-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Indiana Court of Appeals and Handgun Possession
- Thread starter Roadie
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
A word of caution - still illegal to actually carry without a license, though.
Unresolved is whether an officer has RAS by asking if an observed firearm carrier has a license, but chooses not to answer. At a "common sense" level, it seems like it would be. There's a general sense, though, that refusing to answer an incriminating question, if not required to answer, shouldn't lead to RAS.
There are a multitude of interactions with officers where the carrier might be asked about whether they have a license. That context for that question will be the cause of many a suppression motion.
Unresolved is whether an officer has RAS by asking if an observed firearm carrier has a license, but chooses not to answer. At a "common sense" level, it seems like it would be. There's a general sense, though, that refusing to answer an incriminating question, if not required to answer, shouldn't lead to RAS.
There are a multitude of interactions with officers where the carrier might be asked about whether they have a license. That context for that question will be the cause of many a suppression motion.
How about, "Gee officer, I want to cooperate but refuse to answer any questions without my attorney being present. I want to leave now. Are you detaining me or am I free to go?"
It is my understanding that invoking your right(s) is not grounds for RAS?
If so, how would this response factor in?
Regards,
Doug
I think I prefer, "Have a wonderful day, Officer, and stay safe." And then leave. If you're not free to go, the officer will tell you. The default is that you ARE free unless told otherwise. Note that in no way am I suggesting anyone should disregard the lawful orders of a police officer. I see no reason to answer incriminating questions, even though I have my LTCH. I don't think that I obtain the right to remain silent only by being arrested.
Blessings,
Bill
Blessings,
Bill
this case further makes the argument for national reciprocity in my opinion.
also, to any nay sayers out there (I know there isnt many on this forum) this further supports a notion I believe in, which is that the law does not and cannot establish order in society and it is not the police's job to protect the public.
so can we now change LE's slogan from "protect and serve" to "enforce and serve"?
also, to any nay sayers out there (I know there isnt many on this forum) this further supports a notion I believe in, which is that the law does not and cannot establish order in society and it is not the police's job to protect the public.
so can we now change LE's slogan from "protect and serve" to "enforce and serve"?
Last edited:
Probably not. See, their job IS to protect and serve, but to do so to and for society as a whole, not any one individual.
I also have to disagree with you that law does, in fact, establish order in society. That there are those who violate that order and instead, substitute a level of chaos, is a given, but the order is still there. Just like rights, the order continues to exist, even if some violate it.
The argument over "national reciprocity" is best left to another thread.
Blessings,
Bill
I think maybe you are not in the thread you think you are.
Posting on the wrong thread? That's my job! Although in this case I think Pinner v State and Constitutional Carry in summer study are VERY much related.
brotherbill3
Master
I think maybe you are not in the thread you think you are.
DERP too many window - so bright ...bright light ... bright light ....
They are - and the other one is slightly off track - my bad and oops. that happens on the 5th monday in a row in a week.
cross posting to try to redirect the other one. LOLz. carry on.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
How so? It certainly helps with Indiana's push for constitutional carry (repeal of the LTCH requirement) by evaporating the Indiana Sheriffs Association public objection, but I am uncertain how this helps national reciprocity. Please elaborate.
by highlighting the parallels of a carry license and a driver's license.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Ok, I'm tracking. Driver's license recognition took an act of Congress.
National Center for Interstate Compacts Database
If you are saying that this is further ammo to lobby the Indiana delegation in Congress, I concur wholeheartedly.
Kirk, I thought that applied to all states? GA, ME, MI, TN, and WI are not listed. Whassupwiddat?
First, I haven't read this entire thread, just pieces of it, as it's now 30 pages long. Not surprising it has mushroomed to its size.
DISCLAIMER:
I am not an attorney. This is not to be considered legal advice or to be used in lieu of an attorney and his advice. It's my "take" on the ISC Pinner v State decision and its underlying SCOTUS Terry v Ohio (1968) decision as a casual observer. Use it at your own risk.
1. I had, on numerous occasions, as an Officer of the United States under Title 10, USC, (i.e. a Commission from the President), the requisite "knife and fork" schooling from JAG experts on how to properly authorize searches to be conducted by others, how to properly request authority to conduct a search, and how to properly conduct a search. Note: You cannot authorize yourself to conduct a search which would be acting as LE and Judge or Magistrate simultaneously; that is NOT allowed as it would circumvent judicial oversight of police power. We had to follow all the SCOTUS decisions by the letter, along with the US Military Court of Appeals decisions. I recall vividly, the training on Terry v. Ohio, 1968, a landmark SCOTUS decision, the origin of "Terry Stop". Just as vivid was training on Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, which everyone should recognize, and how reasonable suspicion, or reasonable cause to believe, and probable cause, all play in on Terry Stops, seizures, searches, etc. The military did not play fast and loose with this. If anything, it's tighter than the civilian courts which I've seen allow search warrants to go well beyond the scope of what they should have, in not only what they're searching for, but the specific area to be searched, simply because LE requested it. Military judges were not amenable to any shenanigans or even the hint of shenanigans regarding reasonable suspicion, probable cause, chain of custody, etc. They went by the numbers.
2. Those who haven't read the first part of the ISC Pinner v State decision, which gives a synopsis of the case and the events leading up to Pinner's arrest and conviction, should do so. Blogs and news outlets do not give much of the Back Story, which explains a lot about the ISC rationale in their decision to uphold the appellate court's split decision to reverse the conviction.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091701RR.pdf
3. Likewise, to understand a "Terry Stop" one should read the synopsis of Terry v Ohio that gives the back story, why the police stopped Terry, and ultimately arrested him. It reveals a lot about the SCOTUS decision. Then skim through their majority decision and its discussion. SCOTUS upheld Terry's conviction because they had, in the opinion of SCOTUS, a "reasonable suspicion" of a crime about to be committed. The LE officers could clearly articulate the type of crime they believed imminent and why they had that belief based on the behavior of Terry and his two accomplices. One might argue again that point given the circumstances and take the police officers to task about how they reached their conclusion a crime was very likely imminent; was the suspicion a reasonable one. Terry and one of his two accomplices were arrested for illegally concealed handguns when they were searched after being detained. While Terry v Ohio is very broad in its scope applicable to all LE stops, the parallel to Pinner v State is inescapable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Discussion about the ISC Pinner v State decision:
When I read the ISC synopsis of the relevant events that occurred leading to Pinner's arrest by IMPD, I knew immediately it did not pass the Terry Stop "smell test", or even come close to it. It was abundantly clear the taxi driver's "fear" was unreasonable. A reasonable and prudent person might have been briefly unnerved a little, but without any cause for continued fear, particularly as Pinner went about completing the business transaction with the taxi driver, paying his fare and leaving after picking up the gun that accidentally fell from his pocket. Furthermore, Pinner was minding his own business sitting on a bench inside the theater lobby when the two IMPD officers arrived. There was nothing in his interaction with the taxi driver, or in his behavior and demeanor inside the theater lobby, or his interaction (the lack thereof) with their employees or theater patrons that would give anyone any suspicion something nefarious was afoot. Indeed there was not. The dude just wanted to go see a movie with his main squeeze. That he didn't have a LTCH and was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm doesn't matter if there's no cause for reasonable suspicion, and therefore no cause for a search and seizure. In this case, the first "seizure" was the seizing of Pinner to detain while they investigated a possible crime, or imminent crime. The second seizure was the handgun found during their search of his person. The Terry Stop was unlawful on its face, and therefore anything arising from it, even indirectly, is "fruit of the forbidden tree" and cannot be used as evidence. They do not have to return his gun once they've confiscated it, but they cannot use the fact he was in possession of it as evidence of any crime in a court.
First Relevant Question: Was it a Terry Stop (i.e. was he detained and not allowed to leave)?
Answer: Yes.
This doesn't require LE to tell someone they cannot leave, nor does it require someone to ask if they can leave. It only requires LE to conduct themselves in a manner that effectively prevents someone from leaving. Pinner was sitting on a bench with its back to a wall. The two officers surrounded him in a manner that didn't allow him to stand up to leave. In short, they physically boxed him in and he'd have had to come into physical contact with them, or threaten it, in order to leave of his own volition. He'd have had to physically assault the officers in order to stand up and walk away. As soon as they surrounded him in that manner, it was a Terry Stop. Keep in mind, a person can be construed as voluntarily allowing LE to detain them if they have ample opportunity to leave and choose not to exercise it. LE is not obliged to tell someone they can leave. The appropriate action to take if you feel LE is setting you up for this and continuing to ask quesitons, is to decline answering them as you must leave to attend to other business. Make them tell you that you cannot depart, which then clearly makes it an involuntary Terry Stop in which you are now being detained and are in police custody (i.e. it's now a custodial interrogation), even if you're not in restraints (e.g. handcuffs). It removes all ambiguity and a possible LE argument you remained with them voluntarily. This is similar to voluntarily allowing searches that would otherwise require a search warrant. If voluntary, LE can then do just about anything they want to without any limits that a warrant from a judge or magistrate would provide on specifically what is to be sought and the physical limits or boundaries of the area to be searched. It can become a fishing expedition and it's why LE will nearly always ask for your permission to search.
Second Relevant Question: What led either of the officers to have a reasonable suspicion Pinner didn't have a LTCH?
Answer: Nothing.
Furthermore, given the circumstances and public venue, any effort to concoct something to justify reasonable suspicion would have, on its face, been absurd and obviously concocted. Don't understimate the ability of LE to concoct a "reasonable suspicion" justification for a Terry Stop, and I've seen a few that generate eyerolls as they're very thinly veiled, but apparently accepted as legitimate in some venues. The Terry decision lead to some LE using the defective tail light or license plate light as the Terry Stop "reasonable suspicion" and then conduct the search incident to seizure of the vehicle passenger compartment to "discover" what they were really looking for, which sometimes is very miraculously found in plain view. Be aware that this can get quite inventive and word gets around fast about what works. In order to do the search incident to seizure for weapons, they must also have a reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous.
Third Relevant Quesiton: What led either officer to have a reasonable suspicion Pinner had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime (other than not having a LTCH)?
Answer: Nothing.
Unlike Terry in Terry v Ohio, Pinner wasn't wandering up and down the street, or within the lobby, carefully observing activity there, or any other behavior a reasonable person would construe as "casing" the theater for a robbery. Indeed, his behavior in the taxi, outside the theater, and inside the theater was completely consistent with what you'd expect a patron of that theater to be doing. The only difference was a handgun accidentally falling out of Pinner's pocket and Pinner picking it up to put it back in his pocket. Completely reasonable. You wouldn't expect a person with a LTCH to abandon it there as if it didn't exist. That's the enormous difference between Terry v Ohio and Pinner v State. The IMPD officers had no factual basis whatsoever for forming a reasonable suspicion of anything.
Implications for LTCH:
All this decision does is clearly tell LE that simply possessing a handgun is not a reasonable suspicion the person doesn't have a LTCH, or that something nefarious is afoot. Handgun possession alone no longer justifies a Terry Stop in Indiana (it may be acceptable in other states). That some people carry handguns without a proper LTCH is insufficient. The majority do. The analogy is stopping drivers to see if they have a valid driver's license, which LE isn't allowed to do, solely because some drivers drive without one. The underlying common law is a basic presumption of innocence in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, a reasonable suspicion cannot be whatever is fancifully conceivable by a furtive imagination, it must be credible to be reasonable, and there's a very distinct difference between the "conceivable" and "credible". It's still a misdemeanor to carry a handgun in public without a LTCH. A Terry Stop isn't as high a bar to clear as some would think. "Reasonable Suspicion" used for detention in a Terry Stop is a lower bar than the "Probable Cause" required to make an arrest, or issue a warrant for an arrest. Inventive and imaginative LE can eventually justify one if they are truly motivated for some reason to do a Terry Stop that will hold up under scrutiny. The thought (a great fear in some minds) this decision grossly undermines the LTCH requirement, or that it effectively eliminates it, is unfounded. A Terry Stop, not for a handgun that isn't deeply concealed, but for some other acceptable reasonable suspicion of a crime, such as a Terry Stop for a jay-walking infraction, can easily justify it. If there's any partial handgun pattern remotely showing, even a lump that could be one, it can justify the search for LE self-protection. In the course of that, one would expect to be asked for the LTCH when the handgun is "discovered". The parallel analogy is asking for a driver's license and vehicle registration during a Terry Stop for a moving vehicle infraction which is legitimate. In other words, carrying a handgun in public without a valid LTCH is still risky. It invites a misdemeanor arrest and a conviction that will likely prevent ever getting one. The thought that this decision puts the Indiana LTCH on a clear path toward Constitutional Carry is a considerable stretch and overly wishful thinking.
Last but Not Least:
Invoking one's rights is not and cannot be used as reasonable suspicion to detain, nor is it probable cause to make an arrest. Simply lawyering up and invoking 5th Amendment refusal to answer questions cannot be used against you in any manner shape or form. If allowed, it would mean people could be punished with LE exacting retribution for asserting their rights. Be cautious about identifying who you are to LE. Refusing to answer that can get you arrested for a misdemeanor. "Stop and Identify" laws vary by state. During a Terry Stop in Indiana, if requested, you're required to give your correct name, the address where you reside, date of birth, and produce a driver's license (or the equivalent Indiana ID card) if it's in your possession. Motorized vehicle drivers are required to have one in their possession, but pedestrians and bicyclists are not. Don't lie about it. That's also a crime.
See IC 34-28-5-3 and 5-3.5 (scroll down to those sections)
Indiana Code 2016 - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session
An interesting piece of that law prohibits LE from demanding your phone during a Terry Stop to download information from it without a proper search warrant. Of course, they can still ask your permission, and if you grant it, that's voluntary and you've waived your rights.
Hope my take on the ISC decision helps others in their examination of what it means and what can be extrapolated from it.
John
DISCLAIMER:
I am not an attorney. This is not to be considered legal advice or to be used in lieu of an attorney and his advice. It's my "take" on the ISC Pinner v State decision and its underlying SCOTUS Terry v Ohio (1968) decision as a casual observer. Use it at your own risk.
1. I had, on numerous occasions, as an Officer of the United States under Title 10, USC, (i.e. a Commission from the President), the requisite "knife and fork" schooling from JAG experts on how to properly authorize searches to be conducted by others, how to properly request authority to conduct a search, and how to properly conduct a search. Note: You cannot authorize yourself to conduct a search which would be acting as LE and Judge or Magistrate simultaneously; that is NOT allowed as it would circumvent judicial oversight of police power. We had to follow all the SCOTUS decisions by the letter, along with the US Military Court of Appeals decisions. I recall vividly, the training on Terry v. Ohio, 1968, a landmark SCOTUS decision, the origin of "Terry Stop". Just as vivid was training on Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, which everyone should recognize, and how reasonable suspicion, or reasonable cause to believe, and probable cause, all play in on Terry Stops, seizures, searches, etc. The military did not play fast and loose with this. If anything, it's tighter than the civilian courts which I've seen allow search warrants to go well beyond the scope of what they should have, in not only what they're searching for, but the specific area to be searched, simply because LE requested it. Military judges were not amenable to any shenanigans or even the hint of shenanigans regarding reasonable suspicion, probable cause, chain of custody, etc. They went by the numbers.
2. Those who haven't read the first part of the ISC Pinner v State decision, which gives a synopsis of the case and the events leading up to Pinner's arrest and conviction, should do so. Blogs and news outlets do not give much of the Back Story, which explains a lot about the ISC rationale in their decision to uphold the appellate court's split decision to reverse the conviction.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091701RR.pdf
3. Likewise, to understand a "Terry Stop" one should read the synopsis of Terry v Ohio that gives the back story, why the police stopped Terry, and ultimately arrested him. It reveals a lot about the SCOTUS decision. Then skim through their majority decision and its discussion. SCOTUS upheld Terry's conviction because they had, in the opinion of SCOTUS, a "reasonable suspicion" of a crime about to be committed. The LE officers could clearly articulate the type of crime they believed imminent and why they had that belief based on the behavior of Terry and his two accomplices. One might argue again that point given the circumstances and take the police officers to task about how they reached their conclusion a crime was very likely imminent; was the suspicion a reasonable one. Terry and one of his two accomplices were arrested for illegally concealed handguns when they were searched after being detained. While Terry v Ohio is very broad in its scope applicable to all LE stops, the parallel to Pinner v State is inescapable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Discussion about the ISC Pinner v State decision:
When I read the ISC synopsis of the relevant events that occurred leading to Pinner's arrest by IMPD, I knew immediately it did not pass the Terry Stop "smell test", or even come close to it. It was abundantly clear the taxi driver's "fear" was unreasonable. A reasonable and prudent person might have been briefly unnerved a little, but without any cause for continued fear, particularly as Pinner went about completing the business transaction with the taxi driver, paying his fare and leaving after picking up the gun that accidentally fell from his pocket. Furthermore, Pinner was minding his own business sitting on a bench inside the theater lobby when the two IMPD officers arrived. There was nothing in his interaction with the taxi driver, or in his behavior and demeanor inside the theater lobby, or his interaction (the lack thereof) with their employees or theater patrons that would give anyone any suspicion something nefarious was afoot. Indeed there was not. The dude just wanted to go see a movie with his main squeeze. That he didn't have a LTCH and was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm doesn't matter if there's no cause for reasonable suspicion, and therefore no cause for a search and seizure. In this case, the first "seizure" was the seizing of Pinner to detain while they investigated a possible crime, or imminent crime. The second seizure was the handgun found during their search of his person. The Terry Stop was unlawful on its face, and therefore anything arising from it, even indirectly, is "fruit of the forbidden tree" and cannot be used as evidence. They do not have to return his gun once they've confiscated it, but they cannot use the fact he was in possession of it as evidence of any crime in a court.
First Relevant Question: Was it a Terry Stop (i.e. was he detained and not allowed to leave)?
Answer: Yes.
This doesn't require LE to tell someone they cannot leave, nor does it require someone to ask if they can leave. It only requires LE to conduct themselves in a manner that effectively prevents someone from leaving. Pinner was sitting on a bench with its back to a wall. The two officers surrounded him in a manner that didn't allow him to stand up to leave. In short, they physically boxed him in and he'd have had to come into physical contact with them, or threaten it, in order to leave of his own volition. He'd have had to physically assault the officers in order to stand up and walk away. As soon as they surrounded him in that manner, it was a Terry Stop. Keep in mind, a person can be construed as voluntarily allowing LE to detain them if they have ample opportunity to leave and choose not to exercise it. LE is not obliged to tell someone they can leave. The appropriate action to take if you feel LE is setting you up for this and continuing to ask quesitons, is to decline answering them as you must leave to attend to other business. Make them tell you that you cannot depart, which then clearly makes it an involuntary Terry Stop in which you are now being detained and are in police custody (i.e. it's now a custodial interrogation), even if you're not in restraints (e.g. handcuffs). It removes all ambiguity and a possible LE argument you remained with them voluntarily. This is similar to voluntarily allowing searches that would otherwise require a search warrant. If voluntary, LE can then do just about anything they want to without any limits that a warrant from a judge or magistrate would provide on specifically what is to be sought and the physical limits or boundaries of the area to be searched. It can become a fishing expedition and it's why LE will nearly always ask for your permission to search.
Second Relevant Question: What led either of the officers to have a reasonable suspicion Pinner didn't have a LTCH?
Answer: Nothing.
Furthermore, given the circumstances and public venue, any effort to concoct something to justify reasonable suspicion would have, on its face, been absurd and obviously concocted. Don't understimate the ability of LE to concoct a "reasonable suspicion" justification for a Terry Stop, and I've seen a few that generate eyerolls as they're very thinly veiled, but apparently accepted as legitimate in some venues. The Terry decision lead to some LE using the defective tail light or license plate light as the Terry Stop "reasonable suspicion" and then conduct the search incident to seizure of the vehicle passenger compartment to "discover" what they were really looking for, which sometimes is very miraculously found in plain view. Be aware that this can get quite inventive and word gets around fast about what works. In order to do the search incident to seizure for weapons, they must also have a reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous.
Third Relevant Quesiton: What led either officer to have a reasonable suspicion Pinner had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime (other than not having a LTCH)?
Answer: Nothing.
Unlike Terry in Terry v Ohio, Pinner wasn't wandering up and down the street, or within the lobby, carefully observing activity there, or any other behavior a reasonable person would construe as "casing" the theater for a robbery. Indeed, his behavior in the taxi, outside the theater, and inside the theater was completely consistent with what you'd expect a patron of that theater to be doing. The only difference was a handgun accidentally falling out of Pinner's pocket and Pinner picking it up to put it back in his pocket. Completely reasonable. You wouldn't expect a person with a LTCH to abandon it there as if it didn't exist. That's the enormous difference between Terry v Ohio and Pinner v State. The IMPD officers had no factual basis whatsoever for forming a reasonable suspicion of anything.
Implications for LTCH:
All this decision does is clearly tell LE that simply possessing a handgun is not a reasonable suspicion the person doesn't have a LTCH, or that something nefarious is afoot. Handgun possession alone no longer justifies a Terry Stop in Indiana (it may be acceptable in other states). That some people carry handguns without a proper LTCH is insufficient. The majority do. The analogy is stopping drivers to see if they have a valid driver's license, which LE isn't allowed to do, solely because some drivers drive without one. The underlying common law is a basic presumption of innocence in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, a reasonable suspicion cannot be whatever is fancifully conceivable by a furtive imagination, it must be credible to be reasonable, and there's a very distinct difference between the "conceivable" and "credible". It's still a misdemeanor to carry a handgun in public without a LTCH. A Terry Stop isn't as high a bar to clear as some would think. "Reasonable Suspicion" used for detention in a Terry Stop is a lower bar than the "Probable Cause" required to make an arrest, or issue a warrant for an arrest. Inventive and imaginative LE can eventually justify one if they are truly motivated for some reason to do a Terry Stop that will hold up under scrutiny. The thought (a great fear in some minds) this decision grossly undermines the LTCH requirement, or that it effectively eliminates it, is unfounded. A Terry Stop, not for a handgun that isn't deeply concealed, but for some other acceptable reasonable suspicion of a crime, such as a Terry Stop for a jay-walking infraction, can easily justify it. If there's any partial handgun pattern remotely showing, even a lump that could be one, it can justify the search for LE self-protection. In the course of that, one would expect to be asked for the LTCH when the handgun is "discovered". The parallel analogy is asking for a driver's license and vehicle registration during a Terry Stop for a moving vehicle infraction which is legitimate. In other words, carrying a handgun in public without a valid LTCH is still risky. It invites a misdemeanor arrest and a conviction that will likely prevent ever getting one. The thought that this decision puts the Indiana LTCH on a clear path toward Constitutional Carry is a considerable stretch and overly wishful thinking.
Last but Not Least:
Invoking one's rights is not and cannot be used as reasonable suspicion to detain, nor is it probable cause to make an arrest. Simply lawyering up and invoking 5th Amendment refusal to answer questions cannot be used against you in any manner shape or form. If allowed, it would mean people could be punished with LE exacting retribution for asserting their rights. Be cautious about identifying who you are to LE. Refusing to answer that can get you arrested for a misdemeanor. "Stop and Identify" laws vary by state. During a Terry Stop in Indiana, if requested, you're required to give your correct name, the address where you reside, date of birth, and produce a driver's license (or the equivalent Indiana ID card) if it's in your possession. Motorized vehicle drivers are required to have one in their possession, but pedestrians and bicyclists are not. Don't lie about it. That's also a crime.
See IC 34-28-5-3 and 5-3.5 (scroll down to those sections)
Indiana Code 2016 - Indiana General Assembly, 2017 Session
An interesting piece of that law prohibits LE from demanding your phone during a Terry Stop to download information from it without a proper search warrant. Of course, they can still ask your permission, and if you grant it, that's voluntary and you've waived your rights.
Hope my take on the ISC decision helps others in their examination of what it means and what can be extrapolated from it.
John
Last edited:
As a caveat, Indiana's refusal to identify law only applies to Terry stops for infractions or ordinance violations. It does not apply to stops for criminal violations.
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
Agreed.
It's to allow the officer to write the citation. Even if it weren't codified as a misdemeanor, someone refusing identifying information to enable writing a citation that releases them into their own custody would find themselves being arrested and hauled off for at least the infraction or ordinance violation at hand. Not a smart move.
John
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
All the hate... (Anti-Israel College Campus Activity)- Latest: Timjoebillybob
Staff online
-
mom45Momerator
Members online
- 9teen56f100
- DDadams
- cstoltie
- Jay40
- Snapdragon
- PowderApe
- Rafterman
- snorko
- hopper68
- Squid556
- swamptick
- Dlawson28
- indyblue
- user11230706
- mbkintner
- wesnellans
- joshuamckee
- ARxNut
- OD*
- DJM95B
- morve80
- crookcountygo
- Njorris
- yotehunt
- mmpsteve
- Tomahawkman
- bub74
- rdbs505
- 1775usmarine
- vzdude
- blain
- Okimeister
- spymaxx
- cbhausen
- Chippp1961
- jrb1980
- Machinist68
- SolidDragon74
- Midwestjimbo
- mom45
- mcoppers
- ROOTS54454
- SEIndSAM
- DestructionDan
- mgross28
- led4thehed2
- Pop2you
- 7920drew
- sadclownwp
- Bobby
