New Caselaw gun+permit = no reasonable suspicion

[Fargo]

Smoking hot new Indiana Supreme Court decision. While the seatbelt law figures in heavily, the court also considered two key questions in its holding:

1. A large "bulge" at your waist does not by itself constitute "reasonable suspicion".

2. Production of a permit terminate's "reasonable suspicion" grounds for questioning.

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

emphasis added

Here, Officer Eastwood initiated a traffic stop solely under the Act after she observed Richardson driving without wearing a seat belt. When Officer Eastwood approached Richard-son‟s car, she recognized him from a prior traffic stop, during which she had encountered no problems with violence or resistance. Additionally, Richardson was immediately cooperative with Officer Eastwood and admitted that he was not wearing his seat belt. While Officer East-wood did observe an "unusual bulge," this fact standing alone did not provide the independent basis of reasonable suspicion that Baldwin requires, especially in light of Richardson‟s imme-diate compliance and Officer Eastwood‟s prior peaceful exchanges with Richardson. Cf. Morris, 732 N.E.2d at 228 (finding an independent basis for further inquiry above and beyond the seat belt violation, where the defendant failed to produce a valid license, and a computer check later revealed his license was suspended). On these facts, we agree with the trial court that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the "unusual bulge" contravened the Act.
There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an "unusual bulge" will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable sus-picion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson‟s 7
production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further question-ing.

This case, along with the below linked holding in Washington v. State should be very helpful in ending harrassment of law abiding gun owners.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/in-gunsearch.pdf

Best,


Joe

 

[henktermaat]

Thanks for documenting this here for the attention of us average Joe gun owners. Rep coming your way.

 

[Scutter01]

This case, along with the below linked holding in Washington v. State should be very helpful in ending harrassment of law abiding gun owners.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Oh, MAN! You must be new here! That was GREAT!


/yeah, I really don't think it will stop any harassing. I really wish it would, but it seems like there are too many LEOs out there with their own opinions of the law.

 

[Fargo]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Oh, MAN! You must be new here! That was GREAT!


/yeah, I really don't think it will stop any harassing. I really wish it would, but it seems like there are too many LEOs out there with their own opinions of the law.

Certainly it will have no immediate effect. However, the police usually get around to figuring it out after being whacked by the courts enough times, especially if some 1983 suits get filed. That gives me hope.

Best case scenario, we ultimately get our legislature to go to a Vermont-type law.

Best,

Joe

 

[Scutter01]

Certainly it will have no immediate effect. However, the police usually get around to figuring it out after being whacked by the courts enough times, especially if some 1983 suits get filed. That gives me hope.

I know that we have a great many pro-2A officers in Indiana (many of whom are on INGO), but I also know that Indiana has many that absolutely despise non-LEO firearm carry. I hope you're right that this is a watershed change. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Fargo]

Oh, its not a watershed change by any means, but with this and the holding in Washington there is strong legal grounds for such a watershed change to occur.

Best,

Joe

 

[Dogman]

I also know that Indiana has many that absolutely despise non-LEO firearm carry.

This is something I could never understand with some officers that were non-LEO carry, cause most, not all would have their LTCH if they weren't LEO. I never really got a good answer when I would ask them if they weren't LE would they get their license to carry?

 

[IndyMonkey]

Man, I thought I was going to have to OC around the shady parts of Indy with an ounce of weed in my pocket to get a case law on OC'ing.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Officer you can no longer question my bulge.

 

[Prometheus]

YES! This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Nice to see the Indiana Supreme Court set it strait.

 

[jbombelli]

Officer you can no longer question my bulge.

What if it's Officer Hottie?

 

[mrjarrell]

So where does this leave us? Does this put a stop to firearms seizures by enforcers during a stop?

 

[Roadie]

So, who wants to be the guinea pig? Next time one of us is pulled over, produces our LTCH, and the LEO continues to ask questions about it, we would then reply:

"Officer, were you aware that a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision determined that production of a valid LTCH terminates "reasonable suspicion" grounds for any further questioning? Therefore, I refuse to answer any more questions regarding my handgun, and/or LTCH, at this time."

Anyone?

 

[txgho1911]

Maybe this is where the "Personal Audio or Video Recording Device" may produce a fair paycheck. Costs will get their attention solid evidence of 15 min rants and lectures from ISP or Deputies.

 

[Indy317]

So where does this leave us? Does this put a stop to firearms seizures by enforcers during a stop?

This ruling isn't much for gun owners. The opening pretty much makes it clear it has to do with enforcement issues specifically pertaining to Indiana's seat belt law. The law is weird, and as noted in the ruling, the seat belt law was written in a way where basically if a person is stopped solely on the seat belt infraction, police are very limited in what they can do.

The permit issue helps gun owners though. Officers who suspect the person is a felon can always release the person and do more investigation later on. Then they could apply for a warrant for felony with a gun (or whatever it is technically called) and notify ISP if they believe the license was issued in error.

 

[Scutter01]

Maybe this is where the "Personal Audio or Video Recording Device" may produce a fair paycheck. Costs will get their attention solid evidence of 15 min rants and lectures from ISP or Deputies.

...to be immediately followed by legislation banning recording of police stops by the peasants...

 

[Roadie]

Maybe this is where the "Personal Audio or Video Recording Device" may produce a fair paycheck. Costs will get their attention solid evidence of 15 min rants and lectures from ISP or Deputies.

The "Voice Recorder" icon is on the main screen of my smartphone for easy access...

 

[j706]

This ruling isn't much for gun owners. The opening pretty much makes it clear it has to do with enforcement issues specifically pertaining to Indiana's seat belt law. The law is weird, and as noted in the ruling, the seat belt law was written in a way where basically if a person is stopped solely on the seat belt infraction, police are very limited in what they can do.

The permit issue helps gun owners though. Officers who suspect the person is a felon can always release the person and do more investigation later on. Then they could apply for a warrant for felony with a gun (or whatever it is technically called) and notify ISP if they believe the license was issued in error.

Correct- This is dealing with a traffic stop on a seat belt violation. A seat belt stop needs to be limited to the seat belt stop. In other words don't use a seat belt only stop as a fishing expedition. The smart prudent officer that wants to check someone out for what ever reason will follow a car for a while and get other legitimate stopping charges. I have never followed a car that I could not find a stopping charge on. Indiana's title 9 codes are large. I think a lot of you guys are misreading the decision.

 

[theweakerbrother]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Oh, MAN! You must be new here! That was GREAT!


/yeah, I really don't think it will stop any harassing. I really wish it would, but it seems like there are too many LEOs out there with their own opinions of the law.

Cop hater!!!!!!!!

 

[Roadie]

Correct- This is dealing with a traffic stop on a seat belt violation. A seat belt stop needs to be limited to the seat belt stop. In other words don't use a seat belt only stop as a fishing expedition. The smart prudent officer that wants to check someone out for what ever reason will follow a car for a while and get other legitimate stopping charges. I have never followed a car that I could not find a stopping charge on. Indiana's title 9 codes are large. I think a lot of you guys are misreading the decision.

So then, to to make sure I am clear on your post. You interpret this statement...

And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson‟s production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further question-ing.

...to be only valid in the case of a seat belt stop?