Cop search

[snowman46919]

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.

Deputies around my area have started carrying smiths and sigs which made me chuckle when a city detective came in with an itty bitty baby glock while I was eating lunch the other day.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Deputies around my area have started carrying smiths and sigs which made me chuckle when a city detective came in with an itty bitty baby glock while I was eating lunch the other day.

What's wrong with a baby glock?

<<<<<<<<<< G27

 

[snowman46919]

What's wrong with a baby glock?

<<<<<<<<<< G27

Nothing it was just comical at the time to see the county brownies come in with their up to date equipment and full size pistols and then to see what I am guessing had to be a detective with a full size radio from the 90s and a baby glock like they had issued him the bare minimum. guess you had to be there.

 

[ATM]

What's wrong with a baby glock?

Nothing, it's just not as easy to tell when they've gone KABOOM.

More like a squib round when they "blow up" - just a slight pop without much shrapnel or fanfare.

 

[Rookie]

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.

I agree. I meant request...

 

[FutureButterBar]

I ride my motorcycle with a firearm. Both times I have been pulled over, I have told the officer that I was carrying it and he removed it from my holster. The numbers were ran and then it was handed back to me. Both times I was allowed to rearm my weapon with the officer around me. I guess I don't really view this as an issue. I would be pissed if I was pulled out of my car and handcuffed for doing something I was legally allowed to do. Cops are pretty nice to me usually. I think it has somethign to do with the EGA on the back of my bike. But I'm glad there is talk about officers being officers of the law, and not the law.
One thing that makes me weary is the video of the kid gettign shot by an officer on his bike, becuase the officer just thought that he might have had a gun.

"you're badge is not a crown, and i'll never back down" -- cory smith

 

[Relatively Ninja]

*snip* State v. Richardson is also important, if not moreso, because the court said that once a valid LTCH is presented ... nothing else can be asked or required of you pertaining to your weapons.

Wait, what? I read the judiciary opinion of State v. Richardson (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf) and I don't think your interpretation is entirely correct. Unless I'm mistaken, you got hung up on the phrase "Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning".

Mr. Richardson was stopped by a police officer because she saw he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. An officer is allowed to stop someone who appears to not be wearing a seatbelt via the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. The Act doesn't allow an officer to use the seatbelt stop to conduct a search of the vehicle for illegal items/activities unless the officer has a reason to suspect illegal activity (such as the driver behaving oddly). When Mr. Richardson was stopped, he was immediately cooperative (read: not behaving oddly). The officer asked about a large and unusual bulge in Mr. Richardson's pants, which he told her was a handgun. He produced his LTCH (which was not expired) when asked for it and the officer asked him to step out of the car while she ran the license. The document states that "her personal routine was to perform a criminal background check on anyone with a handgun, regardless of the presence of a permit, so she radioed headquarters".

Now, it turns out Mr. Richardson had cocaine on his person and when he was being arrested he assaulted a police officer and tried to flee. But that is beside the point.

The court ruled that the officer should not have been allowed to ask Mr. Richardson about the bulge in his pants because it did not raise reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The decision also goes on to say that even if there was an acceptable reason for the officer to ask about the bulge, once Mr. Richardson produced a valid handgun license the encounter should have stopped. Basically, during a seatbelt stop, the police can't search you or your vehicle unless you are behaving suspiciously. If there is a valid reason for them to ask you about a bulge in your pants and you tell them its a gun, they cannot further question you after you produce your LTCH (provided that the only thing they were questioning you about was your gun).

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the case State v. Richardson is set during a setbelt stop, and the legislation which allows such a stop is a very tightly worded statute that limits what an officer may or may not do during the stop. If the presence of a weapon is the basis of the suspicion, producing a valid LTCH should alleviate the suspicion, thus ending the encounter. A traffic stop for speeding does not restrict an officer's actions as narrowly because speeding may be suspicious behavior in and of itself.

Here is a quote from the judiciary opinion of the case (they reference the precedent case Baldwin v. State of Indiana):

While Officer Eastwood did observe an “unusual bulge,” this fact standing alone did not provide the independent basis of reasonable suspicion that Baldwin requires, especially in light of Richardson's immediate compliance and Officer Eastwood's prior peaceful exchanges with Richardson. On these facts, we agree with the trial court that Officer Eastwood‟s questioning about the “unusual bulge” contravened the [Seatbelt Enforcement] Act. There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an “unusual bulge” will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. 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.

I did a little more research and found the officer (Tanya Eastwood) was involved in another incident a few years prior that involved a possibly unreasonable search. That case went to the Indiana Supreme Court as well (although the court determined that the search was in fact legal). Mark Clarke v. State of Indiana Does every police officer have a case go to the Supreme Court every three years? Seems like we should tell them what they are and aren't allowed to do. Maybe write it all down for them like a set of rules or something.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer or a cop, and this is merely my interpretation of the case. If you use this post as legal advice you're stupider than you look.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Does every police officer have a case go to the Supreme Court every three years?

No, they don't. I've never had a case go to the Supreme Court, or even be appealed for that matter.

 

[curraheeguns]

Does every police officer have a case go to the Supreme Court every three years?

I have had two appealed to the ISC in twelve years and I won them both!!

Here is one of them, I can't remember the name of the second one but it was tagged onto two other cases of exact facts and had to do with Luckett vs. Indiana (Carrying a Handgun w/o License).

Brenna Guy v. State of Indiana

 

[Hammerhead]

Relativity Ninja, please see this thread, starting at post #71 and beyond, where I not only point out how Richardson works, but am backed up by one of INGO's resident legal eagles.

Not only that, but in another discussion (read before and after this post) here amongst several of INGO's resident legal eagles, they all seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Officer Westwood had no PC after the LTCH was introduced to continue any questioning, removing Richardson from the vehicle, or searching his vehicle. This is because the legal carry of a firearm is not PC or evidence of a crime. She couldn't use a "bulge" he admitted was his firearm to further her fishing expedition. This is why the line about all questioning coming to a stop after LTCH presentation is so important. They also referred to Washington where the person was cooperating, and officer safety was not a factor after Washington was out of his vehicle and handcuffed, unable to reach the firearm or other items found during their illegal search.

It's not just because it was a seat belt stop that the further inquiry and illegal search was struck down. It was because he wasn't breaking any law. (Yes, I know he was carrying cocaine. She wouldn't have found that if she hadn't overstepped her bounds. I'm not saying carrying cocaine isn't illegal. I'm saying no one would have known.) I think you also have to consider other parts of the law as well, specifically that you only have to provide your LTCH when asked by a police officer. It's also the law that the LTCH is a defense of the charge of unlawfully carrying a firearm, and once that's produced (if you're in custody) you must be released and all record of arrest must be expunged permanently.

I'm not a lawyer, but when I have known lawyers agreeing with me, I tend to believe them. Basically, if you're cooperating, providing your LTCH, and not breaking any other ordinance, committing an infraction, or committing any other crime, all inquiry has to stop, and you can't be detained. Richardson reaffirms that.

 

[Relatively Ninja]

Hammerhead,

What's the matter, you couldn't argue with me one-on one? You had to go fetch your lawyer friends from other threads?

But in all seriousness, good point. There is quite a bit of interesting reading in those posts. Sorry if I came across as a little overbearing, I hadn't read far enough through either of those threads to find the good legal discussion that came up.

 

[j706]

No, they don't. I've never had a case go to the Supreme Court, or even be appealed for that matter.

No ISC cases for me. Had one appeal in federal court on a felon with a firearm charge...he lost and is now a guest in a Colorado Federal pen for the next 12 years. And it is straight time!!

 

[IndySSD]

I have had two appealed to the ISC in twelve years and I won them both!!

Here is one of them, I can't remember the name of the second one but it was tagged onto two other cases of exact facts and had to do with Luckett vs. Indiana (Carrying a Handgun w/o License).

Brenna Guy v. State of Indiana

Wait, you had a person try to refute a breathalyzer by saying they just had their tongue pierced?

 

[snowman46919]

Wait, you had a person try to refute a breathalyzer by saying they just had their tongue pierced?

The amount of alcohol used to sterilize when I got my tongue pierced was enough to numb my entire mouth. Doubt it is enough to fail a Breathalyzer but it wouldn't surprise me if it got you half way there.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Tongue piercing OWI was an actual Indiana Supreme Court case back in '05. Guy was the defendant's name; she was a waitress stopped downtown.

Converted file rts

 

[Bunnykid68]

The amount of alcohol used to sterilize when I got my tongue pierced was enough to numb my entire mouth. Doubt it is enough to fail a Breathalyzer but it wouldn't surprise me if it got you half way there.

You would be surprised. I blew a .10 once and I had only had 3.5 beers, but had just finished drinking one. Didn't matter either way, I was 20 and got checked by a loon here in Evansville. I was not driving, just walking.

 

[Glock22c]

OK... I've read till page 7 of these posts(I am sure I should have read it all 1st)
Seriously?
As a LEO myself you must remember this... I treat all people with respect, but also treat everyone as though they are armed (if not you should be!).
I would never ever ask another armed citizen to disarm themselves.

BUT when you reach for you registration and I see a gun that I wasn't told about... that makes for a very tense situation ...now that doesn't mean that you will have my gun screwed in your ear...but it will change that situation.
Let me again say that I would never ever disarm a licensed citezen!
In a "perfect world" and on a "perfect traffic stop" an armed citezen would, without removing there hands from the stearing wheel, just say "sir I am a have a CCW permit and I am armed." My reaction would not be to rip you out of your car and dissarm you! I would treat the stop in the same way as any others, with one exception... when I ask for your license and registration I would also ask for your CCW permit. That's IT!
I know there are bad apples and the "officer safety" is a poor excuse for poor preformance, but don't lump me or my fellow officers in with them please...
just my
I will probably get crucified for this... let's see

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In a "perfect world" and on a "perfect traffic stop" an armed citezen would, without removing there hands from the stearing wheel, just say "sir I am a have a CCW permit and I am armed."

As other can tell you that has not worked out so well for some of us wherein we saw the muzzles of our own guns.

Thanks for your experiences and opinions, Glock. Always good to hear from our INGO LEOs. Stay dry out there tonight!

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK... I've read till page 7 of these posts(I am sure I should have read it all 1st)
Seriously?
As a LEO myself you must remember this... I treat all people with respect, but also treat everyone as though they are armed (if not you should be!).
I would never ever ask another armed citizen to disarm themselves.

BUT when you reach for you registration and I see a gun that I wasn't told about... that makes for a very tense situation ...now that doesn't mean that you will have my gun screwed in your ear...but it will change that situation.
Let me again say that I would never ever disarm a licensed citezen!
In a "perfect world" and on a "perfect traffic stop" an armed citezen would, without removing there hands from the stearing wheel, just say "sir I am a have a CCW permit and I am armed." My reaction would not be to rip you out of your car and dissarm you! I would treat the stop in the same way as any others, with one exception... when I ask for your license and registration I would also ask for your CCW permit. That's IT!
I know there are bad apples and the "officer safety" is a poor excuse for poor preformance, but don't lump me or my fellow officers in with them please...
just my
I will probably get crucified for this... let's see

Not from me you won't. Rep added. (Of note, though... it's a LTCH. Indiana doesn't have a CCW. Yeah, I know you know that. I'm just saying it before anyone else does. )

Any idea how to convince more of your brothers and sisters in blue to do as you do? I think many would be far more willing to divulge if fewer LEOs pulled them out of cars and forcibly disarmed them.

As Kirk said, stay dry... I'll add a "Stay safe out there" to that.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[serpicostraight]

OK... I've read till page 7 of these posts(I am sure I should have read it all 1st)
Seriously?
As a LEO myself you must remember this... I treat all people with respect, but also treat everyone as though they are armed (if not you should be!).
I would never ever ask another armed citizen to disarm themselves.

BUT when you reach for you registration and I see a gun that I wasn't told about... that makes for a very tense situation ...now that doesn't mean that you will have my gun screwed in your ear...but it will change that situation.
Let me again say that I would never ever disarm a licensed citezen!
In a "perfect world" and on a "perfect traffic stop" an armed citezen would, without removing there hands from the stearing wheel, just say "sir I am a have a CCW permit and I am armed." My reaction would not be to rip you out of your car and dissarm you! I would treat the stop in the same way as any others, with one exception... when I ask for your license and registration I would also ask for your CCW permit. That's IT!
I know there are bad apples and the "officer safety" is a poor excuse for poor preformance, but don't lump me or my fellow officers in with them please...
just my
I will probably get crucified for this... let's see

if all leos acted the way you said you do or if they had name tags letting us know who was gonna be civil and who wasnt im sure more of us would tell leo when we are carrying.