Monroe County Sheriff R. Lutz -1

[Hammerhead]

I think the key word here isn't law, it's policy. It is a policy of the deputy in the OP that legal firearms carriers conceal. It may or may not be, and doesn't specifically have to be, a policy undertaken by the deputy's agency or the county of employ. If he is attempting to use his authority to demand, bully, intimidate, or coerce someone to follow his personal policy (as defined in the quoted law "exercise of proprietary authority") or his sheriff department's policy, then he is violating the law as defined in 35-47-11.

The deputy wasn't making a law, he was attempting to enforce an illegal policy under the authority of his badge. 35-47-11 doesn't only cover laws and local ordinances brought about by the political subdivision, it also covers any other wild hair that anyone attempting to abuse their authority as an employee in any capacity for any local political subdivision comes up with.

Case in point: I had a LEO ask me to cover my sidearm while I was walking around a local festival. I declined and the LEO "warned" me that they might get MWAG calls and I "might" get hassled because of it. I simply said, "Okay," and continued my walk. This LEO didn't demand that I cover, nor did they attempt to enforce any idea that I had to. To their credit, they dropped the topic and went back to whatever it was they were doing before they spoke to me.

I already talked to Guy about it. In this case, there wasn't a violation of 35-47-11, as they'd simply asked me to cover and suggested that not doing so might lead to more interactions. Honestly, it sounded like the LEO didn't want the hassle of tracking me down should there be a MWAG report. (No payday for me, darn.) There was no Donnie Baker moment about concealing, it was simply a request.

Unlike my encounter, however, the OP's was a demand to follow a policy not enforceable in any way, shape, or form as this would be a violation of 35-47-11, whether or not it was actually put in place by the political subdivision or not.

How's the OP to know if that county has told their deputies that only concealed is legal without an encounter such as this? Policies are not always written.

 

[Destro]

You are using law, policy, and rule interchangeably and they are not.

Please explain to me why the IC specifically states employees and agents of political subdivisions when you are saying they don't matter? Your arguments don't hold water and you don't back them up. Start citing some source besides your own convoluted ideas about law or I'm done wasting my time.

because some employees/"agents" (agent does notneed to be a person, it could be a private corp. such as one that runs ataxpayer funded airport or hospital) do have the power to create policy. A townmanager/airport manager/hospital corp. director, library director all have thepower to create policy. To what extent is obviously up to the legislative bodythat oversees them. If the county commissioners created a policy by theexecutive power they hold, and the officer enforced it then yes, it would besubject to preemption because it would be a policy that, unless subject tosomething like preemption, would be a valid policy.

It would be scary ifthis went to court based on your argument because it would set the precedentthat, unless subject to some type of preemption, any "policy" a beatcop comes up with is valid.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

because some employees/"agents" (agent does notneed to be a person, it could be a private corp. such as one that runs ataxpayer funded airport or hospital) do have the power to create policy. A townmanager/airport manager/hospital corp. director, library director all have thepower to create policy. To what extent is obviously up to the legislative bodythat oversees them. If the county commissioners created a policy by theexecutive power they hold, and the officer enforced it then yes, it would besubject to preemption because it would be a policy that, unless subject tosomething like preemption, would be a valid policy.

It would be scary ifthis went to court based on your argument because it would set the precedentthat, unless subject to some type of preemption, any "policy" a beatcop comes up with is valid.

The exact oppposite actually. It makes their actions enforcable by law regardless of their departments 'official stance' on the subject. How else could you prosecute or bring a civil suit against their actions if they are acting contrary to the law?

Don't forget I have a lawsuit going to trial in December based on the preemption statute and LEO conduct.

 

[jeremy]

I just want to know if Kick has OC'd yet...

 

[Destro]

The exact oppposite actually. It makes their actions enforcable by law regardless of their departments 'official stance' on the subject. How else could you prosecute or bring a civil suit against their actions if they are acting contrary to the law?

Don't forget I have a lawsuit going to trial in December based on the preemption statute and LEO conduct.

you would need to use another statute other than one that relates only to units of government

 

[Titanium_Frost]

you would need to use another statute other than one that relates only to units of government

Really? Wow. I guess I better go tell that to Guy Relford then since he obviously doesn't know anything about gun laws in Indiana.

And I guess I better go tell Jim Tomes that his bill is worthless since it doesn't actually do anything he meant for it to do.

You see I have a lot more experience here than you, I know the people behind this law and I have talked to several lawyers about it. You are wrong, you have nothing to back up your points and you can't bear to admit it.

 

[japartridge]

Another non-update update.

So I called the MCSD at approx 1425, asked to speak to Deputy Pershing concerning my recent officer complaint. I was once again transfered to his voice mail, where I once again left a message stating my name, work and cell numbers, and my email address asking for a status update on my complaint. I have a feeling I'm going to be calling their office a lot in the next week!

To this point, I must say that I am less than impressed with the handling of complaints by the Monroe County Sheriff's Department.

I believe I will try and make another call before 1600 today to attempt contact once again.

I'll update again once I have called.

 

[Bill B]

So I called the MCSD at approx 1425, asked to speak to Deputy Pershing concerning my recent officer complaint. I was once again transfered to his voice mail, where I once again left a message stating my name, work and cell numbers, and my email address asking for a status update on my complaint. I have a feeling I'm going to be calling their office a lot in the next week!

To this point, I must say that I am less than impressed with the handling of complaints by the Monroe County Sheriff's Department.

I believe I will try and make another call before 1600 today to attempt contact once again.

I'll update again once I have called.

Two words: Registered Mail.

 

[japartridge]

Two words: Registered Mail.

hmmm, hadn't thought of that... I'll consider that over the weekend.


Thanks for the idea Bill!

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

You could also ask for Deputy Pershing's supervisor. Then when you get Deputy Supervisor's voice mail a few thimes with no return call you can ask for Deputy Supervisor's supervisor and then when you get Deputy Supervisor's Supervisor's voice mail a few times with no call back...nevermind.

 

[goinggreyfast]

We need email addresses... Mass mailings? I think so!

 

[KLB]

Ask to talk to the Sheriff

 

[looney2ns]

Stop using the phone, drive to the office for a face to face with the Sheriff.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Stop using the phone, drive to the office for a face to face with the Sheriff.

Always OC and DEMAND satisfaction too....

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

Always OC and DEMAND satisfaction too....

 

[sharkey]

 

[Annie Oakley]

Pershing is the Chief Deputy.....he is next in line after the Sheriff. There is no policy at the MCSD that directs anyone to try to make people CC.

 

[SideArmed]

Pershing is the Chief Deputy.....he is next in line after the Sheriff. There is no policy at the MCSD that directs anyone to try to make people CC.

Annie, you seem to be pretty familiar with the goings on of the MCSD, so do you know if they have copies available of their official departmental policies? Or perhaps on file at the library, or on request at the clerks office or something.

I suppose a FOIA request could always be filed if they don't have it readily available to the public.

Thanks

 

[G-Niner]

I think FOIA only applies to federal agencies.

 

[Bill B]

I think FOIA only applies to federal agencies.

Indiana has an open records law, they would have to provide them if requested, but they can charge you...