ISP pulled over and Disarmed

[sig-guy]

You say the pistol was loaded. People's understanding of this varies. The mag was loaded, but was the pistol chambered? Since it wasn't holstered, I'm assuming it wasn't chambered laying loose in the glove box?

 

[Roadie]

 

[IndyGal65]

Use it or don't. No skin off my nose. Keep papers with guns in compartments where you don't want to give implied consent to search, have them removed, muzzle swept your body by Officer-I-check-all-firearms-in-case-their-stolen, etc...if that's what you want to do. I want to get him/her in and out of my day as quickly as possible with as little extra-curricular activity as possible. YMMV.

 

[cobber]

Never keep a gun in your glovebox is my reply. Do yourself a favor and you drive next time.

Or your weed, for that matter.

 

[churchmouse]

You say the pistol was loaded. People's understanding of this varies. The mag was loaded, but was the pistol chambered? Since it wasn't holstered, I'm assuming it wasn't chambered laying loose in the glove box?

That is the fail I see in this. Loose loaded gun.......

 

[STEEL CORE]

Officer Safety, let it go, now if all things considered didn't check out................then you would have had some fun.

 

[VUPDblue]

I'm confused. Are you saying you don't run guns in normal stops? Reading between the lines do you just run those that you find in "interesting" situations where you have PC to believe that all isn't above board?

pretty much

 

[SteveM4A1]

Those were my thoughts too. 1) I thought when a LEO ran a plate in Indiana it would show if the owner had a LTCH. If the owner of the piece had a valid license to carry then no further action should be justified. 2) The driver was being thoughtful/cautious in informing LE that there was a firearm in the glove box with the registration so don't freak out. 3) If the officer had taken control of the pistol in the interest of "Officer safety" that could be understood but not to just run it for a stolen gun check.

Why would that be ok? The presence of a firearm alone is not enough to seize property under the guise of officer safety.

 

[eachitandi]

I would add the LAWFUL possession of a firearm...

 

[SteveM4A1]

I would add the LAWFUL possession of a firearm...

No, I wouldn't. The presence of a firearm alone is not enough. Now, if the individual in possession of the firearm is not a proper person, or there is some other evidence that the individual is dangerous, ok. You are assumed to be lawful in your possession unless there is RAS that points otherwise. In terms of carrying a handgun, obviously this is different since we have larrys.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm late to the party.

OP, is your friend still carrying a gun in the glove box with the registration? If so, why?

Carry the gun separate from the registration. That way if you get stopped, you just give the officer the registration and shut up about guns. I have been stopped more than a few times for speeding (last time- 8 days ago) NEVER have I been asked about a gun and your friend wasn't either. Why start the GUN conversation if you don't have to?

If you think the officer was wrong, complain to his supervisor, but think about this- what is your end game? What is you goal? Have one. If you don't, move on.

 

[chipbennett]

Where's Kirk?

Scope of the consent was to retrieve registration. Not to touch gun, move gun or even look at serial number. No PC to search car. Arguably no RS. No crime charged w/ re to the gun, so no suppression issue.

The mere presence of a gun does not give PC to search. All the more so since the driver was licensed to carry, therefore can carry a gun in the vehicle. Why the trooper would think the gun was possibly stolen in this scenario is beyond me. Did he let you run his firearm's SN? It too could have been stolen.

But w/o consent to coonfinger, I would say trooper exceeded his authority. I would file a complaint. But you'll probably get no satisfaction.

This is exactly what I'm thinking as well. Consent was given to retrieve the vehicle registration. Consent was not given to search and/or seize any property. While an officer can "search" with his eyes anything he sees, the mere sight/presence of a firearm does not constitute RAS that the firearm is possessed illegally, especially when the driver has and produces an LTCH.

But, IANAL, and I don't know what kind of twisted case law might be out there that "justifies" a seizurer such as this one.

 

[Denny347]

The problem we have right now is that there is no clear case law regarding this specific situation and for some reason this gets passed down from training officer to rookie. I really wish there would be an arrest from one of these that ends up in court. It is the only way this gets put to bed for good. Just like Phylo, I was trained to do this back in 1997 when I started as a police officer. It was not until a few years later that I decided this was not needed.

 

[buckstopshere]

Im no layer, but this is my opinion as well. Generally, I try to be agreeable when dealing with police, but I DO NOT OFFER THEM ANYTHING
Any time you interact with them, it is their job to look for anything that may be a reason to dig deeper. The more opportunity they are given, the deeper they will dig.bakn

Of course, I am speaking in general terms, as there are always going to be officers that couldnt care less about digging any deeper than is required to issue the ticket, and more on. But then, there are also those that look for the worlds larges Heroin trafficking, child smuggling bank robbery ring bust in history at every terry stop.

I find it best to not chum for sharks until I am out of the water.

subliminal bacon makes me want bacon

 

[eachitandi]

No, I wouldn't. The presence of a firearm alone is not enough. Now, if the individual in possession of the firearm is not a proper person, or there is some other evidence that the individual is dangerous, ok. You are assumed to be lawful in your possession unless there is RAS that points otherwise. In terms of carrying a handgun, obviously this is different since we have larrys.

Possession of a handgun is illegal unless you have a license (with the exception of being on your own private property, or other private property that you have permission to be armed on). You are obligated to provide proof that you are a "proper person" by presenting your little pink card. If you don't have one, you have committed a crime to which you will be arrested and you handgun seized as evidence.
What your talking about is the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said LAWFUL possession of a handgun is not sufficient in and of itself to deem someone dangerous...

 

[chipbennett]

Possession of a handgun is illegal unless you have a license (with the exception of being on your own private property, or other private property that you have permission to be armed on). You are obligated to provide proof that you are a "proper person" by presenting your little pink card. If you don't have one, you have committed a crime to which you will be arrested and you handgun seized as evidence.
What your talking about is the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said LAWFUL possession of a handgun is not sufficient in and of itself to deem someone dangerous...

But even in the case of unlawful possession, that does not constitute RAS that the firearm was *stolen*. One does not need an LTCH to purchase a firearm in Indiana.

 

[eachitandi]

But even in the case of unlawful possession, that does not constitute RAS that the firearm was *stolen*. One does not need an LTCH to purchase a firearm in Indiana.

The unlawful possession will open the door for further investigation.
And I don't believe I said a LTCH was needed to purchase a handgun in Indiana, but Indiana Code specifies how said handgun is to be secured in your vehicle if you DON'T have a LTCH...which is NOT loaded, and unholstered in your glove box.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I would add the LAWFUL possession of a firearm...

No, I wouldn't. The presence of a firearm alone is not enough. Now, if the individual in possession of the firearm is not a proper person, or there is some other evidence that the individual is dangerous, ok. You are assumed to be lawful in your possession unless there is RAS that points otherwise.

Then I stated...

In terms of carrying a handgun, obviously this is different since we have larrys.

 

[chipbennett]

The unlawful possession will open the door for further investigation.
And I don't believe I said a LTCH was needed to purchase a handgun in Indiana, but Indiana Code specifies how said handgun is to be secured in your vehicle if you DON'T have a LTCH...which is NOT loaded, and unholstered in your glove box.

Improperly securing a firearm in your vehicle without an LTCH is not RAS that the improperly secured firearm is stolen.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Possession of a handgun is illegal unless you have a license (with the exception of being on your own private property, or other private property that you have permission to be armed on). You are obligated to provide proof that you are a "proper person" by presenting your little pink card. If you don't have one, you have committed a crime to which you will be arrested and you handgun seized as evidence.
What your talking about is the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said LAWFUL possession of a handgun is not sufficient in and of itself to deem someone dangerous...

Actually, no, you don't have to show the little pink card, you just have to have been issued one to carry the handgun loaded. If it is unloaded (and there's no way for the officer to know that just by seeing it there) and "cased" (I could be wrong, but I think the glovebox qualifies in this context), you may have it in your vehicle without a LTCH. There may be a requirement that it not be accessible by those in the car as well, but if so, I'm not sure of that and too lazy to look up the cite right now.

All of that said, wasn't it Washington v. State that was decided such that the possession of a LTCH ended the discussion of the gun(s)? I know there were two cases right about that time and I also concur that the officer a) knew the driver had his LTCH, b) did not know whether the gun was loaded or not (immaterial at that point,) and c) had no consent to search or to seize any property.

I don't know that I'd complain. I might, given the muzzle sweep of my friend; that would certainly be a motivating factor for me. I would not take it to a court case, but rather to the post commander of the ISP post, with the goal in mind of the troopers being reminded that absent RAS of a crime, they cannot lawfully do what this officer did. Further, as a LEO, the reasonable, prudent officer with the same training and experience would know that doing what this one did was not within the bounds of the law, and thus, his action was knowledgeable, willful, and intentional. Were we to violate an act of law with any one, let alone all, of those modifiers, the officer would surely have arrested any of us, and none, I think, would argue that they are permitted to be "above the law".
I would seek no money, as I was out none for the mere action of the unlawful seizure, but seeking to improve training so no one else was put at risk or, God forbid, injured as a result of a muzzle sweep, or had their property unlawfully seized, even briefly.



Blessings,
Bill