All things Richardson..

[rw496]

I thought I would start a new thread devoted entirely to the always debated State v. Richardson. This is to stop the inevitable hijacking of every thread related to being stopped and questioned by police. Also, I would like a central hub of opinions from all the INGO lawyers, LEO, etc.
Here is the link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ardson+seatbelt+enforcement&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15

I'll start:
This case deals with seatbelts.

 

[ATM]

This case also deals with "large, unusual bulges".

 

[Hammerhead]

You are correct. Richardson specifically deals with seat belts.

The court ruled that even if it hadn't been because of the seat belt act, that the production of a valid LTCH ends further questioning into firearms.

I believe that's where the problem lies. Richardson specifically was about a seat belt as that was the initial stop. However they state that in any other case, seat belt act notwithstanding, the valid LTCH ends it. People seem to think that means that Richardson ONLY states that when a seat belt act stop is made does this apply, and it simply isn't the case.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, the fact pattern involves seat belts, and so?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Yes, the fact pattern involves seat belts, and so?

Is it limited ONLY to cases where a seatbelt violation has occured?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is it limited ONLY to cases where a seatbelt violation has occured?

Man, really? I guess if a future Court of Appeals or Supreme Court wanted to squeeze it narrow like that, yeah, maybe, but that's not how I read it.

Seat belt was just the reason for the stop. Think about all the dozens of infractions that exist (speeding, turn signals, license plate lights, inter alia).

Think of the 3 Ss: STOP, SEARCH, SEIZURE (one after the other).

In this case the reasonable suspicion gets you the stop but the search is truncated because D had a valid LTCH.

Note that if the cop really wanted to get around Richardson, you just have to find a p.c. to search--dog, smell of pot, etc.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Man, really? I guess if a future Court of Appeals or Supreme Court wanted to squeeze it narrow like that, yeah, maybe, but that's not how I read it.

Seat belt was just the reason for the stop. Think about all the dozens of infractions that exist (speeding, turn signals, license plate lights, inter alia).

Think of the 3 Ss: STOP, SEARCH, SEIZURE (one after the other).

In this case the reasonable suspicion gets you the stop but the search is truncated because D had a valid LTCH.

Note that if the cop really wanted to get around Richardson, you just have to find a p.c. to search--dog, smell of pot, etc.

Thanks again Kirk!

So RW id this diffinitive enough for you? HH and I have been right the whole time and we don't even have shiny law degrees or polished badges!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I thought I would start a new thread devoted entirely to the always debated State v. Richardson. This is to stop the inevitable hijacking of every thread related to being stopped and questioned by police. Also, I would like a central hub of opinions from all the INGO lawyers, LEO, etc.
Here is the link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ardson+seatbelt+enforcement&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15

I'll start:
This case deals with seatbelts.

This thread was over before it started. But boiling it down like this gave us a pretty conclusive answer right off so I guess

 

[Hammerhead]

I think I might not have been clear enough.

Richardson's original case was that he'd been pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. The INSC agreed that the officer didn't have PC to inquire about the bulge because of the restrictions of the seat belt act.

However they also made sure to specifically state that even if the seat belt act hadn't been involved, that the valid LTCH ends further questioning into firearms.

Richardson's case, and only Richardson's case involves the seat belt act. This doesn't mean that any future interactions with LEOs and citizens that in order for a valid LTCH to be the end of questioning about firearms that a seat belt stop must have happened.

My question to those who continually argue that the ruling only involves seat belt stops, why after I've given you my valid verified LTCH would you need to be concerned with my sidearm? No, running the numbers doesn't count. No, you must be able to articulate that I'm a danger to disarm me.

 

[Hammerhead]

Kirk responded as I was retyping my answer, but can I say now that 4 of INGO's legal eagles have agreed with me?

How many more make a quorum?

 

[rw496]

Here is the part that people misunderstand: The Seatbelt Enforcement Act gave officers the authority to stop without reasonable suspicion or PC simply to determine if the driver was wearing a seatbelt. Absent any other RAS or PC developed after the stop, no questions of an investigative nature could be asked. That is why the questioning must end once the LTCH was shown. The courts, fearful of giving officer too much authority, severley restricted officer authority during seatbelt stops. That is why it is different than speeding, etc. In the case of speeding, the officer cacn ask anything he wants so long as he does not unnecessarliy lengthen the stop.

 

[thebishopp]

Several active Leos have already stated that their local prosecutors are advising them that it ONLY applies to seat belt stops. Until another case NOT involving a seat belt stop goes to trial AND the court ruling leaves no "wiggle room" they will still continue to train the officers in this manner.

 

[rw496]

Several active Leos have already stated that their local prosecutors are advising them that it ONLY applies to seat belt stops. Until another case NOT involving a seat belt stop goes to trial AND the court ruling leaves no "wiggle room" they will still continue to train the officers in this manner.

I knew you would show up here, and I know you asked the question before what makes it different than any other infraction. The difference is the seatbelt enforcement act that gives police the authority to stop without PC or RAS simply to determine compliance. In this case, the officer developed a suspicion after the stop of not having a LTCH. Once that suspicion is dispelled, no more questions of an investigative nature. The other cases mentioned in the opinion are cases involving seatbelts where RAS was developed independently after the stop and could properly continue until RAS is gone, then no more on that RAS.

 

[thebishopp]

I knew you would show up here, and I know you asked the question before what makes it different than any other infraction. The difference is the seatbelt enforcement act that gives police the authority to stop without PC or RAS simply to determine compliance. In this case, the officer developed a suspicion after the stop of not having a LTCH. Once that suspicion is dispelled, no more questions of an investigative nature. The other cases mentioned in the opinion are cases involving seatbelts where RAS was developed independently after the stop and could properly continue until RAS is gone, then no more on that RAS.

Not sure what you mean by "I knew you would show up here"... BUT...I think you are referring to the conversation on this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tops_and_asking_about_weapons_catch_22_a.html

I went back and reviewed it to see if I could get a better understanding of your position on this matter.

Based on this and your other posts I think the only matter we disagree on is that your stance is that the Justices were only talking about seat belt violations despite wording that, IMO, leads one to believe otherwise.

 

[rw496]

Not sure what you mean by "I knew you would show up here"... BUT...I think you are referring to the conversation on this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tops_and_asking_about_weapons_catch_22_a.html

I went back and reviewed it to see if I could get a better understanding of your position on this matter.

Based on this and your other posts I think the only matter we disagree on is that your stance is that the Justices were only talking about seat belt violations despite wording that, IMO, leads one to believe otherwise.

I knew you would show up here because during past discussions on Richardson you have asked legitimate questions that I don't think anyone ever answered. This case deals specifically with stops made for seatbelts, but the Justices line of thinking could be transferred to other cases regarding reasonable suspicion. During traffic stops for other infractions the length of detention is the issue; during seatbelt stops investigative behavior is the issue.

 

[thebishopp]

I knew you would show up here because during past discussions on Richardson you have asked legitimate questions that I don't think anyone ever answered. This case deals specifically with stops made for seatbelts, but the Justices line of thinking could be transferred to other cases regarding reasonable suspicion. During traffic stops for other infractions the length of detention is the issue; during seatbelt stops investigative behavior is the issue.

Ah thanks for clarifying. I got the feeling it was suspected I was trolling the Richardson threads or something

 

[rw496]

And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

This quote is from Richardson and is often interpreted as applying to all stops for all infractions. However, the proper questioning refers to proper under Baldwin and the other cases. Proper questioning would be that Officer Eastwood stopped the vehicle under the Act, independantly developed RAS of a crime and properly asked questions until her suspicion was dispelled, then no further questioning at all. Once the LTCH was produced, the suspicion was gone and justified no further intrusion.

 

[Hammerhead]

This quote is from Richardson and is often interpreted as applying to all stops for all infractions. However, the proper questioning refers to proper under Baldwin and the other cases. Proper questioning would be that Officer Eastwood stopped the vehicle under the Act, independantly developed RAS of a crime and properly asked questions until her suspicion was dispelled, then no further questioning at all. Once the LTCH was produced, the suspicion was gone and justified no further intrusion.

And tell me why, after you've been pulled over for any other infraction, that suspicion doesn't disappear once my valid verified LTCH is presented? Specifically due to the portion of the IC that states that the LTCH is a valid defense and any and all records of arrest are expunged once presented (should it get that far)?

Why would the presentation of a valid verified Larry not end the discussion into a firearm?

And why do you insist, after being told the correct information by several attorneys, that you're still right? I'm not being confrontational here, I'm seriously curious as to why, after the same conclusion by people who do this on a daily basis (LEOs do not deal with the law in the same way) people still don't believe?

 

[rw496]

And tell me why, after you've been pulled over for any other infraction, that suspicion doesn't disappear once my valid verified LTCH is presented? Specifically due to the portion of the IC that states that the LTCH is a valid defense and any and all records of arrest are expunged once presented (should it get that far)?

Well, the suspicion should disappear. The difference is that during a seatbelt stop I would be prohibited from asking any further questions about it, or any questions of an investigative nature. During a stop for any other infraction I could continue to ask anything I want so long as I was continuing the business of the stop (i.e. writing ticket, running license, etc.)

Why would the presentation of a valid verified Larry not end the discussion into a firearm?

It probably would, but in the case of seatbelts it has to end. In other cases it does not have to.

And why do you insist, after being told the correct information by several attorneys, that you're still right? I'm not being confrontational here, I'm seriously curious as to why, after the same conclusion by people who do this on a daily basis (LEOs do not deal with the law in the same way) people still don't believe?

1.)Never assume someone knows the law by virtue of being a lawyer (or cop)
2.) I probably know the law regarding vehicle stops better than most attorneys, at least in my experiences. I am a specialist in vehicle stops and that's it; lawyers deal with lots of different types of law. Even then, still just an opinion, an educated one but an opinion. Just as many lawyers have said its what I said, prosecutors count as lawyers.
3. All of them are welcome to review the last several posts and point out anything wrong..but they know I'm right

 

[rw496]

Kirk, show me some love here. You know I'm right. If not re-read it until I am.