Giving props to ISP

[ryanbr]

If only we lived in an age and time when everyone could be trusted. So if the officers arent able to take your weapon, why dont we see officers strung up everyday for this offense. Seems everyday there is another post on here about this same subject.

 

[Manan]

Same old thing, everyone bit...s about law enforcement. Does the cop know you? I dont know you, I wont trust you with a gun till I do know you and have seen your gun handling abilities. It is officer saftey, if you dont like it, dont get pulled over, dont criticize till youve walked in thier shoes. And if you thinks it is not officer saftey ask one of the ISP officers who lost one of thier own outside Wabash a few years ago, stopping on US 24 checking on what was believed to be a stranded motorist. Flame away but I have been on both sides! And yes there are cops that dont have the best gun handling practices either, but at the time you are detained and it is thier rules.

What rules? If you mean Indiana law please refer to: IC 35-47-14, IC 35-47-14-1, IC 35-47-14-3.

I understand for an officer it is a matter of officer safety. But unless I have given you reason to believe that I may be dangerous with my legally carried firearm, I don't think you should be touching my private parts...I mean property.

 

[Rookie]

Because a lot of people are okay with their rights being infringed upon as long as they didn't get a ticket.

 

[Hoosierdood]

If only we lived in an age and time when everyone could be trusted. So if the officers arent able to take your weapon, why dont we see officers strung up everyday for this offense. Seems everyday there is another post on here about this same subject.

I don't see any reason why a police officer wouldn't be able to trust a LTCH holder with a gun. We have passed a background check, paid our dues, and I would venture to say we all value our rights. We aren't going jeopardize our right to ever own a firearm again over a silly traffic ticket.

 

[Manan]

If only we lived in an age and time when everyone could be trusted. So if the officers arent able to take your weapon, why dont we see officers strung up everyday for this offense. Seems everyday there is another post on here about this same subject.

Just because you get by with it doesn't make it right or legal.

 

[Cophgnsnuf]

Which part of the stop warrants a +1? The warning?

Did you actually cross the center line twice?

Did I cross the center line? Sure did. I don't argue that 1 bit. What warrants a +1 regardless of what everyone is saying here he was professional and didn't act as a jackwagon like I see on here so many times people complaining about. You can have your own opinion of officers and how they react to said situations and I can have mine, my 17 years has assisted in giving everyone that right.

 

[Rookie]

Don't get me wrong. Plus 1 for the officer being professional. Big minus 1 for the officer's actions regarding your firearm. He had you step out of your vehicle, correct? He can't claim officer safety when your weapon is in your vehicle and you aren't. State vs. Washington is very clear on this very issue.

 

[ryanbr]

What rules? If you mean Indiana law please refer to: IC 35-47-14, IC 35-47-14-1, IC 35-47-14-3.

I understand for an officer it is a matter of officer safety. But unless I have given you reason to believe that I may be dangerous with my legally carried firearm, I don't think you should be touching my private parts...I mean property.

I totally agree with you, but you need to look at what the reason could be that the officer feels that way. Is the person nervous and fidgety? Why are they? What are they thinking? would you want to take the chance that they arent thinking about shooting you as soon as you look away? Everyone doesnt need to have thier weapon removed. Should be a case by case decision on the officers part, then think about the difference between night time and daytime. Like so many other rules and laws in our lifes, we have them because something bad has happened. Cops have been and will continue to be killed because they thought there was nothing to be worried about. Sad truth, but hey thats alright as long as you dont feel violated!

 

[Rookie]

And the officer has every right if he feels the person is dangerous. Once again, OP was removed from vehicle. State vs. Washington covers this.

Btw, if an officer can articulate to a judge why he felt I was dangerous and the judge agrees, I won't feel violated. I'll be happy a law is actually working!

 

[cobber]

So, I have to assume you're trustworthy? That pesky fourth amendment. An officer can seize my weapon if he feels I'm dangerous. IC 35-47-14 is very clear on when he can take my weapon without a warrant.

He'd better have a good story to back up his seizure. Not just that he did a traffic stop and found the driver was carrying.

It looks to me like the officer cannot seize any weapon under 35-47-14 unless a judge orders it, which requires a hearing and proof by the State that the individual is "dangerous".

What part of the following did the OP exhibit at the stop:

Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.

and

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

Did I cross the center line? Sure did. I don't argue that 1 bit. What warrants a +1 regardless of what everyone is saying here he was professional and didn't act as a jackwagon like I see on here so many times people complaining about. You can have your own opinion of officers and how they react to said situations and I can have mine, my 17 years has assisted in giving everyone that right.

How is it professional when he seized your weapon without cause? What articulable facts would have led a reasonable person to conclude that you were a danger to the officer? The fact that someone is armed is irrelevant to a Terry patdown and securing the weapon. A subject has to be armed and dangerous.

 

[Manan]

Did I cross the center line? Sure did. I don't argue that 1 bit. What warrants a +1 regardless of what everyone is saying here he was professional and didn't act as a jackwagon like I see on here so many times people complaining about. You can have your own opinion of officers and how they react to said situations and I can have mine, my 17 years has assisted in giving everyone that right.

Yes you are right. It is good that (seriously) the officer was polite and left you feeling O.K. about your contact with him. Some of us here picked up on the deeper question of "Did he legally have the right to temporarily seize your weapon?"

We are a little sensitive about that ever since the police confiscated legally owned weapons after Hurricane Katrina by force / threat and chose not to give them back. Left many people unable to protect themselves. Again, not picking on you, just a constitutional right that we feel strongly about.

We are not against law enforcement. I was a cop myself for many years. I only ever took a weapon from someone if I felt threatened or had a legal cause.

 

[Hammerhead]

State v. Richardson makes if very clear that once a LTCH is provided and validated, LEOs have no authority to question you further, including removal of your firearm. Washington v. State made it perfectly clear that if a subject it cooperating and has been removed from the situation, i.e. not sitting in the vehicle where the firearm is located, they have no authority to remove the firearm, or enter the vehicle to search.

They're violating the law, and in this case the officer violated two separate court rulings.

 

[Manan]

I totally agree with you, but you need to look at what the reason could be that the officer feels that way. Is the person nervous and fidgety? Why are they? What are they thinking? would you want to take the chance that they arent thinking about shooting you as soon as you look away? Everyone doesnt need to have thier weapon removed. Should be a case by case decision on the officers part, then think about the difference between night time and daytime. Like so many other rules and laws in our lifes, we have them because something bad has happened. Cops have been and will continue to be killed because they thought there was nothing to be worried about. Sad truth, but hey thats alright as long as you dont feel violated!

Dear Young Officer,

It doesn't matter how I or you "feel". You may enforce the laws of the State of Indiana. I support you in that cause. You may not violate the laws of the state of Indiana in performing your duty. If you have an articulable reason for feeling threatened, then by all means, temporarily take control of my weapon. But as a matter of routine, it is illegal.

That being said, if you pulled me over and you asked me for my weapon, I will have failed in keeping it concealed enough. I would then comply with your order, politely letting you know that I don't agree with your order and that it is not necessary for your safety. After our stop I will contact your department and file a complaint.

 

[Rookie]

Dear young officer,

You may enforce the laws of the State of Indiana. I support you in that cause. You may not violate the laws of the state of Indiana in performing your duty. If you have an articulable reason for feeling threatened, then by all means, temporarily take control of my weapon. But as a matter of routine, it is illegal.

That being said, if you pulled me over and you asked me for my weapon, I will have failed in keeping it concealed enough. I would then comply with your order, politely letting you know that i don't agree with your order and that it is not necessary for your safety. After our stop I will contact your department and file a complaint.

I will handle it a bit differently. The law is clear on when he can seize my weapon. I will get mine back AFTER the officer tries to explain to a judge why he seized my property without a warrant.

 

[ryanbr]

I agree if the indivual is removed from the weapon there is no reason to remove the weapon from vehicle. safest place is in the vehicle. I myself was never for taking weapons of individuals unless were going to be arrested. However if you arent there, dont no all of the circumstances, only one side of the story, hard to say isnt it. Each officer has thier own discreation to use.

And do you really believe that there hasnt been anyone with thier LTCH that has committed a crime? Gave up thier rights? Give me a break!

 

[Hoosierdood]

To the OP and everyone else: if an officer asks you to get out of the vehicle, make sure you hit the door lock on your way out. There was absolutely no reason for him to take your firearm that was still in the vehicle after he removed you from the vehicle.

 

[Manan]

I agree if the indivual is removed from the weapon there is no reason to remove the weapon from vehicle. safest place is in the vehicle. I myself was never for taking weapons of individuals unless were going to be arrested. However if you arent there, dont no all of the circumstances, only one side of the story, hard to say isnt it. Each officer has thier own discreation to use.

And do you really believe that there hasnt been anyone with thier LTCH that has committed a crime? Gave up thier rights? Give me a break!

ryanby,

Agreed. The OP just sounded so sincere and pleased with the stop and that he got his weaponed returned. I wasn't there, but neither were you. Like I said. If he had a reason to feel threatened, then O.K. (and O.K. by law) ...but if he does that as a matter of routine....NOT O.K.

 

[ryanbr]

ryanby,

Agreed. The OP just sounded so sincere and pleased with the stop and that he got his weaponed returned. I wasn't there, but neither were you. Like I said. If he had a reason to feel threatened, then O.K. (and O.K. by law) ...but if he does that as a matter of routine....NOT O.K.

I agree, and you said one other good point earlier, if it is seen, it wasnt conceiled good enough!

 

[Cophgnsnuf]

on a back ass county road it's dark besides his lights why would he have reason to do anything less than do what he feels is safe for him as well? He didn't keep my weapon I got it back in what I consider a proper and only way to handle weapons, he didn't make me stand on the side of a dark county road which I would consider unsafe for me while he ran my tags, You know that it only takes 1 person to efff it up for everyone. So along the way people have done things to officers that make them cautious of any contact with citizens of the US.

 

[ATM]

I agree, and you said one other good point earlier, if it is seen, it wasnt conceiled good enough!

Maybe for some, but I shouldn't have to hide it to keep it secure from an officer who should know the legal limitations of his authority.