Indiana Court of Appeals and Handgun Possession

[Kirk Freeman]

Whatever happened with this?

Oral arugment before the Indiana Supreme Court was December 15, 2016.

Matter now awaits decision.

I would anticipate a decision being handed down by June 1st.

 

[Fargo]

Oral arugment before the Indiana Supreme Court was December 15, 2016.

Matter now awaits decision.

I would anticipate a decision being handed down by June 1st.

I figured they were waiting to see if the General Assembly rendered it a moot question.

 

[T.Lex]

If they went a certain way, it might've spurred action by the GA.

One of those rare occasions that the theoretical "discourse" between the separate branches might've been fairly immediate.

 

[thebishopp]

Thanks guys. I saw the arguments online but then nothing indicating when a decision would be made.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Thanks guys. I saw the arguments online but then nothing indicating when a decision would be made.

Well, I did see Chief Justice Rush at the coffee shop a couple of weekends ago here in Lafayette. Next time I'll ask her . . . no, wait, no, I will not.

 

[HoughMade]

Ind. Supreme Ct.-

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091701RR.pdf

In the case before us, the tip provided by the taxi driver made no “assertion of illegality,”rather it merely had a “tendency to identify a determinate person” who was in possession of a handgun. J.L., 529 U.S. at 272 (citation omitted). Even taking his tip as true and assuming that Pinner was the man the taxi driver described, the officers had no reason to suspect that Pinner did not have a valid license to carry the handgun, an illegal act in this jurisdiction. This is not a case where, through independent investigation or personal experience, the officers had reason to believe that Pinner’s possession of a weapon was in violation of Indiana law. In essence, other than the taxi driver’s claims of being fearful because he had a seen an individual matching Pinner’s description “drop a handgun” there is no evidence in the record from which an inference of criminal activity can be drawn. And a “bare-boned tip[] about guns” is insufficient.

We also disagree with the State that “the officers were permitted under the Fourth Amendment to briefly detain Defendant to ascertain the legality of the weapon and dispel any suspected criminal activity.” Br. of Appellee at 19. The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct

We are equally unpersuaded by the State’s contention that reasonable suspicion was present to suggest the weapon “may not have been possessed legally” because Pinner “failed to properly secure the firearm[.]” Br. of Appellee at 16. The State cites no authority in support of this proposition and we find none.

 

[jbombelli]

Good. I actually just finished reading it. The court will be pleased to learn that I approve.

 

[Libertarian01]

So this is a WIN - right???

Please, please, please say "YES!"

But even if it is, is it a permanent win???

Doug

 

[Fargo]

So this is a WIN - right???

Please, please, please say "YES!"

But even if it is, is it a permanent win???

Doug

Yes it is a win, and a pretty damn resounding one at that. The cherry on the top for me is that I was right and Kirk was wrong! It is so so so sweet that I am tempted to drive to Lafayette just for the purpose of heckling him! That would of course be followed by drinking beer, but first a good heckling.

 

[Libertarian01]

Yes it is a win, and a pretty damn resounding one at that. The cherry on the top for me is that I was right and Kirk was wrong! It is so so so sweet that I am tempted to drive to Lafayette just for the purpose of heckling him! That would of course be followed by drinking beer, but first a good heckling.

Yay!

I've read/skimmed it and all looks good. However, could you please translate from lawyerspeak this section, "...We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings." Where does it go for remand and what does that entail?

What is the new timeline on this "remand" thing?

Thanks,

Doug

 

[Fargo]

Yay!

I've read/skimmed it and all looks good. However, could you please translate from lawyerspeak this section, "...We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings." Where does it go for remand and what does that entail?

What is the new timeline on this "remand" thing?

Thanks,

Doug

Remand means that it is sent back to the trial court for the prosecution to decide whether they want to take the case to trial without the suppressed evidence or dismiss it. In this case, it looks like all of the evidence was suppressed so I would expect dismissal.

 

[Libertarian01]

Remand means that it is sent back to the trial court for the prosecution to decide whether they want to take the case to trial without the suppressed evidence or dismiss it. In this case, it looks like all of the evidence was suppressed so I would expect dismissal.

So if I am reading you right (I don't want to celebrate without being 100% certain) the issue of being seen with a handgun is a 100% win for us (ie. not probable cause for anything on its own) and the only issue now is whether Mr. Pinner has more of a legal battle on other issues?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Roadie]

 

[Rookie]

So, is this now the law in Indiana?

 

[Fargo]

So if I am reading you right (I don't want to celebrate without being 100% certain) the issue of being seen with a handgun is a 100% win for us (ie. not probable cause for anything on its own) and the only issue now is whether Mr. Pinner has more of a legal battle on other issues?

Regards,

Doug

Yes, it was ruled that publicly carrying a handgun in Indiana is not reasonable suspicion for any sort of stop unless there is additional evidence of criminality.

Mr. Pinner's legal problems are probably done as far as this case goes, but having looked up his record I am less than certain that they are done forever.

 

[Libertarian01]

Yes, it was ruled that publicly carrying a handgun in Indiana is not reasonable suspicion for any sort of stop unless there is additional evidence of criminality.

Mr. Pinner's legal problems are probably done as far as this case goes, but having looked up his record I am less than certain that they are done forever.

THANK YOU Sir for clarifying!!! That means I get my best bourbon out for celebration tonight!

Regards,

Doug

PS - And if there is a get together in WL I'll be happy to bring any kind of beer. I even stocked up on Zombie Dust.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ho-lee crap.

This upends carrying a handgun without a license.

A victory for Constitutional Carry too. Very timely.

 

[Rookie]

Every judge agreed? If I read that correctly, I'm surprised.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Mother of Pearl, they cited Prouse!!!

So, why do we need to have the LTCH now?

 

[chipbennett]

Ho-lee crap.

This upends carrying a handgun without a license.

A victory for Constitutional Carry too. Very timely.

To my layman's reading, this decision is the Indiana version of US v Black. My favorite, and oft-quoted passage, from that ruling:

Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.