Indiana and refusal to identify

[Destro]

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..

can the same be done for a drivers license? I know in most cases if you don't have it on you they can look it up, can they haul you in for no license?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

can the same be done for a drivers license? I know in most cases if you don't have it on you they can look it up, can they haul you in for no license?

I don't know the law in Indiana on this, but decades ago, I was cited in another state for driving without a license, and when I later produced it, they dismissed the citation. I always thought that was weird. They had computers even then that let them know I had a valid drivers' license.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

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.

Kirk, I made my copies in pink. I couldn't find anythign prohibiting it, and since reissued copies cost $20 I thought it would be OK. Was I wrong to do this?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Des, it depends. You mean like 9-24-1-1? No, they aren't going to "haul you in".

May just give you a ticket if anything. If you are OWS/Inf, the cops will likely tow your car if you don't have a valid passenger (I have seen cops who will let you park it legally and then have a buddy come and drive it away).

Now, if you don't have a license because you are HTV/Life, yeah, likely the cops will "haul you in".

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, I made my copies in pink. I couldn't find anythign prohibiting it, and since reissued copies cost $20 I thought it would be OK. Was I wrong to do this?

I don't know about "wrong", but if they want to mess with you they could (when I say could, I mean potentially) under a couple of different statutes (never have seen it prosecuted).

Maybe stamp "COPY" on it, or at least tell the officer/deputy/trooper that it is a copy.

I think it's best to ensure that everyone knows that its a copy and there is no intent to deceive. I mean, think about it, what do cops hate more than anything else? People lying to them. That's all they get, all flipping shift.

Don't set their ears back with trying to give them a cock and bull story about being a "real license". At least I wouldn't do so.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Don't set their ears back with trying to give them a cock and bull story about being a "real license". At least I wouldn't do so.

GULP. I actually copied mine on pink and laminated one for my range bag with exactly this intention. Guess I made an error in judgment there!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nah, just tell the copper that it's a copy and thus no specific intent to deceive. Or, get a Sharpie and write "copy" over it. Just so it is open and obvious that it is a copy and not the real deal.

I mean think about it, when you copy your DL for ordering ammo or what not, did you make another exact copy of the DL or did you just slap it on the hospital's copier?

 

[public servant]

I mean, think about it, what do cops hate more than anything else? People lying to them.

Actually...that's a distant 2nd.

Defense attorneys...ranks a solid 1st.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

or did you just slap it on the hospital's copier?

I'm extremely offended. Are you suggesting that I would steal office supplies in the form of paper and toner from my employer???? I mean, just because I tried to deceive law enforcement, I'm a thief now???? How DARE you, Sir!!!!

Seriously though.. thanks for the info, Kirk!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Actually...that's a distant 2nd.

Defense attorneys...ranks a solid 1st.

You mean defense attorneys obeying the law with coffee, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm extremely offended. Are you suggesting that I would steal office supplies in the form of paper and toner from my employer????

I tell my employees to follow the rule of "reasonable graft".

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Actually...that's a distant 2nd.

Defense attorneys...ranks a solid 1st.

I'd have thought it would've been people shooting at them .

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I tell my employees to follow the rule of "reasonable graft".

I see from your amended sig line that you do not have a woof shirt! I can steal you a couple from our hospital security's locker room if you like

 

[Indy317]

BTW - If the arrest is unlawful, than it isn't illegal to resist.

Are you sure about this?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

"At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (holding that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer perform-ing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal); accord Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied; Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied."


Converted file ewn

"After a sheriff’s deputy made a warrantless entry into Christopher Alspach’s apartment, Alspach was charged and convicted of Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. See footnote Alspach now appeals and raises the following restated issue for our review:
Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that the arresting officer was lawfully executing his duties when he arrested Alspach inside his apartment.See footnote We affirm.

In March 2000, Grant County Sheriff’s Deputy Mike Jacob was dispatched to an East Tenth Street apartment in Matthews after police received reports of loud noises and a possible fight in progress. Jacob arrived at the scene and noticed on the outside stairs fresh blood drops that trailed toward the apartment in question. Jacob approached the apartment’s front door, which was slightly ajar, and announced his presence. Jacob got no response but he heard someone inside yelling incoherently. Jacob then pushed the front door open and entered the apartment. Jacob followed the trail of blood into the apartment and found Alspach in the apartment’s back bedroom. When Jacob asked if there was a problem, Alspach cursed at him and shoved him out of the way as he walked toward the kitchen. Jacob followed him and Alspach twice attempted to punch Jacob as the two stood in the kitchen. Jacob subdued Alspach with pepper spray and placed him under arrest.

The State charged Alspach with resisting law enforcement and Battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. Following a bench trial, Alspach was convicted of resisting law enforcement and sentenced to one year executed. This appeal followed.

The common law rule that allows an individual to resist with reasonable force an unlawful arrest by police is no longer the law in Indiana. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975-976 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (declaring the common law rule to be “outmoded in our modern society”). The common law right of forceful resistance to an unlawful arrest tends to promote violence and increases the chances of someone getting injured or killed. Id. at 976. A citizen today can seek his remedy for a police officer’s unwarranted and illegal intrusion into the citizen’s private affairs by bringing a civil action. Id. Accordingly, the Indiana rule is that “a private citizen may not use force in resisting a peaceful arrest by an individual [whom] he knows, or has reason to know, is a police officer performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest in question is lawful or unlawful.” Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). In particular, this court has noted that Indiana Code Section 35-44-3-3(a)(3) does not condition the offense of resisting law enforcement upon a lawful order. Corbin v. State, 568 N.E.2d 1064, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); see also Lashley v. State, 745 N.E.2d 254, 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (declaring that defendant was not permitted to flee from officer’s show of authority, regardless of whether that authority was unlawful), trans. denied.

We have not, however, interpreted this rule as a blanket prohibition that criminalizes any conduct evincing resistance where the means used to affect an arrest are unlawful. Shoultz, 735 N.E.2d at 823. Notably, we have recognized an exception where police unlawfully enter a person’s residence, determining that a greater privilege exists to resist an unlawful entry into private premises than to resist an unlawful arrest in a public place. See footnote Adkisson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing to Casselman, 472 N.E.2d at 1315-16). Further, unlawful entry into one’s home represents the use of excessive force and any arrest pursuant to that entry cannot be considered peaceable. Id. A citizen, therefore, has the right to resist the unlawful entry. Id.

In this case, because Jacob entered Alspach’s home without consent or a search warrant and arrested Jacob after he tried to resist, the general rule does not apply. We, therefore, must determine whether Jacob lawfully entered Alspach’s residence. We conclude that he did."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I see from your amended sig line that you do not have a woof shirt! I can steal you a couple from our hospital security's locker room if you like

I probably know more about woof shirts than anyone I know.

Don't steal any shirts, or someone will tell Randy.

 

[Rookie]

No, I'm not sure. Looks like I was wrong (something I'm willing to do when presented with facts).

I do have a question though. Adkisson vs. State seems to contradict this. Both cases have the same idea (warrantless entry). Why was one upheld and the other over turned? What am I missing?

 

[Rookie]

I think I found the answer. Exigent circumstances?

So, to clarify, it is illegal to resist arrest in a public place regardless if the arrest is lawful or not.
However, it is legal to resist a warrantless entry into your private resistance provided there is no exigent circumstances.

Correct? Or am I still missing something?

 

[Plinker]

I think I found the answer. Exigent circumstances?

So, to clarify, it is illegal to resist arrest in a public place regardless if the arrest is lawful or not.
However, it is legal to resist a warrantless entry into your private resistance provided there is no exigent circumstances.

Correct? Or am I still missing something?

That's how I read it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think I found the answer. Exigent circumstances?

So, to clarify, it is illegal to resist arrest in a public place regardless if the arrest is lawful or not.
However, it is legal to resist a warrantless entry into your private resistance provided there is no exigent circumstances.

Correct? Or am I still missing something?

Here's what you are missing. If the police want to arrest you, they will. If you resist they will beat or kill you and potentially others around you. You will not win that fight. Accept that as the truth.

Now, if the arrest is invalid, you may have grounds to seek redress. That's where folks like Kirk can help you. But they can do absolutely nothing for you if you are dead, and they can't bring a dead spouse or child back, restore a damaged brain, or unbreak a limb.

It's not a matter of complying with tyranny. It's a matter of living to fight another day.

 

[under32hurts]

So if a train leaves Chicago traveling at 70 mph, and a car leaves Indianapolis traveling at 45 mph.........