Cop search

[Bill of Rights]

Please, those of you who might be considering the idea of remembering the Washington v. IN, which in a nutshell says that officer safety doesn't satisfy being disarmed for a subject who is cooperating, or has been removed from the situation (i.e. gun in car, subject outside of car with no easy access and being cooperative), please don't forget that State v. Richardson is also important, if not moreso, because the court said that once a valid LTCH is presented (seems to apply immediately when you people keep handing it over with your DL), nothing else can be asked or required of you pertaining to your weapons.

Good point! Thanks for the clarification- I'd have likely quoted the wrong one (since, while I know I need to read them both, I've not yet found time to do so.)

Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DragonGunner]

IT DOES NOT SHOW UP WHEN WE RUN YOUR PLATE!

ACCORDING TO THE WARSAW POLICE IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SirRealism]

You won't find an officer in the world, with any common sense, that will allow you to clear your own weapon after requesting it be handed over.

I agree; there is no officer with common sense who would do this.

Last year, there were three IMPD officers who ordered three of us to unholster and unload our weapons in front of them... in a public space at lunchtime. This was for officer safety.

If an officer wants your firearm because he views you as a possible threat, the last thing he'll have you do is touch your weapon. When people are disarmed, an officer does the disarming, not the subject....ever.

Your forgot your caveat about "common sense" here.

 

[mcolford]

I am training with the FTO's at our department, and have ridden with a few different ones, and have asked each of them about disarming a person with an LTCH, and we all have agreed that it really isnt neccessary.

Personally, when making a stop, I would want to know, LTCH and the person pulled over telling me exactly where the firearm is, Im ok with that. No sudden movements, or irratical behavior leads me to not want to disarm a person who is legally ok to carry.

-MColford

 

[Mayday671]

IT DOES NOT SHOW UP WHEN WE RUN YOUR PLATE!

It does here locally.

 

[nate1865]

From my perspective the chances of an accidental or negligent discharge goes up astronomically when a nervous officer removes a loaded weapon with which they may be unfamiliar and attempts to unload it, put it down, then hand it back to someone when the stop is over.

Inevitably someone is going to get swept, whether it is the detainee or passers-by.

Seems it would be safer to leave it in the holster and ask someone to keep their hands on the wheel unless there were some other indicators that the speeder needed disarmed.

 

[E'villeGunner]

Thanks everyone I think I'll call tomorrow and infom the police department of the officers actions and of the Indiana case law WASHINGTON, vs. STATE OF INDIANA No. 49A02-0907-CR-649 and hope that it doesn't happen again. I told my wife not to show her LTCH unless they ask, but they always ask. It either shows up when they run the plate or it's the ingo sticker.

Those darn pesky INGO stickers!

 

[E'villeGunner]

IT DOES NOT SHOW UP WHEN WE RUN YOUR PLATE!

I've also heard the INGO stickers show up, too!

 

[rugertoter]

Ok my wife came home today with her 1st speeding ticket and she deserved it so we will pay it. She had her glock 26 so she gave the cop her lifetime gun permit with all the stuff you give a cop then the cop asked her to get out of the car and put her hands on the car takes the gun off of her and unloads it gave her the ticket and then her gun back unloded but I don't think he should have disarmed her. I don't know what to do but it's not the 1st time she has been disarmed by a cop and I'm geting sick of the cops in my area.

In Indiana, by law, you do not have to inform the LEO that you are armed.

 

[edporch]

He cannot disarm you without your permission. If you want to file a complaint, I'm pretty sure the ticket has his identifying details.

I know a judge personally that says the officer stopping you has the right to know of a gun within your reach when you're pulled over.
You're free to file a complaint, but I doubt it will go anywhere.

 

[NYFelon]

I know a judge personally that says the officer stopping you has the right to know of a gun within your reach when you're pulled over.
You're free to file a complaint, but I doubt it will go anywhere.

Does he offer any reasoning for that statement? Or some precedent causing it to be code? Or is it just a "protect our own" sort of thing?

 

[edporch]

Does he offer any reasoning for that statement? Or some precedent causing it to be code? Or is it just a "protect our own" sort of thing?

I didn't ask him to cite me the code.
He said it was for officer safety.
I'll add that this judge is NOT anti-gun either.

But let me add from the standpoint of somebody who's grandfather was a deputy sheriff who died from wounds received in a ambush gunfight.

When a cop pulls you over, he/she has no idea who you are, and until they run your license and check on you, you COULD be somebody that is a danger to them.
Just because you show them a Carry Permit doesn't change this.

I KNOW that nothing I say is gonna change anybody's mind, so just do what you think is right.

In the meantime, I think it[s reasonable for a cop that pulls me over to know if I have a handgun I could draw on him/her, until he/she's been able to see if I'm a danger to them.
Once the fact that I'm NOT a danger to them has been established I expect my gun to be returned to me.

 

[IndySSD]

Do you lavish praise on moms who don't beat their kids?

Yes, it's called mothers day.

Or pay compliments to the lawyers who adequately represented their clients?

Adequately? No, but when a lawyer steps up and admits that some of his colleagues bend the rules for their benefit, then yes, I would. Why? Because honest, ethical and moral lawyers are unfortunately hard to find these days.

There are a few we are lucky to have here on INGO who ARE those types of fellows. But I've had personal/family experiences with about 8 lawyers who weren't.

Do you pay your child an extra bit of allowance because he finally cleaned his room even though that's a regular chore expectation?

If a child exhibits good behavior on a regular basis and performs all chores as expected, why not reward good behavior? Why only punish if compliance is not maintained?

I'm not suggesting we don't acknowledge great LEOs. I'm simply saying that those who do exactly what they're supposed to do don't deserve high-fives because they look good in comparison to the d-bags who don't. The standard isn't set by the spectrum of existing behavior in which we compare everybody to the worst of the bunch. The standard is the expectation lawful behavior that should be met by LEO wearing a badge.

This isn't just about LEOs. Anybody that gets paid to do a job had damn well better do that job exactly as he's supposed to. That's the expectation. If he does more than expected or better than expected, sure, make note of it, praise him, reward him. But what does it say of the business if the one guy who does nothing more than the job description looks like employee of the year because every last one of his co-workers sucks at their job?

But unlike the fast food employee, a screw up by a LEO can ruin a man's life forever. So what if the burger flipper forgot my hash brown? I can choose not to give them my business in the future. What choice do I have when the unlawful actions of a LEO leaves me on a vent for the rest of my life? What compensation am I going to get from the city for the loss of my job because I was wrongfully arrested on trumped up charges because the LEO didn't like the fact that I didn't comply with his unlawful request?

Am I holding LEO to a higher standard in expecting every last one that wears a badge meets the job description exactly? You bet I am. Very few other people have the power and authority to ruin my life when they **** up.

I disagree, I feel as though positive reinforcement generally has a higher return on investment than negative only feedback.

While I agree people need to be internally motivated, it never hurts to get an unexpected Christmas bonus or to have your Quarterly productivity bonus in the back of your mind.

Just like I hope LEO think "Would I want someone treating my wife/husband the way I'm treating this person"?

 

[IndySSD]

You make good points. In answer, do I lavish praise on non-abusive moms? No, that, I don't. Do I pay compliments to adequate attorneys? No, but if one just got me off on one of those trumped up charges you mention, I'm darn sure going to thank him... probably profusely. As to the question about my kid, we let her know when she did wrong, but we also let her know when she did right, even if it took an act of God and Congress to get her to do it.

I do agree that the standard is not properly set by the existing spectrum but by the expectations on those in that spectrum. I expect nothing short of the best I have to give for any and every patient who is on my cot... but it's sure nice to hear an occasional "thank you" from someone who appreciates me doing what I can for them. If my boss asks me to clean out a truck that is being sold, I do it. At the same time, when he sees the job we did and praises it as a job well done, that gives me an incentive to continue doing well, rather than half-assing next time. The guy he replaced never praised. He had people who did what they had to to meet job requirements and no more. Same people, BTW.

I'd rather positively reinforce it when I see something I like than negatively reinforce things that don't meet standard. YMMV.

Blessings,
Bill

Sadly I must spread the rep around.......

 

[thompal]

Is it unlawful if you submit to being disarmed? I know there are other instances where the LE can ask you for I.D. or to do something, but you don't have to. If you then give it to him you can't cry that he violated your rights, because you gave them up willingly. Does the same apply for disarming people, or is it always considered unlawful if he can't articulate the reason, regardless of whether or not you consent to it?

If you consent, I would say that the officer has done nothing illegal. I would say it would be no different than if he asks if he can search your car, and you consent. He shouldn't ask, but if you give him permission, he's not doing an illegal search.

I don't see how there's much difference.

 

[rugertoter]

I didn't ask him to cite me the code.
He said it was for officer safety.
I'll add that this judge is NOT anti-gun either.

But let me add from the standpoint of somebody who's grandfather was a deputy sheriff who died from wounds received in a ambush gunfight.

When a cop pulls you over, he/she has no idea who you are, and until they run your license and check on you, you COULD be somebody that is a danger to them.
Just because you show them a Carry Permit doesn't change this.

I KNOW that nothing I say is gonna change anybody's mind, so just do what you think is right.

In the meantime, I think it[s reasonable for a cop that pulls me over to know if I have a handgun I could draw on him/her, until he/she's been able to see if I'm a danger to them.
Once the fact that I'm NOT a danger to them has been established I expect my gun to be returned to me.

Makes sense.

 

[thompal]

If they have a problem with you leaving it safely holstered, they'll probably have a bigger problem with you handling it.

It's just silliness.

Yes, they firmly believe that the ONLY person who can safely handle your firearm is the only person present who is not at all familiar with it.

That makes perfect sense.

Every reasonable officer I've talked to said that it is NOT something that is taught in training, so it must be something that the boneheads think up on their own.

 

[snowman46919]

lets see:

this thread again?

Don't you guys realize most people that get disarmed are carrying *kaboom* glocks they are doing you a favor.

oh and this thread again? much rep to kutnupe.

 

[thompal]

To me, it's simple. You have no business complaining if you willingly comply with any demand.

I've got to disagree with this.

If an officer orders you out of the car and onto the ground, and you comply, are you suggesting that you can't complain, simply because you complied?

I would say that at the point an officer "orders" you to the ground or out of the car, there are only two choices: comply, or be attacked. An officer isn't going to order you to do something, and merely say "oh, OK" when you refuse to comply.

What he orders you to do may be wrong and illegal, but it would seem that your only two choices are to comply or to fully resist.

 

[thompal]

lets see:

this thread again?

Don't you guys realize most people that get disarmed are carrying *kaboom* glocks they are doing you a favor.

True. In this case, the issue of officer safety would seem to dictate that the officer would hand his Glock to the citizen so the officer was safe in the case of a kaboom.