open carry stopped by hobart pd while pumping gas

[cbhausen]

Somehow I get the feeling all of us who OC will be in the same situation someday... I hope we all conduct ourselves as well as the OP did. And may we all effect positive change (whether or not we get some of our tax money back in the process). I'm not for exorbitant settlements in cases like this, but the amount should be significant enough to leave a lasting impression on those who have to pay up.

 

[Gluemanz28]

I am surprised that wearing a hat backwards is within the dress code. This just goes to prove that 23 years on the job proves that experience doesn't always mean diddly squat. The dirty ammo remark was also a jab from a less than professional doofus.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Oh and sorry for the sideways idk how to fix it. I recorded it staight up and down.

It happens when the phone starts recording one direction, then is rotated. The orientation is set at the start, and cant change midstream during the video. (not sure why)

And good luck with your chat with the Chief. Hope this jackwagon gets schooled. (but I bet his boss(es) will incorrectly agree with them)

 

[Roadie]

That's just IMPD's opinion.....just their opinion.

A legally accurate opinion that is now their SOP..

 

[BravoMike]

With all of his years of experience behind him, did he remember to check for a concealed back up gun?

 

[bradmedic04]

In all seriousness, I agree in commending OP for his handling of the situation. It was graceful, calm, based in fact, and delivered without emotion. I'm going to guess he's thought through what to say in this situation before.

All of us should use this as food for thought. Had his reaction/behavior been different, this could have become an example of "look at the maniacs allowed to carry guns" for the media to trump up. While distribution of this is likely to remain limited (though I wish this were not the case), it should serve as an example of how to tactfully and effectively maintain oneself.

Good on you OP.

 

[jsharmon7]

Skipping to 3:41 in your video, you missed a PERFECT opportunity for this:

I dont think I'll let you arrest us today.wmv - YouTube

 

[JMoses]

A legally accurate opinion that is now their SOP..

It isn't INDIANA LAW, so other Indiana agencies don't have to follow it. So it's not even worth discussing if it's not happening inside the city limits of Indy, and even then, it's not worth discussing, any law enforcement officer can ask to see the LTCH when seeing an open carrier.

 

[Roadie]

With all of his years of experience behind him, did he remember to check for a concealed back up gun?

^THIS^

Never heard of any LEO doing this. In fact, another INGOer was once cuffed for OC with his hands behind his back, right next to his BUG that was in a back pocket.

 

[Roadie]

It isn't INDIANA LAW, so other Indiana agencies don't have to follow it. So it's not even worth discussing if it's not happening inside the city limits of Indy, and even then, it's not worth discussing.

Anything that protects our rights (and is based on IC) is worth discussing..
The IMPD procedure is BASED on "Indiana Law", Hobart PD is IN Indiana, so... yes, it is worth suggesting to another PD as a model.

 

[JMoses]

There is no law that says an officer can't ask for a LTCH.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Man kudos for you for being so calm!

 

[Roadie]

There is no law that says an officer can't ask for a LTCH.

..and your point? Did you even read the directive? Here, allow me..

Officers confront armed persons on a daily basis. The most important mission for officers is the
preservation of life. Officers should remember to use good officer safety tactics in all situations they
encounter; however, all tactics and practices used by officers must be in accordance with legal
principles and department policy. This bulletin will address the actions an officer may take and actions
an officer should avoid when confronting an armed citizen.

Legal basis for detention

An officer may detain an individual temporarily for criminal investigation purposes only when the officer
has developed reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Reasonable suspicion exists
where the facts known to the officer and the reasonable inferences therefrom would cause an ordinarily
prudent person to believe that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Perez v. State, 981
N.E.2d 1242, 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive
or environmental factors.

Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable
suspicion for detention. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Where a
state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify
an investigatory detention.”). Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to
point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO
Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun
solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.

Officers lacking reasonable suspicion, but still having a need to investigate further, may have a
consensual encounter to gain additional facts as needed. The encounter must be voluntary, and a
reasonable person should feel free to leave or stop answering questions at any time. If the person
refuses to talk or attempts to leave, and the officer has not developed reasonable suspicion, then the
person must be allowed to leave and/or stop answering questions. Drayton v. U.S., 536 U.S. 194
(2002).

Handling firearms

If during the course of a detention, the officer reasonably believes the handgun should be removed, he
or she may do so. Handguns being returned to persons should be done in a “safe manner.” The
practices of field stripping semi-auto pistols and/or confiscating live ammunition are prohibited.

Private property

Businesses and property owners may prohibit persons from carrying firearms on their property. When
an officer encounters an armed citizen carrying a firearm on private property where the owner or
owner’s agent has restricted such activity, the officer should assist the agent/property owner in
informing the citizen that refusal to leave the property could constitute criminal trespass. All
requirements for criminal trespass as outlined by law should be followed for the
trespass arrest, if necessary.

 

[Roadie]

However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive
or environmental factors.

Hmmm

Of course an Officer can ask, legally the Citizen does not have to provide it, without further RAS, as the OP stated.. Nor does on have to carry the LTCH, as the LEO stated

 

[JMoses]

The officer can still ask, plain and simple, if no LTCH or personal info is given to confirm a LTCH, the officer can arrest.

it doesn't matter what IMPD SOP says.

 

[bradmedic04]

Man kudos for you for being so calm!

Had he turned the camera you could have seen who the officer was dealing with:

 

[Roadie]

The officer can still ask, plain and simple, if no LTCH or personal info is given to confirm a LTCH, the officer can arrest.

it doesn't matter what IMPD SOP says.

On what grounds? What would the RAS be? Failure to identify? Sorry, that's not against the law without RAS. Carrying a gun is not, in and of itself RAS.

 

[bradmedic04]

The officer can still ask, plain and simple, if no LTCH or personal info is given to confirm a LTCH, the officer can arrest.

it doesn't matter what IMPD SOP says.

Yeah, I thought this wasn't the case. Solely carrying a firearm doesn't, as far as I know, provide just cause for an officer to arrest in Indiana, correct? I thought there had to be mitigating circumstances, like an actual crime being involved.

 

[Roadie]

Again, the SOP is based on legal precedent..

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Where a
state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify
an investigatory detention.”). Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to
point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO
Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun
solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.

 

[Sylvain]

Yeah, I thought this wasn't the case. Solely carrying a firearm doesn't, as far as I know, provide just cause for an officer to arrest in Indiana, correct? I thought there had to be mitigating circumstances, like an actual crime being involved.

Was the OP arrested?
It wasn't clear in the video.
I think the officer said the OP was "detained for now" or something like that.