ISP pulled over and Disarmed

[eachitandi]

Improperly securing a firearm in your vehicle without an LTCH is not RAS that the improperly secured firearm is stolen.

Yeah, it's only a misdemeanor...I'm sure they have no RAS to investigate further.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Wouldn't Richardson v State apply here? Isn't this against Indiana's Seatbelt Enforcement Act?

Edit: Also Baldwin v Reagan.

 

[ModernGunner]

Complain to ISP supervisors if you were uncomfortable with it.

 

[eachitandi]

Actually, no, you don't have to show the little pink card, you just have to have been issued one to carry the handgun loaded. If it is unloaded (and there's no way for the officer to know that just by seeing it there) and "cased" (I could be wrong, but I think the glovebox qualifies in this context), you may have it in your vehicle without a LTCH. There may be a requirement that it not be accessible by those in the car as well, but if so, I'm not sure of that and too lazy to look up the cite right now.

All of that said, wasn't it Washington v. State that was decided such that the possession of a LTCH ended the discussion of the gun(s)? I know there were two cases right about that time and I also concur that the officer a) knew the driver had his LTCH, b) did not know whether the gun was loaded or not (immaterial at that point,) and c) had no consent to search or to seize any property.

I don't know that I'd complain. I might, given the muzzle sweep of my friend; that would certainly be a motivating factor for me. I would not take it to a court case, but rather to the post commander of the ISP post, with the goal in mind of the troopers being reminded that absent RAS of a crime, they cannot lawfully do what this officer did. Further, as a LEO, the reasonable, prudent officer with the same training and experience would know that doing what this one did was not within the bounds of the law, and thus, his action was knowledgeable, willful, and intentional. Were we to violate an act of law with any one, let alone all, of those modifiers, the officer would surely have arrested any of us, and none, I think, would argue that they are permitted to be "above the law".
I would seek no money, as I was out none for the mere action of the unlawful seizure, but seeking to improve training so no one else was put at risk or, God forbid, injured as a result of a muzzle sweep, or had their property unlawfully seized, even briefly.



Blessings,
Bill

the way i understand the law is that there is 1 method to transport in a vehicle that does not require a LTCH...

(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case

any other requires a LTCH . And if I'm mistaken, please let me know, but the way i understand the following is that you ARE required to provide your "little pink card" as the burdon of proof falls on you to prove that you have a license.

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

and yes, it was Washington vs. State. The driver divulged the presence of the handgun under his seat and presented his LTCH. The officer removed the driver, handcuffed him, and went to retrieve the handgun for "officer safety". The leo then found a bag of weed under the seat with the handgun and charged the driver with posession. The courts dismissed the charge of posession saying that being legally in posession of the handgun was not sufficient to claim the man was dangerous and therefore the search was illegal.

 

[Bill of Rights]

the way i understand the law is that there is 1 method to transport in a vehicle that does not require a LTCH...

(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case

any other requires a LTCH . And if I'm mistaken, please let me know, but the way i understand the following is that you ARE required to provide your "little pink card" as the burdon of proof falls on you to prove that you have a license.

IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

and yes, it was Washington vs. State. The driver divulged the presence of the handgun under his seat and presented his LTCH. The officer removed the driver, handcuffed him, and went to retrieve the handgun for "officer safety". The leo then found a bag of weed under the seat with the handgun and charged the driver with posession. The courts dismissed the charge of posession saying that being legally in posession of the handgun was not sufficient to claim the man was dangerous and therefore the search was illegal.

That is correct, you must prove it, however, you can, now that the DL database accesses the LTCH database semi-directly, simply provide your DL and the officer can look up the fact that you are licensed. You do not have to carry the card with you. (not that it's a bad idea to do so, just that it's not required under the law as written.) Cite: IC 35-47-2-1

IC 35-47-2-1 Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:... (emphasis mine. The law used to read, "without possessing a license issued under this chapter" or some similar text that did require possession of the license on one's person.)


Thanks for the clarification. Richardson was the other case. In that one, also a seatbelt stop, Richardson had a suspicious "bulge" in his clothing, which the officer asked about and was told it was his handgun, for which he then was asked for and presented his LTCH (which was not checked for validity at the time, but was, in fact, valid.) The officer was not permitted, once the license was displayed, to continue any investigation, question, or other behavior re: the gun, absent articulable basis for a belief that criminal activity was afoot or recently completed, or that the officer's safety was in jeopardy. (When it was all said and done, the bulge was cocaine, and that evidence was suppressed as fruit of a poisonous tree.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SteveM4A1]

Thanks for the clarification. Richardson was the other case. In that one, also a seatbelt stop, Richardson had a suspicious "bulge" in his clothing, which the officer asked about and was told it was his handgun, for which he then was asked for and presented his LTCH (which was not checked for validity at the time, but was, in fact, valid.) The officer was not permitted, once the license was displayed, to continue any investigation, question, or other behavior re: the gun, absent articulable basis for a belief that criminal activity was afoot or recently completed, or that the officer's safety was in jeopardy. (When it was all said and done, the bulge was cocaine, and that evidence was suppressed as fruit of a poisonous tree.

Blessings,
Bill

From my understanding, the officer was out of line asking about the bulge and the case would have been nothing on that alone.

 

[remauto1187]

Originally Posted by remauto1187 SO what you are saying is that you arent a very humorous type person and get rare laughs? I felt the need to be labeled a dumb ass in this thread too, even though IT IS common knowledge!

Fixed

I trust the mods will do something about post #78 since it is an obvious violation of the rules.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

If I discovered on of my friends keeping their firearm stored in such a jackassish way, I would not be able to hold back the flow of "stern education" that would fly from my mouth with great force and speed. I'm sure the officer frowned upon that as well, which is probably why your buddy got what he got. If everything was squared away in a respectful, responsible manner, things may have gone differently. Just my personal thoughts on the matter.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it .

If your friend chooses to carry a deadly weapon in such a nonchalant manner , then neither he or you , shouldn't get butt hurt when something like this happens to him .

 

[357 Terms]

OP, is your friend still carrying a gun in the glove box with the registration? If so, why?

Carry the gun separate from the registration. That way if you get stopped, you just give the officer the registration and shut up about guns. I have been stopped more than a few times for speeding (last time- 8 days ago) NEVER have I been asked about a gun and your friend wasn't either. Why start the GUN conversation if you don't have to?
.

This!!

It really is THAT simple!!

 

[Hoosier8]

OK, volunteering the information and no protest to get the gun from the driver but then this wasn't a search of the car either. Most traffic stops you read about on here where this is volunteered often ends up the same way. The officer taking possession of the firearm for their own safety and returning it with ammunition removed. I think you would have to be crazy not to understand that self protection is paramount, especially if you carry. There are a lot of crazy people out there and cops see more than their fair share.

 

[SteveM4A1]

OK, volunteering the information and no protest to get the gun from the driver but then this wasn't a search of the car either. Most traffic stops you read about on here where this is volunteered often ends up the same way. The officer taking possession of the firearm for their own safety and returning it with ammunition removed. I think you would have to be crazy not to understand that self protection is paramount, especially if you carry. There are a lot of crazy people out there and cops see more than their fair share.

The idea that certain individuals are dangerous and I am one of them because the officer doesn't know me is severely lacking in the reasoning department.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm dangerous. I'm the most dangerous man on the internet.

 

[Hammerhead]

Thanks for the clarification. Richardson was the other case. In that one, also a seatbelt stop, Richardson had a suspicious "bulge" in his clothing, which the officer asked about and was told it was his handgun, for which he then was asked for and presented his LTCH (which was not checked for validity at the time, but was, in fact, valid.) The officer was not permitted, once the license was displayed, to continue any investigation, question, or other behavior re: the gun, absent articulable basis for a belief that criminal activity was afoot or recently completed, or that the officer's safety was in jeopardy. (When it was all said and done, the bulge was cocaine, and that evidence was suppressed as fruit of a poisonous tree.

Blessings,
Bill

Point in fact, Bill, the "bulge" was the handgun, the officer attempted to verify the validity (forgoing math in the process) but three attempts to do so failed on the part of the dispatcher/system. The fruit of the poisonous tree was the search of his person for the firearm, the truck for the cocaine (under the seat) and anything beyond the seatbelt stop except for the ensuing fracas when he didn't want to be arrested.

The point remains, however, that the seatbelt enforcement in the OP matches Richardson.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

so ive heard.

about the pirate.

 

[TheSpark]

First off many mistakes in my opinion were made by the owner of the gun.

1) What good does a gun do in the glove box? Keep it on you or in a location that you can draw it quickly. (My opinion)
2) If there was no holster then major no-no.
3) Telling the officer the gun was in the glove box before you retrieved the papers was a good idea but offering the officer a chance to retrieve it (the papers) was bad. You basically gave the officer permission to search the glovebox at that point and probably the right to take the gun for the time being.

Now on to the officer.

It pisses me off every time I read a story or watch a video where an officer claims he has a right to run a gun to make sure it isn't stolen. Unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the gun is stolen he has no right to do so in my opinion and I believe the law backs me up on this as well. In addition when they run the gun do you not think they keep a record of that? I'm sure they do. So basically you just registered your gun with the police department that ran it (I believe this is why they insist on running serial numbers by the way, just so they can record your name to it).

Side note: In most cases if an officer did run a gun to make sure it isn't stolen and discovered it is I believe the person could get the charge thrown out in court because the officer illegally seized the gun. Its the same type of thing where you can get drug possession charges thrown out because the officers discovered the drugs in an illegal manner (violating your rights).

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The idea that certain individuals are dangerous and I am one of them because the officer doesn't know me is severely lacking in the reasoning department.

Can we really blame them (LEOS) ?

Playing devil's advocate here but if I were an officer and came across someone with a holstered weapon I'd probably ask for the license .

If I came across someone who just lets the weapon hang out in the glove box , I'd probably have been a lot less professional than the officer was in this case .

It's a perception type thing .

No , in this state they're not being shot dead every day but IMO it has happened frequently enough to make them leery of everybody and I don't blame them for taking precautions with everyone they don't know .

 

[Yup!]

Can we really blame them (LEOS) ?

Playing devil's advocate here but if I were an officer and came across someone with a holstered weapon I'd probably ask for the license .

If I came across someone who just lets the weapon hang out in the glove box , I'd probably have been a lot less professional than the officer was in this case .

It's a perception type thing .

No , in this state they're not being shot dead every day but IMO it has happened frequently enough to make them leery of everybody and I don't blame them for taking precautions with everyone they don't know .

You would ask for a license if the gun was holstered?

good thing you'd be too busy stopping every car to check for a drivers license to annoy legal gun owners.

 

[gundoc111]

LOLOLOLO. The ISP are FAMOUS for this. Carmel is second, Hamilton Co. Sheriff next and IPD usually just doesn't care.

 

[JMoses]

First off many mistakes in my opinion were made by the owner of the gun.

1) What good does a gun do in the glove box? Keep it on you or in a location that you can draw it quickly. (My opinion)
2) If there was no holster then major no-no.
3) Telling the officer the gun was in the glove box before you retrieved the papers was a good idea but offering the officer a chance to retrieve it (the papers) was bad. You basically gave the officer permission to search the glovebox at that point and probably the right to take the gun for the time being.

Now on to the officer.

It pisses me off every time I read a story or watch a video where an officer claims he has a right to run a gun to make sure it isn't stolen. Unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the gun is stolen he has no right to do so in my opinion and I believe the law backs me up on this as well. In addition when they run the gun do you not think they keep a record of that? I'm sure they do. So basically you just registered your gun with the police department that ran it (I believe this is why they insist on running serial numbers by the way, just so they can record your name to it).

Side note: In most cases if an officer did run a gun to make sure it isn't stolen and discovered it is I believe the person could get the charge thrown out in court because the officer illegally seized the gun. Its the same type of thing where you can get drug possession charges thrown out because the officers discovered the drugs in an illegal manner (violating your rights).

Ahahahahahahahaha!!! LOL!! Ahahahahahaha!

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't know how, when or why but at some point in police culture it became an unwritten rule that all firearms an officer encounters while on duty needed to be checked to make sure they weren't stolen. That is how I was trained initially and I did it for probably a year and a half before I thought to question the practice. I stopped doing it at that point and have since done what I can to shed some light on the practice for other officers.

I'm not saying it's right because I don't agree with it. I don't think many (maybe even most) officers have pondered whether it makes sense or is the right thing to do.

That's the same with me. As for the legalities of the seizure, in the technical sense there was a violation. Consent was only given to retrieve the registration. That binds the officer solely to that item, unless he could articulate a safety issue (which there was not), or could tie you guys to some criminal action (of which there was none).