Indiana Court of Appeals and Handgun Possession

[Bill of Rights]

Didn't you ask him the obvious follow up... "so your plan is to lie your way to reasonable articulate suspicion?"

Exactly my thought. "Oh, I see. Yeah, I suppose perjury is always an option. Better hope they don't have audio or video recording."

ETA: I would also expect that a judge or just about any good attorney would follow that with, "Define 'suspiciously'. What was the subject doing that you're defining as suspicious."

"I see. And your body cam or dash cam shows this activity, right? Ah... I see. It 'malfunctioned'."

I'd suspect that an "officer" who would do something like this and brag about it, showing premeditation, would likely have a history of similar "malfunctions" as well.

This is the kind of LEO who gives the good ones a bad name. And yes, I'd be getting in touch with his Chief to get him tuned up.

Doug, this guy deserves to be immortalized along with Officer Maxey of SBPD and Lee Paige of the DEA. Let's ensure that he's known for his views, and his cases appropriately tainted.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[tbhausen]

Very well said, BOR.

 

[cbhausen]

Us:

View attachment 55631

The Antis:

View attachment 55632

 

[chipbennett]

I brought up our victory to an instructor at IvyTech tonight who is a career LE. He explained that he is a great writer and all he has to articulate is, "...suspect was acting suspiciously..." and VOILA! Pinner case law sidestepped.

How easy or difficult will this potential dodge work?

Doug

IANAL, but "acting suspiciously" does not meet the standard of "particularized" required by Pinner, nor does it meet the standard of "specific and articulable" required by Terry.

I bet this Hemingway wannabe thinks he's being clever when he uses the adjective furtive.

 

[myhightechsec]

I have been "falsely" asserting this for years. I'm glad someone else was the test case.

Yes, you did. And I spent many pixels explaining why you were wrong based upon the plain reading of the Indiana law. I am pleased that the highest court ruled in your direction instead of mine because I really didn't like the position that I thought the law was putting me into.

 

[Roadie]

Supreme Court: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License | 93.1 WIBC

Give your Instructor the link to Guy's ^article^, the "acting suspiciously"part was addressed in the Ruling, if I am reading it correctly..

I brought up our victory to an instructor at IvyTech tonight who is a career LE. He explained that he is a great writer and all he has to articulate is, "...suspect was acting suspiciously..." and VOILA! Pinner case law sidestepped.

How easy or difficult will this potential dodge work?

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

I brought up our victory to an instructor at IvyTech tonight who is a career LE. He explained that he is a great writer and all he has to articulate is, "...suspect was acting suspiciously..." and VOILA! Pinner case law sidestepped.

How easy or difficult will this potential dodge work?

Doug

IANAL, but "acting suspiciously" does not meet the standard of "particularized" required by Pinner, nor does it meet the standard of "specific and articulable" required by Terry.

I bet this Hemingway wannabe thinks he's being clever when he uses the adjective furtive.

Yeah, there's a bunch of caselaw on what RAS is and what it is not. Of course, in the ebb and flow of human interactions, it is almost a case by case basis. There are no magic words like "furtive." An officer will be expected to describe what specific gestures were considered "furtive." At least, that's how its supposed to work. (There's no accounting for sloppy attorneys and/or judges who might make bad rulings.)

An officer must be able to articulate what was suspicious and those facts need to be reasonable. Almost like the term, reasonable articulable suspicion.

 

[JTScribe]

Indiana Sheriff's Association hardest hit.

 

[HoughMade]

Call me crazy, but I would think that a reasonably articulable suspicion would require you to...ya know....articulate what made you suspicious.

"Acting suspiciously" would not seem to be enough.

In other words, what T.Lex said.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Call me crazy, but I would think that a reasonably articulable suspicion would require you to...ya know....articulate what made you suspicious.

"Acting suspiciously" would not seem to be enough.

Yeah, one would think that, but in practice . . .

 

[T.Lex]

Call me crazy, but I would think that a reasonably articulable suspicion would require you to...ya know....articulate what made you suspicious.

"Acting suspiciously" would not seem to be enough.

In other words, what T.Lex said.

Indeed, I have said many suspicious things.

 

[Fargo]

I brought up our victory to an instructor at IvyTech tonight who is a career LE. He explained that he is a great writer and all he has to articulate is, "...suspect was acting suspiciously..." and VOILA! Pinner case law sidestepped.

How easy or difficult will this potential dodge work?

Doug

The short answer, is that it doesn't work. There has to be a reasonable suspicion of a CRIME/INFRACTION to justify a Terry stop.



Just for kicks here is a fun little experiment for you if you want. Next time you see him, bring up in passing the screening process/decisions of his county prosecutor's office and see if he is complementary or uncomplimentary to them. They are the ones who have a screen these superbly written PCAs and decide whether to file them or not...

 

[T.Lex]

I know people that've done screening in Marion county.

The stories are funny, in a sardonic, gallows-humor way.

 

[Libertarian01]

Regarding the instructors response I believe he was being a bit sarcastic and trying to illustrate in a somewhat snotty way how the courts can rule what the want, the legislature can make laws, but there is a large grey area on what a LEO can do that is legal v/s a clear crossing of the line. The problem is that the line is often blurred or wavy.

Just like with the Prouse ruling you can't stop a car just to check the drivers license, but an officer does have some wiggle room on pulling over whomever he/she wants due to some minor infraction. Just like Det G Bruch said in the "Don't Talk to the Police" video he could follow someone long enough and he will find a legitimate reason pull them over. We all make mistakes when driving.

At the same time a guy just walking down the road with a sidearm "looking around" could be seen by a LEO as someone "casing the area" and we may(?) have reasonable suspicion to approach for Terry/interaction.

From what others on here seem to think this "...acting suspiciously..." may be legitimate and work sometimes, however it will not be a very usable smokescreen when Officer Umptyscrunch tries to use it in a real court of law facing a real attorney, or with witnesses and/or video.

We all know that watching idiot criminals LEO's can get away with a lot of crap that they wouldn't when facing a more educated and uncowed civilian. The sad truth is that the poor and uneducated can be taken advantage of by credit collectors, LE, employers, the court system, etc as they don't know their rights or have the resources to fight back as would someone with resources and money.

As to why I wasn't more combative I just didn't feel like it. I was trying to study for my final in Intro to Criminology and made some small talk with the guy who was just visiting. I didn't have the time or energy to get into a debate on the unethical use of perjury just to harass a law abiding citizen. I'll let Guy and Kirk make the big bucks doing that. However, IF I take a class of his I won't be so docile. I will be ready to have fun with him.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Indeed, I have said many suspicious things.

Well, if you are brown in Tippecanoe County, talking is enough. Or driving. Or walking down the street. Or being in your apartment. Or just the state of being brown.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, if you are brown in Tippecanoe County, talking is enough. Or driving. Or walking down the street. Or being in your apartment. Or just the state of being brown.

I do tan easily.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

My only question is how long this will take to get to the patrol officer level. That is, after all, where the tires meet the asphalt. Given the LE instructors response, this will get interesting and need to be tested pretty quickly, I bet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My only question is how long this will take to get to the patrol officer level. That is, after all, where the tires meet the asphalt. Given the LE instructors response, this will get interesting and need to be tested pretty quickly, I bet.

Fairly quick.

I believe this was already IMPD policy (circa NRAAM April '14). Larger departments do regular updates or at roll call.

Some PAs do memos to different departments in their county. If you live in a place like Newton County or say Pike County, then the PA will just tell the Sheriff or Town Marshall over his oatmeal or bacon and eggs at the local dinner.

 

[brotherbill3]

Fairly quick.

I believe this was already IMPD policy (circa NRAAM April '14). Larger departments do regular updates or at roll call.

Some PAs do memos to different departments in their county. If you live in a place like Newton or say Pike, then the PA will just tell the Sheriff or Town Marshall over his oatmeal or bacon and eggs at the local dinner.

YES on IMPD, Denny shared it a couple (few?) years ago - too busy to check exact year / post etc. but Google and INGO history will find it. some other depts. followed suit but I've not tracked it.

 

[brotherbill3]

AND

On a "Slightly More Relevant" note and return to the tracks:

There are a few "legislative council" interim committee that have been populate for the current "interim" session:

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/committees/interim

Nothing on our particular focus here - but stay tuned I suppose.