New Caselaw gun+permit = no reasonable suspicion

[Joe Williams]

Regardless of the fact that most of the case deals with the nature and reason of the stop, the one line that says (working from memory, paraphrasing here) that production of a LTCH eliminates cause for reasonable suspicion for a weapon's crime, and is cause to cease further questioning, is very useful indeed. To the point that I'm tempted to make my LTCH much more accessible in the event I'm approached by police while OC'ing (which has never happened, but might someday.) Flash the license, and be on my way. Any further detention or questioning is now clearly beyond the officer's authority.

 

[Scutter01]

Cop hater!!!!!!!!

Pffft! Where have YOU been? I've been called both a cop-hater and a cop-coddler. Sometimes both for the same comment. After sticking my neck out for both sides and getting soundly hammered for it in each case, I don't even try anymore.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Pffft! Where have YOU been? I've been called both a cop-hater and a cop-coddler. Sometimes both for the same comment. After sticking my neck out for both sides and getting soundly hammered for it in each case, I don't even try anymore.

I have now upgraded your insult level to 'threat-level-midnight'!!!!!!!!oneoneone

In addition to a Cop Hater, you are now LAZY for no longer sticking to your guns and arguing with me!! GOOD DAY, SIR!

 

[IndyMonkey]

Pffft! Where have YOU been? I've been called both a cop-hater and a cop-coddler. Sometimes both for the same comment. After sticking my neck out for both sides and getting soundly hammered for it in each case, I don't even try anymore.

Quitter

 

[Scutter01]

I have now upgraded your insult level to 'threat-level-midnight'!!!!!!!!oneoneone

In addition to a Cop Hater, you are now LAZY for no longer sticking to your guns and arguing with me!! GOOD DAY, SIR!

Quitter

I know I left that ban hammer around here somewhere...

To see why I no longer care or bother with the pro-cop/anti-cop invective, start here and work your way down fifteen posts or so (especially post #435). As far as I'm concerned, both sides are on their own from now on. I got screwed hard and it won't happen again.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/47467-neg_rep_roll_call-11.html#post823239 (post #424 if the link doesn't work, and the person who posted the linked post was not the one of the ones about whom I was speaking).

 

[theweakerbrother]

Quitter

And you! If you're going to post on this forum, then speak American! This includes those chicken scratches below your user name!

 

[j706]

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



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

My take is the guy showed a permit. The officer was pretty much unrealistic in a more than a few ways IMO. I don't know of anyone that runs a criminal history on all permit holders to see if they have a felony. Matter of fact I am not sure how Marion county can even run a criminal history with out a case report number. For that you need a pretty good reason. I am lost on that one. In regards to criminal history's they are well known for showing arrests but not final dispositions. An arrest on a felony is a far cry from a conviction on a felony.

When a person presents a permit as far as I am concerned they are valid to carry. Our permit database is totally inaccurate if it is even working at all. This gal made no attempt to see if it was valid. And everyone knows a permit is valid for a minimum of four years. She could see the issue date but not the expiration. That is crazy IMO.

IMO this gal screwed up in a number of ways. The court seems to agree.

I imagine that the driver will go down on the fleeing,battery and resisting charge because there was no reason for any of that. He should be convicted of all those charges. He should also have his permit revoked based on those charges. The guy was no doubt a POS. He is the type that gives the antis ammunition to use against all us law abiding permit holders.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I don't know of anyone that runs a criminal history on all permit holders to see if they have a felony.

Some officers do, some done. I'm sure it has to do both with the officer and the LTCH holder.

Matter of fact I am not sure how Marion county can even run a criminal history with out a case report number. For that you need a pretty good reason. I am lost on that one. In regards to criminal history's they are well known for showing arrests but not final dispositions. An arrest on a felony is a far cry from a conviction on a felony.

We can run Marion County criminal histories all day long without a case number or any special reason. The check will show prior arrests, pending cases, and prior convictions (both misdemeanor and felony). In order to get an out-of-state criminal history (III) we have to have a specific reason. I have personally never requested a III and I would imagine it is most frequently done by detectives.

 

[j706]

Some officers do, some done. I'm sure it has to do both with the officer and the LTCH holder.



We can run Marion County criminal histories all day long without a case number or any special reason. The check will show prior arrests, pending cases, and prior convictions (both misdemeanor and felony). In order to get an out-of-state criminal history (III) we have to have a specific reason. I have personally never requested a III and I would imagine it is most frequently done by detectives.

I understand, When I think of criminal history I think of triple III's. We have to do triple III's on every arrest we do. Do you have dispatch run criminal history's for you or do you run it on RMS on zclient?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I understand, When I think of criminal history I think of triple III's. We have to do triple III's on every arrest we do. Do you have dispatch run criminal history's for you or do you run it on RMS on zclient?

Control runs them. If we want to run them ourselves we have to be at a wireless site or have one of the air cards that are being issued.

 

[inav8r]

IANAL, but I think it's important to point out: The stop in the case cited above was not a regular traffic stop, but a stop for a seat belt violation. If you read the case you will see that there are limits that apply during a stop for a seat belt violation that don't apply during a "regular" traffic stop (for anything other than when the only reason for the stop is an alleged seat belt violation).

Happy motoring!

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Roadie]

My take is the guy showed a permit. The officer was pretty much unrealistic in a more than a few ways IMO. I don't know of anyone that runs a criminal history on all permit holders to see if they have a felony. Matter of fact I am not sure how Marion county can even run a criminal history with out a case report number. For that you need a pretty good reason. I am lost on that one. In regards to criminal history's they are well known for showing arrests but not final dispositions. An arrest on a felony is a far cry from a conviction on a felony.

When a person presents a permit as far as I am concerned they are valid to carry. Our permit database is totally inaccurate if it is even working at all. This gal made no attempt to see if it was valid. And everyone knows a permit is valid for a minimum of four years. She could see the issue date but not the expiration. That is crazy IMO.

IMO this gal screwed up in a number of ways. The court seems to agree.

I imagine that the driver will go down on the fleeing,battery and resisting charge because there was no reason for any of that. He should be convicted of all those charges. He should also have his permit revoked based on those charges. The guy was no doubt a POS. He is the type that gives the antis ammunition to use against all us law abiding permit holders.

Thanks for the reply

 

[Prometheus]

IANAL, but I think it's important to point out: The stop in the case cited above was not a regular traffic stop, but a stop for a seat belt violation. If you read the case you will see that there are limits that apply during a stop for a seat belt violation that don't apply during a "regular" traffic stop (for anything other than when the only reason for the stop is an alleged seat belt violation).

Happy motoring!

PARTS of this decision do, in fact, relate only to a seat belt violation stop. PARTS of it do not.

The issue having to do with the LTCH is not predicated upon JUST seatbelt violations. The decision, should you read all eight pages, points out what parts do and don't.

Big victory for the LTCH crowd.

As an aside, I find it BS that the court acknowledged previous common law about being able to resist unlawful arrest and that less than a century of precedence that says "let the courts sort it out later" and Indiana Supreme court keeps the tyranny alive.

 

[downzero]

I actually like the 2nd judge's opinion, based upon Gant. Once you're separated from the vehicle, no officer safety reason exists at all.

 

[DocBoCook]

it only speaks to bulges, what about open carry?

 

[inav8r]

Big victory for the LTCH crowd.

While I just wish that the state would do away with the LTCH requirement altogether they could, at the very, least change the license itself into something that officers would stop thinking that "generally [ .. ] all handgun permits could be easily forged."

While the obvious preference is option 1; had option 2 been in place the stop would have been over once the LTCH was presented. The officer felt his LTCH could have been forged, but she never even checked it's validity. She just kept "fishin". I guess eventually even a blind squirrel will find a nut.

My legal advice: don't carry drugs.