Indianapolis PD firearm seizure, no return

[MCgrease08]

I'm in a similar situation right now. It's going on 10 months since the gun was actually recovered. No one called to tell me. If I hadn't been contacting the detective annually to follow up on the 5 year old case I doubt I would have ever known the gun was recovered.



See above ... but the last time I called I was able to get someone on the phone to look into where they were in the process. She told me to expect a call in a few weeks. That was about 3 months ago.

Tick, tock, tick, tock... Approaching 4 months now without my pistol. Secured by IMPD for "safe keeping" as I rode in an ambulance to Community North. I'm getting more than a little steamed under the collar. I'm not sure if there's any legal recourse here but I'll be looking into that shortly.

I still haven't gotten mine back either and it's been mpre than a year since it was recovered. My quoted comment above was from March.

I haven't been putting up nearly as much of a stink as I should be. I plan to call tomorrow.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Hawkeye]

A policy that for no matter what reason, ANY firearm that enters the property room MUST go through ballistics testing to verify that it was not used in a crime. (make sure it doesnt match any bullets of unknown origins)

AKA "Guilty until proven innocent."

Yeah, kind of a no-risk bureaucratic mindset in play here. Guess they are afraid of negative press if a firearm had ever been used in a crime, even if the current owner was clean.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

This is why in recent years I advise people to carry a reliable handgun that you don't have a lot of money in. Then when the police take it, and go into their "backdoor" gun confiscation scheme (while claiming they're for law abiding citizens being able to carry) you won't be out so much. Their actions show they're banking on the idea that it will cost more to hire a lawyer than the gun's worth, so you'll just forget about it eventually and let them keep it. Hence, "we've gotten another gun turned in".

"The police" don't agree with the practices done by the property room personnel.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

McGrease and Hop, please sue the **** out of IMPD so they stop holding guns (that don't need to be held) hostage.

 

[Dead Duck]

Sounds like they need to get the right guy in there to clean house and rework the system to be functional again. I hate hearing about this ****. It's not that hard once it's all organized - THE RIGHT WAY.

How much does it pay?

Thing is, if the shiny shoes don't feel or know that there is a problem then nothing will be done. Like every other problem workplace I've left in the past because of it. It would take someone at the top to be informed and/or awaken to the problem to go down and start hammering people. Which is usually what I used to do as I was quitting.

I hate "Leaners" at work. (ones that lean on things and talk all day) Worthless.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Sounds like they need to get the right guy in there to clean house and rework the system to be functional again. I hate hearing about this ****. It's not that hard once it's all organized - THE RIGHT WAY.

How much does it pay?

Thing is, if the shiny shoes don't feel or know that there is a problem then nothing will be done. Like every other problem workplace I've left in the past because of it. It would take someone at the top to be informed and/or awaken to the problem to go down and start hammering people. Which is usually what I used to do as I was quitting.

I hate "Leaners" at work. (ones that lean on things and talk all day) Worthless.

I have an in with the Deputy Chief of Investigations. I'll give him a call tomorrow.

 

[Dead Duck]

I have an in with the Deputy Chief of Investigations. I'll give him a call tomorrow.

Don't rock the boat too hard, then again, you'd make a cute metermaid.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Don't rock the boat too hard, then again, you'd make a cute metermaid.

As long as they still pay me.

 

[bwframe]

It'd be way cool if some of our INGO attorneys would jump onto this.

 

[chickenman]

It'd be way cool if some of our INGO attorneys would jump onto this.

 

[T.Lex]

It would be way cool if the General Assembly would create a private right of action against local jurisdictions who do this kind of thing.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It would be way cool if the General Assembly would create a private right of action against local jurisdictions who do this kind of thing.

Know anybody at the Statehouse there T.Lex??

 

[T.Lex]

Know anybody at the Statehouse there T.Lex??

hahaha

Yeah, sorta, maybe.

So, let's get a little organized. We need to define the problem and come up with a solution that is somewhat self-regulating, with the litigation as a kicker. Maybe it could be an amendment to the pre-emption law.

Problem: Jurisdictions are holding legally owned weapons an unreasonable amount of time after their investigative value has expired. Such action curtails both the federal and state rights to keep and bear arms, and constitutes an unreasonable seizure of such firearms.

Solution: Owners of such firearms must first send a certified letter to the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction holding the firearm detailing the circumstances of the firearm seizure, the date of such seizure, and the agency that seized the firearm. If a different agency has the firearm at the time, then that agency should be identified. The letter should describe the owner's reasons why the firearm no longer has any investigative value. The agency shall have 30 days in which to respond either by detailing why there is still an investigative value to the weapon or provide the weapon. If there is either no response, or the owner does not believe that the investigative reason provided is appropriate, they can bring a lawsuit in the county that contains the main office of the agency. No tort claim notice will be necessary. Damages shall be calculated by finding the average of 3 appraisals by reputable dealers within the county (or neighboring counties if there aren't 3 in the county). That amount will be the daily penalty for each day that the court finds that the agency unreasonably kept the firearm. Plus reasonable attorneys fees for the owner. If the court finds that there was an appropriate investigative reason, or that there continues to be, then owner loses. No jury trial for this, as the court may be required to hear confidential material/attorneys eyes only, to make the determination. (There are trial rules that cover how that works.)

That's a 10 minute version of what might work. I offer it up to INGO for refinement.

 

[KellyinAvon]

hahaha

Yeah, sorta, maybe.

So, let's get a little organized. We need to define the problem and come up with a solution that is somewhat self-regulating, with the litigation as a kicker. Maybe it could be an amendment to the pre-emption law.

Problem: Jurisdictions are holding legally owned weapons an unreasonable amount of time after their investigative value has expired. Such action curtails both the federal and state rights to keep and bear arms, and constitutes an unreasonable seizure of such firearms.

Solution: Owners of such firearms must first send a certified letter to the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction holding the firearm detailing the circumstances of the firearm seizure, the date of such seizure, and the agency that seized the firearm. If a different agency has the firearm at the time, then that agency should be identified. The letter should describe the owner's reasons why the firearm no longer has any investigative value. The agency shall have 30 days in which to respond either by detailing why there is still an investigative value to the weapon or provide the weapon. If there is either no response, or the owner does not believe that the investigative reason provided is appropriate, they can bring a lawsuit in the county that contains the main office of the agency. No tort claim notice will be necessary. Damages shall be calculated by finding the average of 3 appraisals by reputable dealers within the county (or neighboring counties if there aren't 3 in the county). That amount will be the daily penalty for each day that the court finds that the agency unreasonably kept the firearm. Plus reasonable attorneys fees for the owner. If the court finds that there was an appropriate investigative reason, or that there continues to be, then owner loses. No jury trial for this, as the court may be required to hear confidential material/attorneys eyes only, to make the determination. (There are trial rules that cover how that works.)

That's a 10 minute version of what might work. I offer it up to INGO for refinement.

This moves the ball down the field. Ah, the time, more to follow. Two stops then on to CM's secret lair.

 

[edporch]

"The police" don't agree with the practices done by the property room personnel.

Then they and all others who disagree need to raise hell over it.
Silence implies agreement.

What bothers me is that many people don't have the money to afford more than one gun.
They use it for legitimate self defense, then it's swiped from them and they're left defenseless.
OFTEN with people seeking revenge on behalf of the criminal shot.

This isn't right.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Not all hills are worth dying on. I don’t fault the INGO officers for not raising a stink about the practice. Their opinion doesn’t count to the brass or the mayor.

Then they and all others who disagree need to raise hell over it.
Silence implies agreement.

What bothers me is that many people don't have the money to afford more than one gun.
They use it for legitimate self defense, then it's swiped from them and they're left defenseless.
OFTEN with people seeking revenge on behalf of the criminal shot.

This isn't right.

 

[MCgrease08]

I called over my lunch break today to check the status of my stolen gun that was recovered back in 2015.

To recap: They sat on it for at least 18 months after it had been recovered. I only learned it had been recovered because I follow up with the detective on the case annually.

As of today it's been a week shy of a full year since I went down and filled out the paperwork to have it released.

I spoke with a very helpful young lady named Lauren today, who told me the paper work just needed final sign off from a superviser. Again, if I had not called, it would likely still be sitting in a file folder someone.

Lauren was kind enough to give me her direct number in case I don't get a call soon to come get the gun. She also ran the numbers on the other three stolen guns involved in the case. Sadly they are all still out on the street somewhere.

I can't help but wonder if my Mosin-Nagant has been used in a drive-by.

 

[Dead Duck]

I called over my lunch break today to check the status of my stolen gun that was recovered back in 2015.

To recap: They sat on it for at least 18 months after it had been recovered. I only learned it had been recovered because I follow up with the detective on the case annually.

As of today it's been a week shy of a full year since I went down and filled out the paperwork to have it released.

I spoke with a very helpful young lady named Lauren today, who told me the paper work just needed final sign off from a superviser. Again, if I had not called, it would likely still be sitting in a file folder someone.

Lauren was kind enough to give me her direct number in case I don't get a call soon to come get the gun. She also ran the numbers on the other three stolen guns involved in the case. Sadly they are all still out on the street somewhere.

I can't help but wonder if my Mosin-Nagant has been used in a drive-by.

Dude-
Your Mosin looks so cool right now.

 

[MCgrease08]

Dude-
Your Mosin looks so cool right now.

Holy cow, I can't imagine even trying to fire that bad boy. Better hold on tight.