Indiana and refusal to identify

[Rookie]

OK, why did you point out Starr? Do you agree or disagree with my statement that you can refuse to show id unless an officer can state what violation you are guilty of?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh, man, I was lost in the woods or something.

Are you driving a motor vehicle?

IF you are driving, no, show him the DL.

If you are just walking or riding a bike and he does the "stop in the name of the law", I'd stop but if he wants to know who you are are, yes, he has to tell you the ordinance violation you are committing (e.g., Being Awesome in Public or a like offense).

 

[88GT]

I really hate when the standard relies solely on the LEO up front. Not unlike probable cause, a LEO just needs to make a claim that there was an infraction or that he had suspicion of one. And poor serf has no means of defending against it until it reaches the court room. By that time he's been arrested, possibly banged up, his family is terrorized, had to hassle with obtaining an attorney, may have had to deplete his savings to post bail.

I know there's no practical better way, but it sticks in my craw anyway.

so umm....like....how does IC relate to federal law, like my post said?

Why is that relevant to this discussion? Is it because in your example the penitentiary was a federal institution (you didn't specify)? Was the individual in question actually on the grounds or merely walking around them (I don't think the interstate is relevant either)?

There'd have to be some federal jurisdiction issues at play, wouldn't there? Nothing in your post indicated as much in my reading.

And it's spelled p-e-r-i-m-e-t-e-r.

 

[88GT]

Oh, man, I was lost in the woods or something.

Are you driving a motor vehicle?

IF you are driving, no, show him the DL.

If you are just walking or riding a bike and he does the "stop in the name of the law", I'd stop but if he wants to know who you are are, yes, he has to tell you the ordinance violation you are committing (e.g., Being Awesome in Public or a like offense).

Is that because by driving there's a different standard? Related to the need for the DL to actually drive?

 

[Rookie]

I've more to add...

Why was I looking this up?

Indiana 35-47-2-24 doesn't specifically state you have to show your LTCH, but it's pretty obvious your LTCH is your get out of jail card since carrying a handgun is illegal without an LTCH, but I can't find anywhere that you have to provide more than your LTCH.

So, if asked, my LTCH is the only thing I'll provide...

Trying to make it easy. No motor vehicle involved. We aren't in Nevada either?
Does my line of thinking make sense?

Example: a cop, for whatever reason, sees that you have a handgun? No motor vehicle involved. Do you have to provide more than your LTCH? I understand there is no case law to back up any statement so opinions are welcome.

 

[Destro]

What was his RAS? He never stated it in his report. No RAS, no reason to ask for identification= false arrest.

A suspicious person report from the prison was made to the sheriff’s department. They were conducting an investigation in to the suspicious person on or about the prison. A reasonable might say he was suspicious because of his hostile and incorrigible behavior towards staff when questioned about his business on or about the grounds. The deputy made a Terry in response to the report….the deputy is GTG

I haven’t seen the actual copy of the police report, just what was cut and pasted by the accused, do you have a copy?

 

[Rookie]

The complete report is on his blog. You could go there and see it or you can feel free to Google.

And if the deputy was gtg, why was every charge dismissed?

 

[Destro]

Destro, we are not in Nevada.



Rookie, I'm sorry, not trying to be difficult, but what are you saying? Is there a question?

does not mean it is not set a legal precedint

 

[Destro]

I really hate when the standard relies solely on the LEO up front. Not unlike probable cause, a LEO just needs to make a claim that there was an infraction or that he had suspicion of one. And poor serf has no means of defending against it until it reaches the court room. By that time he's been arrested, possibly banged up, his family is terrorized, had to hassle with obtaining an attorney, may have had to deplete his savings to post bail.

I know there's no practical better way, but it sticks in my craw anyway.



Why is that relevant to this discussion? Is it because in your example the penitentiary was a federal institution (you didn't specify)? Was the individual in question actually on the grounds or merely walking around them (I don't think the interstate is relevant either)?

There'd have to be some federal jurisdiction issues at play, wouldn't there? Nothing in your post indicated as much in my reading.

And it's spelled p-e-r-i-m-e-t-e-r.

my bad....US 40 is an interstate highway, thats my federal nexus

 

[Destro]

The complete report is on his blog. You could go there and see it or you can feel free to Google.

And if the deputy was gtg, why was every charge dismissed?

That is the complete report? because all I can see is what the poster put on there himself, not an actual police report.

He is GTG on the false arrest premise...I don't know why it was dismissed? why do thousands of cases get dismissed every year?

 

[Destro]

Trying to make it easy. No motor vehicle involved. We aren't in Nevada either?
Does my line of thinking make sense?

Example: a cop, for whatever reason, sees that you have a handgun? No motor vehicle involved. Do you have to provide more than your LTCH? I understand there is no case law to back up any statement so opinions are welcome.

I think its BS that if your open carrying a cop could ask for your LTCH...using that line of thinking you could just stop every car under the guise of "You have this car, I need to make sure your licensed to drive it" When a legal stop is made...pull it out. Same way with OC, OC in itself should not be grounds for a stop...but heck yeah you should be forced to show a LTCH if a stop is made....jaywalk across the street? all bets off show em your card.

 

[Rookie]

With a terry stop, an officer must give specific and articulable facts. I've already pointed out that walking wasn't illegal, so what was he doing that was illegal?

Since you're so hung up on the walking, considering that was the basic reason for the stop, care to guess why he wasn't charged with something related to that?

 

[88GT]

my bad....US 40 is an interstate highway, thats my federal nexus

That's cool. I also just realized that you were referencing the circumstances in the blog posting, which I hadn't gotten around to reading yet. I just assumed (and we know where that gets us) that it was a random scenario you created.

That would also explain why it seemed so out of place for the context of the thread.

 

[Destro]

With a terry stop, an officer must give specific and articulable facts. I've already pointed out that walking wasn't illegal, so what was he doing that was illegal?

Since you're so hung up on the walking, considering that was the basic reason for the stop, care to guess why he wasn't charged with something related to that?

facts….he was walking on or about the prison grounds, when approached by staff regarding his business he began acting in a way a reasonable person would, say is suspicious given that it is a prison. (as one could argue the same type of behavior might be suspicious at a park, a school, maybe a bank)
Officer responded to specific report of a suspicious person on or about the prison grounds. A Terry was made as part of that investigation.
I don’t really care why it was dismissed….without seeing a chronological case summary, we have no way of verifying that it even was. The whole story, including the “police report” could be made up. Excuse me if I don’t take everything he has to say as gospel

 

[Roadie]

I've more to add...

Why was I looking this up?

Indiana 35-47-2-24 doesn't specifically state you have to show your LTCH, but it's pretty obvious your LTCH is your get out of jail card since carrying a handgun is illegal without an LTCH, but I can't find anywhere that you have to provide more than your LTCH.

So, if asked, my LTCH is the only thing I'll provide...

I could swear I remember seeing an IC that stated you had to provide the LTCH if asked, but now I cant find it...

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Indiana code 34-28-5-3.5 states that you must provide identification ONLY IF you are guilty of an infraction or ordnance violation.

This may be semantics, but the above is not accurate. The code does not say "only if you are guilty of..." The code only requires that a LEO believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordnance violation. If this officer had told him he was suspected of trespassing, or jaywalking, or armed robbery, etc., whatever reason he gave him, then he would have been legally required to provide ID when asked.

Even Starr, as the blogger quoted it below supports this:

a passenger in a car is not subject to the same criminal penalties by refusing to identify himself when, unlike the driver of the vehicle, there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an infraction or violated an ordinance."

The problem in your linked story was just that the officer did not inform him of a valid allegation, as being a "suspicious person" is not against the law I think

... I can't find anywhere that you have to provide more than your LTCH.

So, if asked, my LTCH is the only thing I'll provide...

Again, this depends on why the officer has stopped you. I'm starting to like the "Why am I being detained?" question. Your legally-supported response to being asked for identification is dependent upon the answer to that question.

IANAL

 

[Roadie]

This is pretty good to know, eh?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02270702msm.pdf

Bobby Greeno vs. State of Indiana:

"The Fourth Amendment permits a police officer, without any reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing, to approach a citizen to ask questions; however, that citizen remains free to ignore the questions and walk away. Accordingly, when a citizen in such a circumstance walks away from the officer, the officer must have reasonable suspicion a crime is, was, or is about to occur prior to yelling stop and chasing the citizen. Because the officer had no reasonable suspicion when he yelled for Greeno to stop and then chased after Greeno, his warrantless search of Greeno was improper."​

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I could swear I remember seeing an IC that stated you had to provide the LTCH if asked, but now I cant find it...

Not precisely addressing this situation or stating a requirement to produce it upon request but...

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

 

[Roadie]

Not precisely addressing this situation or stating a requirement to produce it upon request but...

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

That must be what I was thinking about. It addresses "burden of proof" after the fact, but apparently IC doesnt directly address producing an LTCH on request, that I can see...

...but it seems muddy enough to me that one could be arrested for not producing the LTCH, when asked, then have to produce it later and have charges dropped..

 

[Kirk Freeman]

but it seems muddy enough to me that one could be arrested for not producing the LTCH, when asked, then have to produce it later and have charges dropped

The license is an affirmative defense.

Yes, that can happen and have seen it transpire exactly as you describe. That's why it's a good idea to carry a copy of your LTCH (on white paper so it is obvious that it is a copy) in your glovebox or range bag.

Until we get the statute rewritten (one of the things I'd wish we'd do) or abolished, have your pink card on you and have copies stashed.