Show ID?

[Denny347]

Florida v. J.L. has to do with someone that was carrying concealed, not open ...so IMO that case does not apply to this discussion. They had no right to detain him because they didn't corroborate the anonymous tip before taking enforcement action. We are talking about open carry, whether it be as a result of a call for service or an officer-initiated encounter. I am still waiting for case law allowing or preventing an officer from investigating OPEN carry.

On a side note, I open carried today. I was on my way to court and had to stop in a bank downtown. I was wearing khaki pants and an IMPD polo shirt that unless you were familiar with the IMPD flag, you wouldn't know it was a police department shirt. I got a couple looks from other customers in the bank, but no one freaked out about it. I could tell one guy was staring at my piece and I wanted to ask him if he was going thinking about perpetrating on me.

Ha, you would. You do have a menacing look about you.

 

[RogerB]

my FWIW...


somebody wants to see my ID... thats fine...I know for a fact that I haven't been involved in any unlawful acts. So I'll show you who I am, then I may ask you if that satisfies your curiousity and if I could see YOUR ID.

If your a Leo then great, maybe next time we see each other there'll be perhaps some level of mutual recognition....maybe, maybe not, who knows?

now back to your regularly scheduled thread browsing

 

[Ness2k]

Even if the LEO is in uniform?

Things like a 14 year old going unnoticed lead to my general distrust of first impressions.

Officers are more than willing to show I.D. It also usually leads to more interesting conversations, because like I said, I'm polite and give no reason to distrust myself. I know, and stand by, my rights, however.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

As for those of you that carry openly. That is great, but let me ask you this.
Why do you carry a gun?

Same reason you do, bro.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Me personally I have never been asked for ID or LTCH I have always had an officer come from behind me grab my gun (glock 22) remove it from my holster ( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me take out my wallet remove my ID and LTCH make there calls field strip my gun and remove ammo from mag stick it all in different pockets and let me go (without saying sorry or have a nice day) last time this happened was sunday march 22 at the plainfield wal-mart with my wife and 3 children there asking "is daddy going to jail" that is the way it goes for me at least... I am not saying all LEO are like this as I have many friends in LE that would rather write a warning than a ticket if you know what I mean

This actually happened to you?

I'm afraid I wouldn't have been able to contain my displeasure with such treatment.

Any other circumstances relevant to this story?

 

[jeremy]

Me personally I have never been asked for ID or LTCH I have always had an officer come from behind me grab my gun (glock 22) remove it from my holster ( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me take out my wallet remove my ID and LTCH make there calls field strip my gun and remove ammo from mag stick it all in different pockets and let me go (without saying sorry or have a nice day)

I have a hypothetical question. What would happen to the individual if he happened to resist the LEO in this instance?

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Jail...after the beatdown, of course!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I have a hypothetical question. What would happen to the individual if he happened to resist the LEO in this instance?

You'd have your ass handed to you in court, along with being subjected to what ever force the LEO felt was necessary to stop the resisting. It has been ruled that you do not have the right to resist a unlawful arrest.

And as was posted by DKSuddeth originally in this thread

Therefore, a police officer's knowledge that a person is peacefully carrying a firearm, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the person is illegally carrying that firearm. The resultant stop is improper under Fourth Amendment principles. Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990).

Not Indiana but does show case law.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Things like a 14 year old going unnoticed lead to my general distrust of first impressions.

Officers are more than willing to show I.D. It also usually leads to more interesting conversations, because like I said, I'm polite and give no reason to distrust myself. I know, and stand by, my rights, however.

I don't know how they do things in Chicago, but that kid would have been questioned as soon as he walked in the door.

I'm willing to show my ID, but I leave it at home when I'm on-duty in uniform. I keep it in my badge wallet for off-duty carry so I guess I'd be SOL if anyone asked me for it on-duty.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Quote:
Therefore, a police officer's knowledge that a person is peacefully carrying a firearm, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the person is illegally carrying that firearm. The resultant stop is improper under Fourth Amendment principles. Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990).

If that is a US Supreme Court decision I'm sure it could be applied to how LEOs do things in Indiana. I appreciate DKSuddeth finding it. Until it is specifically applied to Indiana LEOs, those OC'ing will still be asked if they have their LTCH.

 

[Joe Williams]

Quote:
Therefore, a police officer's knowledge that a person is peacefully carrying a firearm, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the person is illegally carrying that firearm. The resultant stop is improper under Fourth Amendment principles. Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990).

If that is a US Supreme Court decision I'm sure it could be applied to how LEOs do things in Indiana. I appreciate DKSuddeth finding it. Until it is specifically applied to Indiana LEOs, those OC'ing will still be asked if they have their LTCH.

So, you intend to continue engaging in conduct that the US Supreme Court has said is illegal?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

That decision was the result of an arrest in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you can show me that USSC has applied that to all 50 states (especially Indiana), I'll cease and desist.

 

[Joe Williams]

That decision was the result of an arrest in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you can show me that USSC has applied that to all 50 states (especially Indiana), I'll cease and desist.

Under what theory do you think that Supreme Court decisions, the civil rights of American citizens, and the US Constitution don't apply to local cops in Indiana?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Under what theory do you think that Supreme Court decisions, the civil rights of American citizens, and the US Constitution don't apply to local cops in Indiana?

Joe, I think what he means is that that was a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. If I'm mistaken, kindly correct me, please, Mr. Stein.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

Joe, I think what he means is that that was a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. If I'm mistaken, kindly correct me, please, Mr. Stein.

Blessings,
Bill

It was a SCOTUS decision. The case simply originated in Mass.

Edit: I think we are talking about different decisions, darn it. The one I'm talking about was a Florida case. I think the one he is talking about originated in Mass. SCOTUS didn't hear the case, because they agreed with the lower court's ruling.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Isn't it pretty common in courts if there is no case law from that area, to admit case law from other areas? SCOTUS actually references the Mass. case during the hearing for the Florida case.

 

[Fenway]

Heck, just the shirt/pants cost me 120.00. The leather is about 400.00, pistol 500.00, boots 100.00, radio 3,000.00, taser 800.00. If I can afford all of that I can afford a BS ID.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And since you seem to think that a visible firearm allows a exemption from the 4th amendment. From SCOTUS in the Florida case.

Some will argue for creating a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment for policy reasons. However, this Court has rejected a flag burning exception to the First Amendment, a crime scene exception to the Fourth Amendment, and a threat of mob violence and popular resistance exceptions to the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. It should likewise reject a firearm or weapon exception to the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Agreed $400 in leather. Plus a taser

 

[Lawguns]

Once again we are stymied by the cut and paste bandit.

COMMONWEALTH vs. PAUL R. COUTURE.​

Has nothing to do with this question.
COMMONWEALTH vs. PAUL R. COUTURE.

was the warrantless search or a motor vehicle in which the person was carrying a gun.
Although the call originated in a store the basis for the argument was the traffic stop.

This case refers to an earlier case" Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159 (1983).


"t has not [been] shown that, when the search was conducted, the police reasonably believed that there was a connection between the vehicle and any criminal activity of the defendant, an essential element to a finding of probable cause. . . . The empty holster and ammunition found on the defendant certainly created probable cause to believe that there was a gun in the cab. But carrying a .45 caliber revolver is not necessarily a crime. A possible crime was carrying a gun without a license to carry firearms, G. L. c. 269, Section 10 (a). However, the police did not learn that the defendant had no firearm identification card until after the search. They apparently never asked the defendant whether he had a license to carry a firearm. [There was an] absence of any showing that, before searching the vehicle, the police had probable cause to believe that there was contraband, an illegally carried weapon, in the cab . . . ."

I would take this to mean that the cout would approve of the officer asking to see the permit.

A full copy of the ruling can be found here.
COUTURE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 407 Mass. 178