Saint John Indiana, NOT gun friendly

[fireball168]

Just saw that myself, looked all over the place for it last week - I thought it was 1987.

Might do this fellow some good to read it:

That was the lansing kmart. st john just paranoid.

 

[AndersonIN]

Just left a message with the St John Indiana City Council answering machine inviting them to our site to give their side of the story!

Just call Phone: 219-365-6465, then press 1

Steve Kil
Town Manager
10955 W. 93rd Avenue
St. John, IN 46373-

And leave them a message!

 

[theweakerbrother]

Hahahaha. He does not have the time to deal with lowly citizens.

 

[Bill B]

The plot thickens. On Friday at 3:00 a warrant was issued for my arrest. I was arrested at 9:00 am Saturday and was finally released about 6:00 pm after posting $1000 bond. I have no idea what the charges are, but will be talking to my lawyer tuesday.
Anyone want to contribute to my legal defense?
I will say no more until this is done with.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Is your arrest public info? Link or copy of the arrest? This will help your cause. Any INGO legal eagles want to help Bill B?

 

[Roadie]

The plot thickens. On Friday at 3:00 a warrant was issued for my arrest. I was arrested at 9:00 am Saturday and was finally released about 6:00 pm after posting $1000 bond. I have no idea what the charges are, but will be talking to my lawyer tuesday.
Anyone want to contribute to my legal defense?
I will say no more until this is done with.

They didn't tell you what you were being charged with??

 

[4sarge]

They didn't tell you what you were being charged with??

Normal procedure would be to read the charges on the warrant to you. Was this an outright arrest or was a warrant served and if served in another County (where you reside). The charges would have been read by the department serving the warrant and again more than likely at your book in.

 

[SMiller]

The prosecutor has nothing to go on, what is it they are trying to do here? The sad part is you are going to be out $2000-3000 and all for nothing, probably end up with your license revoked as well. This is a sad ordeal!

I am surprised your wife didn't get hooked up as well...


Not to take credit away from you but you would have to have paperwork or know what you are being charged with, that is to odd.

 

[Bill B]

the only paperwork I have is the bond paperwork. The arresting pd was hammond, the warrant was lake county. I know the arresting officer said intimidation, and I think he said "xxxx entry" needless to say, I was in shock and didn't catch everything.
now I really am going to shut up.

 

[INMIline]

now I really am going to shut up.

Probably a good idea....

Just left a message with the St John Indiana City Council answering machine inviting them to our site to give their side of the story!

 

[tv1217]

Wow, what a bunch of f---in sissies.


Anybody know a good source for steroids, maybe we can inject the SJPD and hope it will reboot their testicles.

 

[Sweetums]

This is terrible.

 

[4sarge]

Intimidation

Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1 : Indiana Code - Section 35-45-2-1: Intimidation


(a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or
(3) of causing:
(A) a dwelling, a building, or another structure; or
(B) a vehicle;
to be evacuated;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a judge or bailiff of any court;
(iii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat;
(iv) is an employee of a school corporation;
(v) is a community policing volunteer;
(vi) is an employee of a court;
(vii) is an employee of a probation department; or
(viii) is an employee of a community corrections program.
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.
(c) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.71; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.3; P.L.183-1984, SEC.6; P.L.325-1985, SEC.1; P.L.242-1993, SEC.3; P.L.164-1993, SEC.12; P.L.1-1994, SEC.169; P.L.241-2001, SEC.3; P.L.175-2003, SEC.3; P.L.3-2006, SEC.2



Residential Entry

5. A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.215-1991, SEC.1.
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 : Indiana Code - Section 35-43-2-2: Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions

(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

 

[2cool9031]

Here's how it should have went down

1) Police get a call....man with a gun
2) They respond and go to the location
3) Ask to see your LTCH...which you produce
4) They say "Thank You" and you are both on your way
5) No need for all the other B.S.
6) Opinions are sometimes best kept to one's self
I would have been asking," Are you detaining me ...or am I free to go?"

 

[PatriotPride]

Please keep us informed. From what you've told us, it seems that the only way they could charge you is if you were threatening in your voicemail? Hopefully this gets cleared up in court.

 

[Indy317]

the only paperwork I have is the bond paperwork. The arresting pd was hammond, the warrant was lake county. I know the arresting officer said intimidation, and I think he said "xxxx entry" needless to say, I was in shock and didn't catch everything.
now I really am going to shut up.

You original stated this:
"I and my wife accompanied S to the door, when Y answered S asked to get some things, Y said ok. I entered with S to help her, Y stepped in front of me and asked who I was, and I responded that I was there to help S get her things. Y said that she didn’t ask me into her house and to leave. I said ok and left. Nothing else was said by me or Y."

You messed up, and I think you might be screwed, regardless of what your motives were. I base my opinion on this case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06150901bbs.pdf

This guy was at his ex's place. She gave him permission to be in her garage to get his things, but specifically told him not to enter the house. He broke down the door, only to call her on her cell phone from the home phone. His lawyer made a good argument, as the whole reason behind the residential entry law was to be able to lock up burglars. Part of the argument in the above was "Davidson claims that because he had no intent to commit theft or another crime once inside the dwelling, his actions did not constitute residential entry." However, the state responded as follows "In asserting his lack of intent to commit an offense inside the dwelling, Davidson confuses the offenses of residential entry and burglary. The offense of burglary requires a breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony in a dwelling, or building or structure of another. See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1. The offense of residential entry requires only a knowing or intentional breaking and entering of the dwelling of another, and does not require the intent to commit a felony. See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5. Thus, Davidson’s argument on this issue fails. In order to obtain a conviction for residential entry in this case, the State was required to present evidence that (1) Davidson (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) broke and entered (4) the dwelling of Ciriello. At his bench trial, Davidson stipulated to kicking in the door and entering Ciriello’s residence."

Note this was a bench trial. The problem with bench trials is that there is only one person making the decision. This isn't some sort of unattached third party, this is a person who makes a good living from the criminal justice system. While they are supposed to be impartial, how can they be totally 100% non-bias? These are rich people, who have more education than most. While you might get a good judge, I would rather pay extra money and go with a jury. A jury is more likely to be more sympathetic. The intimidation charge, based on only _your_ side of the story told her, sounds far fetched. From my standpoint, given what you told us, I would argue that since you were standing with so and so, that when the homeowner gave permission to enter, you took that as a sign of permission to enter. Basically, you need to get the owner to admit you nor you son's ex forced their way in. You were polite in asking to retrieve property. You waited for an invitation in, and it was granted.

Obviously, it sounds like your complaining might have triggered an investigation?? You need to get a good, very good lawyer who isn't into just getting you to plead down to some misdemeanor trespassing law. You need a shark who will depo the victim (to see if the cops were pressuring them into filing charges) and the cops. If this is a conspiracy against you, it won't be too hard to find that out. During the deposition, the cop(s) will likely make statements about your complaint. That could mean more depositions for any political figureheads.

As far as your license goes, that is another issue, a civil issue. Getting these charges dismissed will help, but ask the lawyer if they will help you with anything that comes from that. Demand a hearing and if you have evidence of this being nothing more than retaliation for a complaint against an LEO, chances are you will get to keep your license.

Just as a heads-up, a good lawyer who is willing to fight for you will likely run you at least $7,000. You might find some folks in the $5,000, but anyone who wants $100 for a consultation, and $1,000 retainer...make sure they aren't just taking your case hoping you will plead guilty to some misdemeanor or take diversion. If you find evidence of a cover-up, don't sign any papers for a dismissal that says you can't sue the officers or anyone involved. It may be hard for you to find an attorney to sue the cops, so you might have to go at it through small claims court, which the max. award is $6,000 (or was at one time). You won't have anything to lose because it is only $135 to file, and I would rather spend $135 when I am already out thousands to try and recoup some of the money I am out.

Good luck.

 

[finity]

You original stated this:
"I and my wife accompanied S to the door, when Y answered S asked to get some things, Y said ok. I entered with S to help her, Y stepped in front of me and asked who I was, and I responded that I was there to help S get her things. Y said that she didn’t ask me into her house and to leave. I said ok and left. Nothing else was said by me or Y."

You messed up, and I think you might be screwed, regardless of what your motives were. I base my opinion on this case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06150901bbs.pdf

This guy was at his ex's place. She gave him permission to be in her garage to get his things, but specifically told him not to enter the house. He broke down the door, only to call her on her cell phone from the home phone.
.
.
.
In order to obtain a conviction for residential entry in this case, the State was required to present evidence that (1) Davidson (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) broke and entered (4) the dwelling of Ciriello. At his bench trial, Davidson stipulated to kicking in the door and entering Ciriello’s residence."

There's a BIG difference between entering someones house with someone who has permission & subsequently leaving when told to and kicking in someones door after being told to stay out.

Notice that one of the requirements for the crime is BREAKING. The OP didn't BREAK in, he went in with a resident who had permission from the owner. He left when he was told.

It sounds like since you (rightfully) wanted an apology from the LEO they decided to teach you a lesson about challenging their "authoritay". If your version of the story is completely true (& I have no reason to doubt it is) then THEY are the ones who are doing the intimidating to get you to just bend over & take it like a good little peon.


Unfortunately, this is going to cost you a bit of money. Even if you win the damage to you & the damage to our freedom is done. It definitely puts a chill on peoples desire to stand up to the police when they are wronged if the cops can just trump up some charge against them & ruin them financially.

So much for any cop that says that we have any real freedom left. They may not do it themselves but they work for the system that does. It may have started out with one idiot cop but it now obviously has gone all the way up to the prosecutors office. THAT is a systemic problem, not an isolated idiot.

Sorry, man. I hope this all turns out OK.

 

[serpicostraight]

this is effing stupid whatever happened to common sense? i can remember when it was easy to tell who the bad guys were. now it seems like every jbt wants to whip the rule book out and see what technicality they can arrest you on. i just read an article that said cops get paid an extra 40 dollars for every arrest they make. is that the motivation here? 40 dollars to throw the rule book out the window and go after the good guys? i guess common sense is not so common anymore.

 

[finity]

this is effing stupid

Agreed.

i just read an article that said cops get paid an extra 40 dollars for every arrest they make. is that the motivation here? 40 dollars to throw the rule book out the window and go after the good guys?

 

[serpicostraight]

Just as a heads-up, a good lawyer who is willing to fight for you will likely run you at least $7,000. You might find some folks in the $5,000, AND THIS KIDS IS EXCACTLY RIGHT IF A JBT SAYS YOU DID SOMETHING. EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE INNOCENT AND DID NOTHING. KEEP SNIFFING THOSE HOLSTERS.