Indiana Court of Appeals and Handgun Possession

[KellyinAvon]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

Kinda sorta.

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a default criminal status.

Regardless, this is an enormous win. Someone call Jim Lucas first thing tomorrow!

 

[Rookie]

Mother of Pearl, they cited Prouse!!!

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

I was thinking the same.

 

[chipbennett]

Kinda sorta.

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a default criminal status.

That statement drives to the heart of this decision, though, doesn't it? The practical application of this decision is that carrying a firearm is no longer per se grounds to detain someone.

Regardless, this is an enormous win. Someone call Jim Lucas first thing tomorrow!

He's already been partying on Facebook.

 

[T.Lex]

Dammit, Janet, I *LITERALLY* checked the appellate opinions early this afternoon and it wasn't there. But, to quote my esteemed colleague... Ho Lee Carp.

But the proper exercise of authority does not determine the constitutionality of a suspect’s detention or the propriety of the evidence seized.

Indeed. Cops started out doing the right thing, but got sideways. Now there's a map for how to do this.

 

[HoughMade]

A win, for sure...but let's not get over our skies.

They question will be what plus the gun gets you PC? They didn't say the gun was excluded from the PC discussion, only that carrying a gun alone was not enough.

What...you guys don't read the new decisions every day?

 

[Fargo]

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

I think they learned something from the Barnes fiasco.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Kinda sorta.

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a default criminal status.

Regardless, this is an enormous win. Someone call Jim Lucas first thing tomorrow!

I just texted him on reading this.

...
He's already been partying on Facebook.

That's cool, too!

My thanks to Kirk for confirming that it was, indeed, Prouse that they cited. I am MOST pleased!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

Kinda sorta.

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a default criminal status.

Regardless, this is an enormous win. Someone call Jim Lucas first thing tomorrow!

As I argued above, I don't think it has been a default criminal status since the big revisions back circa 2012 or so. I guess you could say is a default criminal status in the same way that driving a vehicle is since that is the exact analogy used by the court. I was surprised and pleased that they noted that the license requirement is nothing more than a regulatory scheme.

 

[T.Lex]

A win, for sure...but let's not get over our skies.

They question will be what plus the gun gets you PC? They didn't say the gun was excluded from the PC discussion, only that carrying a gun alone was not enough.

What...you guys don't read the new decisions every day?

As a certified appellate geek, yes... well, most days, for cases that look interesting.

Second, as proof, I'm pretty sure this will end up being Rucker's last authored opinion.

 

[John Galt]

This is great news!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As I argued above, I don't think it has been a default criminal status since the big revisions back circa 2012 or so. I guess you could say is a default criminal status in the same way that driving a vehicle is since that is the exact analogy used by the court. I was surprised and pleased that they noted that the license requirement is nothing more than a regulatory scheme.

There are a number of significant points in Pinner but I believe you have identified the most significant.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

I'm pretty sure this will end up being Rucker's last authored opinion.

Huh? Details please?

 

[T.Lex]

Huh? Details please?

Oh, sorry, Justice Rucker announced his retirement early this year. The ceremony was actually Monday.

Supreme Court celebrates Rucker?s service at retirement ceremony | The Indiana Lawyer

He authored this Pinner opinion, but so close to his actual retirement, I doubt he'll be able to author another one. He may already have some opinions near-complete, so there is a chance a few more will come out with him as the lead author, but I can't imagine it'll be very many.

 

[brotherbill3]

Kinda sorta.

Carrying a handgun in Indiana is a default criminal status.

Regardless, this is an enormous win. Someone call Jim Lucas first thing tomorrow!

AND it is a constitutional right (A1.S32)

that's the "conflict" as (as I see it) that I mentioned elsewhere. As you note this is a strong case to do away w/ said conflict. cheers!

 

[chipbennett]

AND it is a constitutional right (A1.S32)

that's the "conflict" as (as I see it) that I mentioned elsewhere. As you note this is a strong case to do away w/ said conflict. cheers!

Didn't the appeals court decision - now as-affirmed by the Indiana supreme court - state that mere possession of a handgun could not be assumed to be criminal, absent other evidence of criminality?

 

[GuyRelford]

Supreme Court: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License | 93.1 WIBC

 

[Bill of Rights]

Didn't the appeals court decision - now as-affirmed by the Indiana supreme court - state that mere possession of a handgun could not be assumed to be criminal, absent other evidence of criminality?

It did, however, that opinion was vacated when the IN Supreme Court took the case, so it may as well have never happened. The later decision that we're discussing now, did, as you said, affirm it though. I've been looking all day to see Bloomie's Every Liberal Town and the Brady bunch both denounce this and call for blood in the streets and shootouts over parking places. Oddly enough, no matter how often they predict it, they never come back to crow about it happening. I did see that the Bradys put out their scorecard of the states with the "weakest" gun laws, and cited them as the places that made it easiest for a criminal to obtain a gun (including making a site that is ostensibly criminals advising criminals where the best "pickin's" may be had.) Strange that they show the actual crime rates in neither those states, nor the ones they tout as having "stronger" laws, that supposedly make it harder for a criminal to be armed.

 

[Libertarian01]

I brought up our victory to an instructor at IvyTech tonight who is a career LE. He explained that he is a great writer and all he has to articulate is, "...suspect was acting suspiciously..." and VOILA! Pinner case law sidestepped.

How easy or difficult will this potential dodge work?

Doug

 

[jbombelli]

I brought up our victory to an instructor at IvyTech tonight who is a career LE. He explained that he is a great writer and all he has to articulate is, "...suspect was acting suspiciously..." and VOILA! Pinner case law sidestepped.

How easy or difficult will this potential dodge work?

Doug

Didn't you ask him the obvious follow up... "so your plan is to lie your way to reasonable articulate suspicion?"