibit persons from carrying firearms on their property. When
an officer encounters an armed citizen carrying a firearm on private property where the owner or
owner’s agent has restricted such activity, the officer should assist the agent/property owner in
informing the citizen that refusal to leave the property could constitute criminal trespass. All
requirements for criminal trespass as outlined by law should be followed for the
trespass arrest, if necessary.
Officers confront armed persons on a daily basis. The most important mission for officers is the
preservation of life. Officers should remember to use good officer safety tactics in all situations they
encounter; however, all tactics and practices used by officers must be in accordance with legal
principles and department policy. This bulletin will address the actions an officer may take and actions
an officer should avoid when confronting an armed citizen.
Legal basis for detention
An officer may detain an individual temporarily for criminal investigation purposes only when the officer
has developed reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Reasonable suspicion exists
where the facts known to the officer and the reasonable inferences therefrom would cause an ordinarily
prudent person to believe that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Perez v. State, 981
N.E.2d 1242, 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive
or environmental factors.
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable
suspicion for detention. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Where a
state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify
an investigatory detention.”). Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to
point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO
Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun
solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.
Officers lacking reasonable suspicion, but still having a need to investigate further, may have a
consensual encounter to gain additional facts as needed. The encounter must be voluntary, and a
reasonable person should feel free to leave or stop answering questions at any time. If the person
refuses to talk or attempts to leave, and the officer has not developed reasonable suspicion, then the
person must be allowed to leave and/or stop answering questions. Drayton v. U.S., 536 U.S. 194
(2002).
Handling firearms
If during the course of a detention, the officer reasonably believes the handgun should be removed, he
or she may do so. Handguns being returned to persons should be done in a “safe manner.” The
practices of field stripping semi-auto pistols and/or confiscating live ammunition are prohibited.
Private property
Businesses and property owners may prohibit persons from carrying firearms on their property. When
an officer encounters an armed citizen carrying a firearm on private property where the owner or
owner’s agent has restricted such activity, the officer should assist the agent/property owner in
informing the citizen that refusal to leave the property could constitute criminal trespass. All
requirements for criminal trespass as outlined by law should be followed for the
trespass arrest, if necessary.
. I wish it would specifically state the reasonable suspicion needed for confiscation of firearms, as discussed in Malone v Indiana, Washington v Indiana, and Terry v Ohio (Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.)
