Fishers - Not so cool...

[Walter Zoomie]

...He then steps back, grabs his weapon...and said "I've got you covered...

Did the cop actually skin that smoke-wagon and point it at you, or did he just put his hand on the grip while it was still holstered?

Either way...bad juju, my man.

 

[zecho]

In general (at least in my experience) the Fishers PD has been quite professional about carrying both openly and concealed. I carry openly quite frequently and have been in the presence of some Fishers officers (most recently at the Penn Station at 116th and Cumberland) and haven't had anyone say "boo" to me. I really, REALLY hope that this was an isolated incident, and that there hasn't been a shift in training within the Fishers PD. My two interactions with Fishers LEO (both non gun related, and no, I'm not one of THOSE drivers; I just had opportunity to chat with a couple officers ) have been quite pleasant. I've been meaning for awhile to go over and say "hi" to the chief, maybe I'll try to see if he's in this week and ask him, generally, how he trains his officers for MWAG calls and LTCH awareness.

I actually was in that very vicinity when this all happened. Today, I don't even want to drive through that area for fear of the same officer or one of his buddies deciding to use me as target practice. I'll be cutting through Giest or going completely out of my way to avoid the area.

 

[edporch]

I've lived in Fishers since 1987 when the Fishers Police Department was little more than a "shed" behind the brick house just West of the railroad tracks on the South side of the road that used to be City Hall.

That said, in all of my interactions with the Fishers Police Department through the years, I've always been treated with courtesy (**EXCEPT ONCE 2-3 years ago) and hope this was an isolated incident.

I also used to bump into Fishers Police Chief Kehl from time to time at the old Fishers Trading Company (no longer in business), a gunshop that used to be in Fishers Station at 116th and Allisonville Rd.

Though I'm sure he doesn't remember me, he always struck me as a reasonable guy, and I'm sure he would be happy to discuss this issue with you if you approached it in a calm manner and expressed your concerns.

Give it a try, you have nothing to lose, and it may give him a headsup about something to work on with his officers.

**The Fishers Police officer called ahead and warned the violator he was coming so they stopped about a minute before he got there.
Then the officer gave me the "they're not doing it now, quit wasting our time" routine with a really smart *ssed attitude.
I said "Hmm... they were doing it up until a minute or less before you got here..."
I then showed the Fishers Police Officer a video recording with time stamp backing up what I said.
The Fishers Police Officer then admitted he called the violator to give warning he was coming.

Something just isn't right about that...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I know I do not have to notify in Indy

You do not have to notify anywhere in Indiana, not just Indianapolis.

And you guys still want to tell the cops that you are carrying guns?

You guys must be bulletproof.

zech, the cops do this as a heckler's veto, a form of intimidation so people will not carry. Too bad that cops are putting poltics above safety.

They don't ask, you don't tell.

 

[finity]

Why didn't you take it out of your holster and hand it to him butt first?

Maybe because he didn't want to point his own gun at himself? & then have the cop do it again when he took it from him?

If you were going go surrender your weapon do as you are asked.

Yes. Submit to his authoritah! No matter how unreasonable it may be. You can't win on the side of the road. You almost can't win with the courts either...& the cops know it. Why do you think the abuses continue? If cops like this were given the legal smack-down they deserve then maybe this wouldn't happen so often.

Was there a tone to your voice?

Of course there was. He was just pulled over then asked to pull his gun out while an agent of the state who he has no idea of his intentions stood beside his car. If you don't have a "tone" at that point you're not human.

Two sides to every story.

Only when it involves a cop being the asshat. Otherwise it seems to be shoot first (or taze, tackle, etc) & ask questions later.

So by handing the LEO the pistol with the grip facing him, the muzzle would be pointing/covering you? How's an LEO get away with asking you to do such a dangerous thing?

Duh?

It's for officer safety donchaknow. As long as the officer is safe that seems to be the only thing that matters to many of them. Who cares what happens to the poor schmuck who gets to deal with the cops? Well, besides the schmuck, that is?

If Joe citizen gets covered by their own weapon or injured by the cop, eh, things happen, they probably had it comin'...

If a cop gets injured then it's game on. I saw a story just recently about a cop that was shot (or killed I can't remember) & the story said that they had 50 cops scouring the city looking for the BG. When's the last time that there were 50 cops looking for the killer of the average citizen? "All animals are equal. Some animals are just more equal than others."

Bit of a grandiose statement is it not? While I belive the officer did not handle this appropriately and it would be rare for me to take custody of a firearm absent cause, it is still quite legal. You do not agree that traffic stops are Terry stops for all pratical purposes and a valid Terry stop does allow a "patdown" for weapons...VERY limited in scope and time. A traffic infraction does satisfy Terry. The USSC has given weight to "Officer Safety" during traffic stops Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers - PoliceLink
and if officers can force a passenger to stay in the vehicle (now in officer's custody) during the duration of the traffic stop for officer safety, it is not a jump to allow the same thing with firearms or other dangerous weapons.

What I am saying is that just because I don't usually take weapons during a "routine" traffic stop, does not mean I don't have the legal authority to do so if I choose.

So you have the legal authority on a simple traffic stop lacking ANY OTHER PC or RAS to pull someone out of their vehicles, search them & their vehicle for weapons & confiscate a legally carried firearm "for officer safety"? Really?

If that's true then we truly are living in a police state.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

it is still quite legal.

Really? Can the entire class hear this novel legal theory please?

 

[Denny347]

I agree with this. The academy teaches many things. Common sense is NOT one of them. Some officers will never have it and some will gain it with experience. Come to think about it, the only time firearms are introduced in training scenereos, it is in a negative light. If you get a recruit with ZERO personal firearms experience and only the negative light of firearms in mass media, are we surprised of the reaction?[/quote]

I am surpised that the academy would turn someone loose with a gun and didn't train them at all with it and then we as a public are supposed to hand this guy our weapons for "officer safety"???? He is safe with his own damn gun!!! Again, you have NO BUSINESS handling my weapon and then hiding behind officer safety b.s.. If you are that scared, do something else for a living.

To be quite honest, I had NEVER messed with guns until I went to the academy in 1997. Even after that, I knew little about Indiana gun laws. I was a hell of a shot and knew how to handle MY sidearm but the State does not require learning specific Indiana laws during our Criminal Law classes other than child abuse and domestic battery. Crim Law dealt with broad Constitutional law and how to appy them to law enforcement, stuff I already learned in college. The rest are learned while "on the job". Looking back to when I was a green rookie, I would have handled the 2 situations (in 5 years no less that I was at that department) differently. One of which, I honestly thought the LTCH meant it must be concealed and told a young person such. I am embarrassed to say that I did not know better all those years ago...I do now. I NEVER handled a traffic stop like the OP's but thankfully I have learned much in my years on the job and common sense helps me tremedously.

 

[Denny347]

This is not always true - particularly when there is no cause for a "reasonable belief" that the driver is engaged in other criminal behavior or presents a danger to the officer. Once the driver presents a valid LTCH, the presence of a firearm does NOT create a basis for any such reasonable belief, and a further search of the driver or the vehicle is illegal.

See Washington v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...3041001jsk.pdf and State v. Richardson, (Ind. 2010) at [URL="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions...6031001fsj.pdf"]http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions...6031001fsj.pdf[/URL]

I will defer to Maryland v. Wilson.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
We are allwoed to remove occupants from vehicle to keep them away from possible weapons. Is that not the same as removing the possible weapons but allowing them to stay in the vehicle?

Exerpt.

On the personal liberty side of the balance, the case for the passengers is in one sense stronger than that for the driver. There is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers. But as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. The only change in their circumstances which will result from ordering them out of the car is that they will be outside of, rather than inside of, the stopped car. Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. It would seem that the possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop. And the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver.

 

[GuyRelford]

I will defer to Maryland v. Wilson.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
We are allwoed to remove occupants from vehicle to keep them away from possible weapons. Is that not the same as removing the possible weapons but allowing them to stay in the vehicle?

Exerpt.

On the personal liberty side of the balance, the case for the passengers is in one sense stronger than that for the driver. There is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers. But as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. The only change in their circumstances which will result from ordering them out of the car is that they will be outside of, rather than inside of, the stopped car. Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. It would seem that the possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop. And the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver.

With respect, did you read the Indiana cases that I referenced above? You'll see how the specific circumstance that we've been discussing here - a motorist with a valid LTCH, who is cooperating with LE - is addressed by Indiana courts under Indiana law, under the much broader principles discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland (most of which having nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Maybe because he didn't want to point his own gun at himself? & then have the cop do it again when he took it from him?



Yes. Submit to his authoritah! No matter how unreasonable it may be. You can't win on the side of the road. You almost can't win with the courts either...& the cops know it. Why do you think the abuses continue? If cops like this were given the legal smack-down they deserve then maybe this wouldn't happen so often.



Of course there was. He was just pulled over then asked to pull his gun out while an agent of the state who he has no idea of his intentions stood beside his car. If you don't have a "tone" at that point you're not human.



Only when it involves a cop being the asshat. Otherwise it seems to be shoot first (or taze, tackle, etc) & ask questions later.



Duh?

It's for officer safety donchaknow. As long as the officer is safe that seems to be the only thing that matters to many of them. Who cares what happens to the poor schmuck who gets to deal with the cops? Well, besides the schmuck, that is?

If Joe citizen gets covered by their own weapon or injured by the cop, eh, things happen, they probably had it comin'...

If a cop gets injured then it's game on. I saw a story just recently about a cop that was shot (or killed I can't remember) & the story said that they had 50 cops scouring the city looking for the BG. When's the last time that there were 50 cops looking for the killer of the average citizen? "All animals are equal. Some animals are just more equal than others."



So you have the legal authority on a simple traffic stop lacking ANY OTHER PC or RAS to pull someone out of their vehicles, search them & their vehicle for weapons & confiscate a legally carried firearm "for officer safety"? Really?

If that's true then we truly are living in a police state.

be carefull. you could be on the verge of being called names and being flamed for stating a fact and asking a question. at least your timing is better.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Bit of a grandiose statement is it not? While I belive the officer did not handle this appropriately and it would be rare for me to take custody of a firearm absent cause, it is still quite legal. You do not agree that traffic stops are Terry stops for all pratical purposes and a valid Terry stop does allow a "patdown" for weapons...VERY limited in scope and time. A traffic infraction does satisfy Terry. The USSC has given weight to "Officer Safety" during traffic stops Traffic Stops and Control of Passengers - PoliceLink
and if officers can force a passenger to stay in the vehicle (now in officer's custody) during the duration of the traffic stop for officer safety, it is not a jump to allow the same thing with firearms or other dangerous weapons.

What I am saying is that just because I don't usually take weapons during a "routine" traffic stop, does not mean I don't have the legal authority to do so if I choose.

There is no way that a routine traffic stop is a Terry stop, and you do NOT have the authority to take a legally possessed firearm from a citizen absent probable cause that he has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime with it.

What took place here is an armed robbery, pure and simple.

 

[CarmelHP]

ISP: Firearms FAQs

Page eight of the licensing to carry firearms FAQ

From the way I'm reading from Indiana state police website, since Ohio requires you to notify, Indiana requires you to do the same.

No, it doesn't.

 

[GuyRelford]

No, it doesn't.

Agreed.

 

[Bunnykid68]

They don't ask, you don't tell.

If they do not ask the right question do not give up information.

Officer: Do you have any weapons I need to know about in the vehicle?

Citizen: No.

The officer does not need to know about any wapons I have so he better ask the right question.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Weeeellllll, it could be a term of the license: "License to Carry Concealed Handgun and to Inform Law Enforcement", you know a LTCCHATILE.

 

[jsharmon7]

Weeeellllll, it could be a term of the license: "License to Carry Concealed Handgun and to Inform Law Enforcement", you know a LTCCHATILE.

I think it should be "License to Carry Concealed or Open Handgun and to Inform Law Enforcement and Not Drink Coffee in Broad Ripple While Armed." Then it would be LTCCOOHATILEANDCIBRWA.

 

[grizman]

There is no way that a routine traffic stop is a Terry stop, and you do NOT have the authority to take a legally possessed firearm from a citizen absent probable cause that he has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime with it.

What took place here is an armed robbery, pure and simple.

Bravo! And from a retired LEO to boot. Read and learn gentlemen, Officer Safety is a BS excuse. Every LEO knows the risks and inherent dangers of their chosen occupation and therefore accepts them as part of the job. Where this idea, that the safety of an LEO is of such importance that it allows the temporary override of all rights and freedoms of the public, is easy to pinpoint. From scared, insecure, egotistical children that can't deal with the possible repercussion's of their voluntary occupation other than to be abusive A holes!

IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF JOHN Q PUBLIC TO ENDURE THE ABUSE OF OUR RIGHTS IN ORDER TO MAKE YOU FEEL SAFE!

Reality check boy's and girl's, your fear is not our problem, it's yours! Show some guts, grow some balls, suck it up and do your jobs without the JBT mentality or find a new job!
To those fine men and women that do their job each day in a polite professional manner I salute you! The rest of you need to grow up!!!

 

[GuyRelford]

I will defer to Maryland v. Wilson.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
We are allwoed to remove occupants from vehicle to keep them away from possible weapons. Is that not the same as removing the possible weapons but allowing them to stay in the vehicle?

Exerpt.

On the personal liberty side of the balance, the case for the passengers is in one sense stronger than that for the driver. There is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers. But as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. The only change in their circumstances which will result from ordering them out of the car is that they will be outside of, rather than inside of, the stopped car. Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. It would seem that the possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop. And the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver.

I'd like to expound on my previous post. And again, I want to emphasize that I do so in complete respect, because these issues can get tricky. The issue in the Maryland case was whether both the driver and passengers of a car can be ordered out of the car during a traffic stop for officer safety - or as addressed by the 8th Circuit in the underlying case, whether a passenger could be ordered back into the vehicle after he left it. In recognizing the very legitimate need to protect officer safety, the Supreme Court held that the intrusion upon either the driver or the passengers in being required to exit the vehicle was minimal, since they'd been stopped already. And, by removing the occupants from the vehicle, the officer was putting distance between the occupants and any potential weapons in the car.

But very importantly, having the right to remove the occupants from the vehicle has NOTHING to do with: 1) being able to search the vehicle; or 2) being able to seize the property of the driver - particularly after the driver has produced a valid LTCH that makes the presence of a firearm within the vehicle totally legal.

And to address your very reasonable question - isn't requiring the occupants to exit the vehicle roughly the same as removing the firearm from the vehicle? - the answer is absolutely not. What's the difference? This: a search of the vehicle without probable cause and without meeting the strict requirements of the Terry standard - that the officer have a reasonable belief that the driver is dangerous or engaged in criminal behavior (other than the basis for the traffic stop). That search - and any activity that results from it (seizing the firearm, etc.) - is what is illegal under the 4th Amendment and Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. And that is the point of the Richardson and Washington cases that I referenced earlier.

And let's put this in context - do you think the OP would have been offended (or had is rights violated) if, upon telling the LEO that he had a LTCH and a loaded weapon in the car, the officer would have said, "Ok, why don't you step outside the vehicle while I write your speeding ticket - to get you away from that firearm for my safety"?? Of course not. And that's the point of the Maryland case. In that regard, Maryland most certainly didn't authorize the officer to order the OP to surrender his legally-owned and legally-possessed firearm at gunpoint. That was illegal, IMO.

Guy

 

[GuyRelford]

Officer Safety is a BS excuse.

As you know, I think the actions of the officer as described in the OP are inexcusable and illegal - and I personally would love to read about the OP recovering a huge settlement or winning a huge verdict against the Fishers PD. But I respectfully disagree completely with the idea that officer safety is not a legitimate concern. I think it is huge.

Personally, I have unlimited respect for any man or woman who is willing to walk up to the window of a vehicle without knowing if they're going to be greeted with a smile or the muzzle of a sawed-off shotgun. So I think the goal of our legal system ought to be a balance between the very legitimate concern of officer safety and the rights of citizens to have their Constitutional rights protected. So far, I think Indiana law does a pretty good job of that.

And when that law is violated - like by the Fishers PD in this situation - I hope they're held legally, morally, financially and publicly accountable.

Just my $.02.

Guy

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is why Indiana needs a statute on this. Just sayin'.