A BIG -1 for the EPD

[ATM]

How many previous encounters have you had with the police? I don't know you or the situation but if you have a reputation with the cops, that may be your problem.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ense/149710-st_marys_is_not_gun_friendly.html

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, once again I have to do legwork when I tried during the accident to make sure everything was ok and done correctly so I wouldn't have problems like this down the line

You did all the leg work in obtaining your license and vehicle plates, why not continue to do the leg work to ensure that you keep them valid.

I believe that is crap and an invasion protected by the 4th amendment. They searched my info without my permission just to see if I'm up to snuff. BTW a check of my tags only tells them about who the vehicle is registered too, not about the actual driver of the vehicle per se.

Neg Ghost Rider. A routine check of your license plate IMO is not a 4th Amendment violation. "Permission" has been granted when you applied for your plates and drove your vehicle on a public road. But in this case it's totally moot, given that the officer indicated you committed an action that drew his attention.

NO NO NO. This is not how it happened at all! I know you are a cop and trying to make them look like the good guys here but you know good and well that they ask for ID on everyone they can, they already randomly checked the tags on a vehicle that was not doing anything wrong as all of the additional charges were AFTER they decided to pull me over and in fact I was already pulling onto a sidestreet after they had been following me because I hate cops that trail you for miles trying to get you to make mistakes. I believe this falls into Kirk's term of "Baiting".

"They" do not do this universally... it depends on the situation. Suspended driver, w/possible valid driver present? Let's confirm that so they can take the vehicle.

No, read my post to the other cop, I explained that I said word for word "you don't have to show him that" Earlier I was paraphrasing. And it wasn't so he didn't have to tow it, there was no reason in the world to tow it even if there wasn't a valid driver in the vehicle because it was parked in a legitimate spot.

No, I did not drive away from the scene. I got out and then reloaded my 1911, looked for my missing knife, and then let my wife drive me home so she could go to the store. It disturbs me that cops even on here won't cross the Thin Blue Line and buddy up against the citizenry in cases like this.

No, I just find certain parts of your story "convenient," in regards to your position. You imply that you are being purposefully targeted by officers a department just shy of 300 officers... over the hospital thing?
You originally indicated that you stated to your wife, in a less than diplomatic way, not to give the officer her license... and then clarify that the words you implied you said, you didn't actually say.
When informed that the officer could tow your vehicle.... well now it's been parked legally, after turning down a side road.
Youre current status is suspended-infraction, meaning that you have a court date that you must show up for, or you will be DWS-Prior (a criminal offense), no mention of that is made at all. I would certainly be more PO'd about that, than a invalid registration citation, but there no reference to that at all.

Now, your story could be factual in all aspects, however, your delivery was something less than desired. If your going to recall an instance, it would help to be as thorough as possible, as when you make clarifications "after the fact," it weakens your original narrative.

Do you think I should have been taken from my vehicle and patted down just because I was carrying a gun to which I already gave him my LTCH?

Based on your original narrative certainly....the one with the "you don't have to give him squat" part. Upon clarification, I'd say no... especially if he was aware of your prior "hospital" experience (which would indicate to me that you were basically a law-abiding OC'er).

 

[GARANDGUY]

sounds like the same ol EPD unfortunately. And to think I was missing living there. Hope it all works out!

 

[eric001]

This thread is a good example of keeping track of things yourself.
You should check your driving record every once and awhile.
Here is a link to check it for Indiana.
https://myweb.in.gov/BMV/mybmv/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=/BMV/mybmv/MyDriver/DriverRecord.aspx

Thank you very much, woowoo2!! I just followed your advice to confirm that my license is as clean as I thought it was. VERY good suggestion, and I appreciate your adding solid advice that actually can help others avoid having misinformation in their records.[STRIKE] If I could give rep, I certainly would for this!! Would someone else be so kind as to handle that for me???[/STRIKE]

Well, go ahead and add rep as you see fit, but I just figured out how to add to rep. Sometimes my brain takes this vacation thing WAY too seriously!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Okay, let's assume that was his intent (I tend to doubt it) and he simply wanted to verify her license status so he could save them the hassle of towing the car.

Why can't he just ask if she has one first, and then politely make a request to eyeball it so he can confirm? Why does it always have to go straight to the authority-plebe relationship? For all the talk of who starts out being a dick first, in my book, using authority where it's not needed comes pretty darn close. You know the old saying, you catch more flies with honey.

Two things I always keep in mind is attitude and liability. Not the citizen's attitude, but my own. Though the authority is always there, attitude diminishes an adversarial contact. Everyone, to me is Sir or Ma'am, Mr or Ms. When I make a request, you know it's a request. Being up front works with most people. If I had been involved in that situation, I would asked for the wife's DL and explained why. If she refused, that would have been her right, and I would have explained the situation to her again. If no dice still, I would start a tow truck to come get the vehicle, and our conversation would be ended.
Flashing a DL, tells me nothing other than that the wife had a valid license at some point. Liability tells me that if she smokes a family of four, at the next intersection, and didn't have a valid license. The first thing out of her mouth, after being asked "why" she drove, would be "officer friendly, let me drive after stopping my husband." ....and officer friendly loses his house, car, retirement, and possibly his job.

 

[iChokePeople]

You know the old saying, you catch more flies with honey.

Sometimes we tend to apply this rule in a pretty one-directional way here on INGO. Just sayin'.

And yeah, I get the whole 'I pay their salary', 'they're here to serve me', etc, but people are people, and if you offer the first shot of vinegar, you're decreasing your chances of being offered honey in return. I'm not even suggesting that the passenger should show ID, but from the tone of the OP, I'm going to hazard a guess that his tone didn't help the situation any.

Yeah, I know, here come the 'go ahead, just be a sheep' types.

 

[Ziggy01]

This thread is a good example of keeping track of things yourself.
You should check your driving record every once and awhile.
Here is a link to check it for Indiana.
https://myweb.in.gov/BMV/mybmv/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=/BMV/mybmv/MyDriver/DriverRecord.aspx

Rep Given! I found this to be a very helpful link. I was in an accident about three weeks ago. In talking to my agent she said they fax a copy of the SR21 within 5-7 days of the accident. She was kind enough to copy me on the fax for my records incase I needed it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You did all the leg work in obtaining your license and vehicle plates, why not continue to do the leg work to ensure that you keep them valid.

Not a problem, I am just tired of doing it 3 times and they STILL haven't gotten it straightened out.

I believe that is crap and an invasion protected by the 4th amendment. They searched my info without my permission just to see if I'm up to snuff. BTW a check of my tags only tells them about who the vehicle is registered too, not about the actual driver of the vehicle per se.

Neg Ghost Rider. A routine check of your license plate IMO is not a 4th Amendment violation. "Permission" has been granted when you applied for your plates and drove your vehicle on a public road. But in this case it's totally moot, given that the officer indicated you committed an action that drew his attention.

Thats your opinion, I'll give you that. I just don't like cops and this is one of the reasons why. (No I don't dislike ALL cops, I just naturally distrust them until they prove otherwise)

But no, he got me for my Lic FIRST, then taked on everything else "The reason I pulled you over was the registered driver is listed as having a suspended license"

NO NO NO. This is not how it happened at all! I know you are a cop and trying to make them look like the good guys here but you know good and well that they ask for ID on everyone they can, they already randomly checked the tags on a vehicle that was not doing anything wrong as all of the additional charges were AFTER they decided to pull me over and in fact I was already pulling onto a sidestreet after they had been following me because I hate cops that trail you for miles trying to get you to make mistakes. I believe this falls into Kirk's term of "Baiting".

"They" do not do this universally... it depends on the situation. Suspended driver, w/possible valid driver present? Let's confirm that so they can take the vehicle.

Ok no, not EVERY occasion, but plenty. and they didn;t just want a peek, they wanted to take it back to the squad car and run her like they did me. thats total BS.

No, read my post to the other cop, I explained that I said word for word "you don't have to show him that" Earlier I was paraphrasing. And it wasn't so he didn't have to tow it, there was no reason in the world to tow it even if there wasn't a valid driver in the vehicle because it was parked in a legitimate spot.

No, I did not drive away from the scene. I got out and then reloaded my 1911, looked for my missing knife, and then let my wife drive me home so she could go to the store. It disturbs me that cops even on here won't cross the Thin Blue Line and buddy up against the citizenry in cases like this.

No, I just find certain parts of your story "convenient," in regards to your position. You imply that you are being purposefully targeted by officers a department just shy of 300 officers... over the hospital thing?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't usually have good luck with cops, but this was definately a first.

You originally indicated that you stated to your wife, in a less than diplomatic way, not to give the officer her license... and then clarify that the words you implied you said, you didn't actually say.
When informed that the officer could tow your vehicle.... well now it's been parked legally, after turning down a side road.
Youre current status is suspended-infraction, meaning that you have a court date that you must show up for, or you will be DWS-Prior (a criminal offense), no mention of that is made at all. I would certainly be more PO'd about that, than a invalid registration citation, but there no reference to that at all.

I am PO'd at ALL of it. But mostly that cop because that was absolutely uncalled for. I have plenty of recorded interactions with police to know I am not dangerous or violent. After presenting my LTCH that should have made all weapon issues at that point moot and I would not have even bothered putting this online.

Now, your story could be factual in all aspects, however, your delivery was something less than desired. If your going to recall an instance, it would help to be as thorough as possible, as when you make clarifications "after the fact," it weakens your original narrative.

I try to be as factual as I can be and I understand it is just my side of the story. If you followed St. Mary's at all you know that the other side was unwilling to fill in any details, I don't see how that would be any different this time.

Do you think I should have been taken from my vehicle and patted down just because I was carrying a gun to which I already gave him my LTCH?

Based on your original narrative certainly....the one with the "you don't have to give him squat" part. Upon clarification, I'd say no... especially if he was aware of your prior "hospital" experience (which would indicate to me that you were basically a law-abiding OC'er).

Nice to know that you will escalate a situation if you get your feelings hurt. The way I look at it is the only reason for that is if I acted violent in any way, which I did not. It was at that point just retaliation, either for said encounters or just because he didn't like me saying that she didn't have to show him her license.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I know Ben and I take him at his word.

 

[88GT]

Two things I always keep in mind is attitude and liability. Not the citizen's attitude, but my own. Though the authority is always there, attitude diminishes an adversarial contact. Everyone, to me is Sir or Ma'am, Mr or Ms. When I make a request, you know it's a request. Being up front works with most people. If I had been involved in that situation, I would asked for the wife's DL and explained why. If she refused, that would have been her right, and I would have explained the situation to her again. If no dice still, I would start a tow truck to come get the vehicle, and our conversation would be ended.
Flashing a DL, tells me nothing other than that the wife had a valid license at some point. Liability tells me that if she smokes a family of four, at the next intersection, and didn't have a valid license. The first thing out of her mouth, after being asked "why" she drove, would be "officer friendly, let me drive after stopping my husband." ....and officer friendly loses his house, car, retirement, and possibly his job.

Just to clarify: I don't have a problem with the request. I absolutely see your argument. What I have a problem with is the assumption on the LEO's (this particular LEO, this is not an indictment of all LEOs) part that his simply asking the question should be sufficient notice of "good reason" for doing so, or should be enough for someone to comply without question. It's the implicit assumption on the part of LE (I am broad-brushing here) that their authority alone is sufficient in itself. While technically this may be true in some instances, it's not the authority that is respected, but the manner in which that authority is wielded.

I'm just saying that this whole thing could have turned out incredibly different if Mr. EPD had taken a slightly more [STRIKE]courteous[/STRIKE] explanatory approach to his interaction. (I changed the word because there's no reason to believe his request was presented rudely in tone. And I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked on that tangent. )

Sometimes we tend to apply this rule in a pretty one-directional way here on INGO. Just sayin'.

And yeah, I get the whole 'I pay their salary', 'they're here to serve me', etc, but people are people, and if you offer the first shot of vinegar, you're decreasing your chances of being offered honey in return. I'm not even suggesting that the passenger should show ID, but from the tone of the OP, I'm going to hazard a guess that his tone didn't help the situation any.

Yeah, I know, here come the 'go ahead, just be a sheep' types.

So, how an officer responds is completely dependent on the attitude of the person with whom contact is made? And the officer has absolutely no responsibility for his own behavior whatsoever because it is all determined by the attitude of the other person? Gotcha.

My son will be glad to know he doesn't have to control his behavior anymore and can blame it on his little brother.

 

[Bill of Rights]

He hasn't been given the authority to preemptively verify that a driver is licensed without some other PC or RAS of an infraction.

Try again.

No she is not, but it's a cool move by the officer. Since the OP was suspended , and thus unable to legally drive, there are two options: tow the vehicle, or confirm that the other passenger is a valid driver to take custody of the vehicle.

OK, I'm gonna jump in here... Given that the OP was thought to be suspended, the other person could simply be asked, "Ma'am, do you have a license? I don't need to see it, I just need to know that you're a licensed driver." Until she's suspected of committing an infraction or a crime, I'm not sure I see why an officer would need to run her license.

We have made the comparison here that LEOs cannot randomly pull drivers over just to verify the validity of their DL, though they can, in absence of a SCOTUS decision saying otherwise, do so to gun owners. What is the difference between pulling someone over to request to see their DL and asking the passenger to see hers prior to her becoming the driver?

...
As for your license being suspended, it's a solid stop. You weren't pulled over on a whim, you were pulled over for DWS, after a routine check of your tags....

No, he was pulled over for crossing the center line on a turn. He was later erroneously found to be DWS.

Continuing, I have already indicated that the officer most likely wanted your wife's DL so that she could take command of the vehicle. You interjecting with a "don't show him squat," in what was probably a beneficial gesture, towards you, by the officer, only creates needless tension. You could have just as easily asked "why" he wanted to see her DL versus getting a bit snippy.
...

I'll give you that one once I know why asking for her DL was allowable under the SCOTUS decision (don't know the case) that forbade LEOs from pulling over just anyone just to see their DL.

Of note, I'm not criticizing, I'm trying to find out how this is a valid action versus something that just hasn't been addressed specifically yet.

Thanks!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[iChokePeople]

So, how an officer responds is completely dependent on the attitude of the person with whom contact is made? And the officer has absolutely no responsibility for his own behavior whatsoever because it is all determined by the attitude of the other person? Gotcha.

My son will be glad to know he doesn't have to control his behavior anymore and can blame it on his little brother.

... and again, we're at this very one-dimensional view of things. The statement you made (and with which I wholeheartedly agree) about catching more flies with honey works both ways. You keep trying to apply it in only one. What I would want MY son to learn from a situation like this is that his demeanor and attitude and body language all play a part in how ANYONE will react to him and deal with him, and, as you said, that he'll catch more flies with honey. All we get about the OP is what we read here, and what I see here is clearly not honey. I'd hope that my son would learn that HIS actions play a part in a situation like this. I'd like him to understand that he's dealing with another human being. I'd like him to understand that his actions played a role and that blaming it all on the man might feel good but probably isn't helpful. I'd like him to learn to focus on what HE can control. What you teach YOUR son from an incident like this is entirely up to you, but I definitely don't understand why you go back to that one-sided, sole-responsibility position.

The behavioral get out of jail free card you're sarcastically offering for your son is, it seems, the same you're offering to the OP in completely dismissing HIS role in how this encounter played out. All I'm saying is that most interactions between two people (or more) play out the way they do as a result of the actions and choices of BOTH parties. If the OPs tone during the stop was anything like what I *perceive* (always dangerous in written communication) it to be here, I'd have probably been less than my most cordial, accomodating 'normal', too.

 

[Stainer]

You are correct. However, since the person driving was showing as suspended, he wanted to see if she was able to drive the vehicle. I guess he shouldn't have gotten all nazi on them, and just called for a wrecker to tow the vehicle instead.

I can tell you this, I will not release a vehicle to anyone that I have not verified was a licensed driver for the fact that if the person I release it to is not licensed and gets into an accident right after I release them, I am now liable because I allowed them to take control of the vehicle. Not to get anyone angry or emotional, but if I could not prove there was a licensed driver to take control of the vehicle, it would be towed unless legally parked like was later explained.

He hasn't been given the authority to preemptively verify that a driver is licensed without some other PC or RAS of an infraction.

Try again.

He can ask if he'd like, now she doesn't have to show it to him. If she wanted to consent though that is her choice. She said no and the officer left it alone correct? Did he really do anything wrong by asking? She was not the scope of the investigation, so once denied he left it alone.

No she is not, but it's a cool move by the officer. Since the OP was suspended , and thus unable to legally drive, there are two options: tow the vehicle, or confirm that the other passenger is a valid driver to take custody of the vehicle.

Agreed!

I believe that is crap and an invasion protected by the 4th amendment. They searched my info without my permission just to see if I'm up to snuff. BTW a check of my tags only tells them about who the vehicle is registered too, not about the actual driver of the vehicle per se.

Neg Ghost Rider. A routine check of your license plate IMO is not a 4th Amendment violation. "Permission" has been granted when you applied for your plates and drove your vehicle on a public road. But in this case it's totally moot, given that the officer indicated you committed an action that drew his attention.

Agreed, courts have ruled that running someones plate, then running the registered owners license, and verifying that the person driving appears similar to the description with a suspended license is a valid stop.

NO NO NO. This is not how it happened at all! I know you are a cop and trying to make them look like the good guys here but you know good and well that they ask for ID on everyone they can, they already randomly checked the tags on a vehicle that was not doing anything wrong as all of the additional charges were AFTER they decided to pull me over and in fact I was already pulling onto a sidestreet after they had been following me because I hate cops that trail you for miles trying to get you to make mistakes. I believe this falls into Kirk's term of "Baiting".

That's correct, they ASK, we can only demand if they are the subject of the investigation(ie not wearing a seat belt)

No, read my post to the other cop, I explained that I said word for word "you don't have to show him that" Earlier I was paraphrasing. And it wasn't so he didn't have to tow it, there was no reason in the world to tow it even if there wasn't a valid driver in the vehicle because it was parked in a legitimate spot.

No, I did not drive away from the scene. I got out and then reloaded my 1911, looked for my missing knife, and then let my wife drive me home so she could go to the store. It disturbs me that cops even on here won't cross the Thin Blue Line and buddy up against the citizenry in cases like this.

No, I just find certain parts of your story "convenient," in regards to your position. You imply that you are being purposefully targeted by officers a department just shy of 300 officers... over the hospital thing?
You originally indicated that you stated to your wife, in a less than diplomatic way, not to give the officer her license... and then clarify that the words you implied you said, you didn't actually say.
When informed that the officer could tow your vehicle.... well now it's been parked legally, after turning down a side road.
Youre current status is suspended-infraction, meaning that you have a court date that you must show up for, or you will be DWS-Prior (a criminal offense), no mention of that is made at all. I would certainly be more PO'd about that, than a invalid registration citation, but there no reference to that at all.

Now, your story could be factual in all aspects, however, your delivery was something less than desired. If your going to recall an instance, it would help to be as thorough as possible, as when you make clarifications "after the fact," it weakens your original narrative.

The whole story was not given in the OP and that is why responses were given as they were.

Get your licensed squared away and this should not happen anymore.

 

[youngda9]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ense/149710-st_marys_is_not_gun_friendly.html

Since OC for the OP seems to cause some issues...any thoughts about covering it up? (I am all for OC...but it has found you in two difficult occourances lately that you've brought to our attention)

I bet the answer is no...but I got's to know.
A man's got to know his limitations. <--Dirty Harry reference

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Someone has to stick up for your rights, might as well be me wouldn't you agree?

BTW the St. Mary's incident I was CC, it was a wardrobe malfunction! LOL

 

[jmiller676]

Someone has to stick up for you...BTW it was a wardrobe malfunction! LOL

FIFY

 

[Rookie]

Someone has to stick up for your rights, might as well be me wouldn't you agree?

BTW the St. Mary's incident I was CC, it was a wardrobe malfunction! LOL

TF is Janet Jackson?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I know Ben and I take him at his word.

Thanks AJG357, I think those on here that know me personally would agree. The problem on here is twofold, I was/am angry and I don't type that great and I am sometimes on my phone so it is hard to convey the whole thing as accurately as I could explain it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

FIFY

TF is Janet Jackson?

LOL I guess that was a poor choice of words. Ok, it was a CC fail. Is that better?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

When someone asks for something that they do not have the legal authority to verify, it is only a request. If they do not have the authority to ask for that, how is denying them their request disrespectful? While I believe it is important to respect the authority of police officers, it is also important to respect the rights of citizens. Sadly, I believe many times, denying a request that they do not have legal authority to uphold will prompt the attitude "oh yeah, well then im gong to make this as hard as I can, to teach you a lesson". That, in my opinion, is not respecting the rights of citizens.

If appeasing someone who wants to make an illegal search is the better approach to take, then why do we even have that pesky fourth amendment? If you truly believe that not having anything to hide equates to complying with illegal searches / seizures, then you likely do not agree with the law. If you would like to attempt to change the law, it is an acceptable option - however when someone is acting within the confines of the law, that should not be held against them.

And if he was worried about his liability if she drove, he would have likely asserted that... unless that is left out, it sounds like he did not, and he let her drive away... I think that argument is REALLY reaching to create a reason to check the credentials of someone when the legal authority to do so does not exist.

All of those points aside, the officer had no right to disarm him and create a situation where he is unloading a firearm he is not familiar with. He can ask "do you have an LTCH", and when he shows it to him - that is that.