Gun Temporarily Confiscated to Check if Stolen

[Denny347]

So for arguments sake how would one check if a weapon was stolen? Is there some magic database out there?

None with public access. If you have reason, call an officer and we can run the numbers.

 

[VERT]

None with public access. If you have reason, call an officer and we can run the numbers.

One of my buddies used to do this for me but had to stop. His department them they could not do this anymore. Not sure why other then the maybe the officers are not supposed to run numbers on guns unless they have a reason to be in possession of the gun?

 

[Denny347]

One of my buddies used to do this for me but had to stop. His department them they could not do this anymore. Not sure why other then the maybe the officers are not supposed to run numbers on guns unless they have a reason to be in possession of the gun?

Hmmm, maybe a dept policy. My only caveat is that it goes with me if I get a stolen hit on it.

 

[Fedempl]

Woah woah, tap the breaks a bit. I'm not going around doing a "blind sample" of legal carriers. I'm called to a scene. One of the actors involved is a LTCH holder and is armed. I will only take control of the gun if the holder is involved in my scene. It is under that control that I run the numbers. So, while they are LTCH holders, it doesn't mean they are not knuckle heads who hang with shady people or decent people who hang with shady people. That is what's wrong with STATS. They are so easy to misinterpret. My 30-40% is of those people I have reason to remove their pistol. That is much different that 30-40% of ALL LTCHers.

Understand, but in your case based on the information concerning the scenes you respond to, you would have RS or even PC to seize the weapon and run the number. However, just on regular traffic stop depending on the stop (vehicle matching a description based on a crime) I see no RS/PC for the search of the vehicle without a warrant or permission. Especially, since the LEO should have already ran the license plate to see if the vehicle itself was stolen. Then there is the issue of the LEO running the DL and finding out the driver has an LTCH. Now what does the officer do, arrest the driver for lying when he first ask the driver and the driver said no weapons in the car.

See where this is going, one problem could lead to another.

 

[Fedempl]

Hmmm, maybe a dept policy. My only caveat is that it goes with me if I get a stolen hit on it.

At that point, I would not be happy, but understand. Then, I feel sorry for the for ******* that sold it to me.

 

[Classic]

AS I SAID!!!!! I"M NOT CONDONING THE TAKING OF THE PISTOL!!!!

I was ONLY commenting about the notion that a pistol carried by a LTCHer would obviously not stolen...that's untrue. Calling BS? I have no stats but I've found stolen guns on many LTCH holders. They ALL bought them from "friends of friends". Good Lord, lighten up Francis.

Francis? Really? I have worked enough around industrial problem solving not to trust anecdotal data like "often" and "frequently" that takes people (and sometimes society) down rat holes that don't fix anything. So "In God we trust, all others must bring data". I have a difficult time believing that LE doesn't have some statistical information reflecting the percentage of stolen firearms found in the possession of LTCH holders or the percentage of LTCH holders being found in possession of stolen guns. I have a feeling it is a tiny, tiny number, not many or frequently.

 

[Denny347]

Understand, but in your case based on the information concerning the scenes you respond to, you would have RS or even PC to seize the weapon and run the number. However, just on regular traffic stop depending on the stop (vehicle matching a description based on a crime) I see no RS/PC for the search of the vehicle without a warrant or permission. Especially, since the LEO should have already ran the license plate to see if the vehicle itself was stolen. Then there is the issue of the LEO running the DL and finding out the driver has an LTCH. Now what does the officer do, arrest the driver for lying when he first ask the driver and the driver said no weapons in the car.

See where this is going, one problem could lead to another.

Right, I agree with you. There are quite a few old treads where we talked about this in detail. I can tell you that this is a training issue. Recruits are getting trained to do this on all traffic stops. (not necessarily on our dept but we are just one in 100's in Indiana and most of them all get trained at ILEA in Plainfield). When they get some time under their belts (and they are halfway bright) they will understand who poses legit risks and who doesn't. 16yrs ago just out of the academy, I did this same thing on traffic stops. I was taught to and I didn't know any better. I didn't know JACK about guns before becoming a police officer, nor gun laws. EVERYTHING I have learned about guns/gunlaws was on my own time and on the job. We don't cover guns laws in the academy and it is not part of our yearly inservice training. Making mistakes and reading the IC code book is where I found my answers.

 

[Denny347]

Francis? Really? I have worked enough around industrial problem solving not to trust anecdotal data like "often" and "frequently" that takes people (and sometimes society) down rat holes that don't fix anything. So "In God we trust, all others must bring data". I have a difficult time believing that LE doesn't have some statistical information reflecting the percentage of stolen firearms found in the possession of LTCH holders or the percentage of LTCH holders being found in possession of stolen guns. I have a feeling it is a tiny, tiny number, not many or frequently.

Ha, we have trouble keeping accurate stats on homicides and we are REQUIRED by federal law to keep those. There is no way we would have an obscure stat about stolen guns taken from legal carriers. We can tell you how many stolen guns we recovered but that is as far as that stat goes.

 

[growler46901]

So out of all the stolen guns found on LTCH holders...what percentage were OC'ing vs CC'ing?

Growler

 

[CathyInBlue]

My buddies who are LEO both talk about finding "stolen" guns being carried by people who have LTCH. So I do believe that it happens and is probably more frequent then we care to admit. But there is no way to stop it from happening. Think about it, if you buy a used pistol at a gun shop it could still be a stolen gun. NICS is checking you not the gun. Maybe somebody will correct me but I don't think that the serial number of a firearm is checked against a database just because it gets traded or sold by a person with an FFL. There would be a record/receipt of the transaction.

I believe that that is exactly what happens with a pawned firearm. Anything the pawn clerk considers a possible stolen item, and all firearms, get run through the police as a matter of course.

Also, RAS requires a particularized suspicion, not a general suspicion. Saying, "every time I encountered a person who satisfied condition X, I found that they were committing crime Y" means bupkiss. It's a form of profiling. The LEO has to have a particularized, reasonable, articulable suspision that the person they're confronting at the moment has a firearm that is stolen to seize the firearm solely to satisfy that curiosity.

That being said, if Joe LTCH-Holder does something stupid that warrants arrest, anything that legally passes into the LEO's possession can be run. The real issue here is the firearm passing into the LEO's possession without RAS regarding the firearm and without PC for arrest. A ticketting for a simple infraction doesn't rise to the level of a blanket disarmament for officer safety.

 

[actaeon277]

Why not check the cell phone, laptop, mp3 player etc to see if they've been stolen?

And what does stolen have to do with officer safety?

 

[EAS]

Sounds not only unlawful but dangerous to not only you and your son but also to the officer. Eventually that kind of behavior will catch up to him one way or another.

 

[canav844]

I'm glad the OPs stop turned out as well as it did, this could have just as easily been an ND into the OP or the OP's Son's thigh, where the femoral artery resides. This could have just as easily ended in a funeral, because of unnecessary coonfingering, which was the OPs fault because he gave consent so the officer wasn't responsible for his ND.

So many freaking cops so scared of guns that they carry one every single day. 30-40% of these illegal seizures, end up in reports of officers sweeping the person they are disarming and violating one or often times more of the 4 basic don't be an idiot with guns rules.

Maybe next time you see him you should just walk up, take his gun and check to make sure the gun is clear before continuing on, he can reload it at any time after that. But wait taking someone else's gun without their permission, isn't there an IC about that, oh yes, battery. But in all fairness you should sweep the officer's partner with the gun to fully replicate the situation; but again that raises more ICs

IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation

...

(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:
(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; or
(2) hazing;
commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (c), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle;
(2) a Class D felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
(d) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; or
(2) performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person;
commits criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly weapon.

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2.

Oh but of course an illegal search is part of his duties.

Yet to get that firearm, by force in the presence of the OP then the officer would also be guilty of...

IC 35-42-5-1
Robbery
Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person:
(1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or
(2) by putting any person in fear;
commits robbery, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon or results in bodily injury to any person other than a defendant, and a Class A felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.
As added by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.39. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.34; P.L.186-1984, SEC.1.

Now wait if anyone else tried to take my gun from my person that would be a forcible felony, which would them mean that my appropriate response by law would include

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
....
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Because in order for it to be a legal seizure of your firearm... (cue rant about how an officer can decide what that law is and take the gun beyond what the IC permits)

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

...you'd have to be considered a dangerous person....

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

..and that would mean waiting at least 180 days before being able to petition to get it back.

IC 35-47-14-8
Petition for return of a firearm
Sec. 8. (a) At least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which a court orders a law enforcement agency to retain an individual's firearm under section 6(b) of this chapter, the individual may petition the court for return of the firearm.

Now this may seem like it's more of a rant, but frankly the police need to step up and police the other LEOs on this one, because it's playing russian roulette with what is at least 30-40% of the time a semiautomatic pistol, every single encounter that a loaded firearm is pulled off a person and pointed at the LTCHer or by standers or the officer (I've seen far to many pistols cleared by looking down the barrel to see if the chamber is empty). It may seem routine, and sure there is training on the mechanics of taking a firearm off of another person, but it's not the tossed out evidence or the lawsuit that's the problem, the issue comes when the this happens on camera to an otherwise innocent but guilty of having a pink piece of paper and maybe a few MPH over the limit person gets shot on camera and there's another Grant-Mehserle incident, or if the guilty officer involved is lucky a Seattle Sun Keewatinawin controversy.

And I really do think it's going to take an officer shooting an innocent person within the boarders of Indiana in order for there be real change about this. Not if, but when.

And situations like this are about the only argument for me that gives real credence to needing to carry in condition butterscotch. So when's the INGO OC education day? Amongst the roughly 31k members on this forum there's got to be the ability to carry enough firearms to make the McCordsville dispatcher give up running them all or crash IDACS. Clearly if actions are being condoned because they 30-40% of the time come up stolen from LTCHers then the McCordsville PD would be doing a great public service by getting all those illegal guns off the street.

 

[Spike_351]

Ha, we have trouble keeping accurate stats on homicides and we are REQUIRED by federal law to keep those. There is no way we would have an obscure stat about stolen guns taken from legal carriers. We can tell you how many stolen guns we recovered but that is as far as that stat goes.

I don't care how much flak you caught for it, I don't think its a bad idea to run the numbers on the firearm, while we here at ingo may be smart enough to check to see if a firearm is stolen, there are still many ltch holders that are not.

 

[VERT]

I don't care how much flak you caught for it, I don't think its a bad idea to run the numbers on the firearm, while we here at ingo may be smart enough to check to see if a firearm is stolen, there are still many ltch holders that are not.

Oh O!!!!! Ya in for it now!

Actually what Denny said is that he will run the numbers on guns that are legally in his possession. Basically somebody did something that the police needed to take temporary possession to secure the scene. This is different from an officers removing a safely holstered pistol and conducting a routine check.

 

[DFM914]

It was much more dangerous to "disarm" you, handling the loaded weapon in the car especially around a child. The LEO was am idiot in this case. He put you, your child and himself in harms way for no reason!

 

[KG1]

I don't care how much flak you caught for it, I don't think its a bad idea to run the numbers on the firearm, while we here at ingo may be smart enough to check to see if a firearm is stolen, there are still many ltch holders that are not.

So INGO members get an exemption from your firearm numbers run but all other LTCH holders should get the treatment. Got it.

Howbout we do this instead?

No disarming and numbers running for anyone legally able to own/carry a firearm unless the situation specifically warrants it? (i.e. clear and present danger)

Just for the record I do not think the OP's encounter would be classified as warranted.

 

[Spike_351]

So INGO members get an exemption from your firearm numbers run but all other LTCH holders should get the treatment. Got it.

Howbout we do this instead?

No disarming and numbers running for anyone legally able to own/carry a firearm unless the situation specifically warrants it? (i.e. clear and present danger)

Just for the record I do not think the OP's encounter would be classified as warranted.

not exactly what I meant. I think it is completely possible for a law abiding LTCH holder to purchase a stolen firearm unknowingly and carry it. So how about this, when they are caught with a stolen firearm (even though they didn't know it was stolen) we forget about cutting them any slack and start prosecuting them for receiving stolen property. Personally if my firearm is ever recovered I hope they press charges on the person possessing, I don't care if they knew it was stolen or not. The fact is it could happen to any one of us.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I love personal sales and believe they should be protected and kept legal, but this is one reason they do scare me.

Then don't EVER buy a used gun, even from a shop! Do you think the guns that gunshops buy and trade are checked before they are resold!

 

[billybob44]

Two sides to every story...

I know a couple McCordsville LEOs and they're definitely Pro 2A and gun people. How they perform their duties on a stop I have NO idea but as everyday Joes they're OK.

+1=The Ones that I know are higher on the "Food Chain" than this Officer.

This! I would contact the chief and politely express your dissatisfaction with an officer removing a safely holstered gun and pointing it at a minor. I would then offer to pay to send their officer to a hunters ed or NRA basic class.

I am SURE this is work in progress.?.?

You definitely need to have Guy on the case and you need to file a complaint with the chief.

If it were me, I would reverse the order of these actions.

One of my buddies used to do this for me but had to stop. His department them they could not do this anymore. Not sure why other then the maybe the officers are not supposed to run numbers on guns unless they have a reason to be in possession of the gun?

If this IS the case HERE, in this thread, then why does the McCordsville Officer have possession of the gun??

Right, I agree with you. There are quite a few old treads where we talked about this in detail. I can tell you that this is a training issue. Recruits are getting trained to do this on all traffic stops. (not necessarily on our dept but we are just one in 100's in Indiana and most of them all get trained at ILEA in Plainfield). When they get some time under their belts (and they are halfway bright) they will understand who poses legit risks and who doesn't. 16yrs ago just out of the academy, I did this same thing on traffic stops. I was taught to and I didn't know any better. I didn't know JACK about guns before becoming a police officer, nor gun laws. EVERYTHING I have learned about guns/gunlaws was on my own time and on the job. We don't cover guns laws in the academy and it is not part of our yearly inservice training. Making mistakes and reading the IC code book is where I found my answers.

Sounds like recruit training should be changed-for Citizens Rights+Safety.

Sounds not only unlawful but dangerous to not only you and your son but also to the officer. Eventually that kind of behavior will catch up to him one way or another.

Lets hope this is corrected BEFORE this happens.

Oh O!!!!! Ya in for it now!

Actually what Denny said is that he will run the numbers on guns that are legally in his possession. Basically somebody did something that the police needed to take temporary possession to secure the scene. This is different from an officers removing a safely holstered pistol and conducting a routine check.

^^^And we have a WINNER!!...Bill.