open carry stopped by hobart pd while pumping gas

[Hammerhead]

Richardson v. State says that once the license is verified as valid, all questions must cease. The officer only has enough reasonableness to verify the Larry, but not any other ID. Nor does verification require confiscation.

IANAL.

 

[Hoosierdood]

And once he saw the LTCH he just verified it unless he had a reasonable suspicion that the LTCH was not valid. Please tell us what that suspicion was.

I guess my counter would be to ask you to show me case law or Indiana code that explicitly states that a LEO must have RAS to believe that the license is not valid in order to call it in. I would say the officer has the right to call it in of he wants to. Not saying that I agree with it, just that under current law, it is his right.

The only case I can think of is the Richardson case (I think that's the one) where he was pulled over for a traffic infraction. Once the LTCH is produced all questioning should stop. This is not the same scenario however. OP was stopped specifically on suspicion of illegally carrying a firearm. And don't tell me that the LEO needed RAS to believe that the OP was actually carrying illegally. Under current law, just the presence of a firearm is RAS. The burden of proof is on the OP.

 

[Birds Away]

Even the lawyers can't agree. None of them seem to think this is worth pursuing. That means the LEO can do whatever he wants and you will have to submit. Just like it's always been.

 

[Hawkeye]

My guess is its not just Officer Backwards Hat who needs some re-education. Probably the whole Hobart Department needs the update.

 

[Somemedic]

Under current law, just the presence of a firearm is RAS. The burden of proof is on the OP.

Um, what?

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.

 

[Birds Away]

Um, what?

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.

They do it and they get away with it. Might makes right.

 

[Rookie]

Um, what?

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.

As much as I'd like to say you're right, I can't. First, we are seventh circuit, so fourth doesn't apply. Second, under Indiana law, carrying a handgun is illegal, unless you have permission from the state. If an officer sees your handgun, he does have the authority to investigate. Showing your LTCH should end the investigation. Asking for other forms of ID? He can certainly ask, and you can refuse unless there's other circumstances that would require you to show your drivers license (operating vehicle, infraction, ordinance violation).

If he suspects your LTCH is fake, that's not your problem and you don't have to produce other forms of ID to make his job easier.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Richardson v. State says that once the license is verified as valid, all questions must cease. The officer only has enough reasonableness to verify the Larry, but not any other ID. Nor does verification require confiscation.

IANAL.

IMO, THIS ^^^ is what needs to be addressed to the Chief LEO. I'm not sure that any court would actually rule that the seizure was illegal, but removing your loaded weapon from its holster made a bad situation worse. It was not necessary.

Think through this carefully and type out your formal complaint. Go to the police station and ask to speak to someone to file a formal complaint against an officer. Be polite, and courteous (not cocky) and explain your position.

I have been in that place before. I sat at the Chief's desk and discussed my complaint. (I was harassed for OC) He listened to me, apologized to me, thanked me. Two weeks later he called me on my cell phone and we had a good chat. Things got done. Re-education was implemented in the department.

I think that's what you need to shoot for. The chief LEO doesn't know these things are going on unless you tell him. This will never change unless you bring it to his attention.

 

[Cameramonkey]

As much as I'd like to say you're right, I can't. First, we are seventh circuit, so fourth doesn't apply. Second, under Indiana law, carrying a handgun is illegal, unless you have permission from the state. If an officer sees your handgun, he does have the authority to investigate. Showing your LTCH should end the investigation. Asking for other forms of ID? He can certainly ask, and you can refuse unless there's other circumstances that would require you to show your drivers license (operating vehicle, infraction, ordinance violation).

If he suspects your LTCH is fake, that's not your problem and you don't have to produce other forms of ID to make his job easier.

Officer backwardshat would simply demand your photo ID to make sure you didnt just find the pink laying on the sidewalk. Sure its valid for Mr. Original Q Poster. But now officer wants to prove the person handing it to him is Indeed Mr. Original Q Poster and not Billy S Jackwagon who has never applied because he is not a proper person.

Not saying he SHOULD but that would be his argument... and my argument as to why we should have a photo ID permit like Utah. THere officer. You have everything you need.

Unfortunately, sometimes doing the relatively harmless task of giving him your license even though you arent REQUIRED to because you arent operating a vehicle is easier than convincing the ignorant officer that rattling off your details for him to call in is sufficient enough.

IMO, THIS ^^^ is what needs to be addressed to the Chief LEO. I'm not sure that any court would actually rule that the seizure was illegal, but removing your loaded weapon from its holster made a bad situation worse. It was not necessary.

Think through this carefully and type out your formal complaint. Go to the police station and ask to speak to someone to file a formal complaint against an officer. Be polite, and courteous (not cocky) and explain your position.

I have been in that place before. I sat at the Chief's desk and discussed my complaint. (I was harassed for OC) He listened to me, apologized to me, thanked me. Two weeks later he called me on my cell phone and we had a good chat. Things got done. Re-education was implemented in the department.

I think that's what you need to shoot for. The chief LEO doesn't know these things are going on unless you tell him. This will never change unless you bring it to his attention.

+11 for this. Even if you dont actually file the complaint, you have a clear, concise narrative of the events, and dont have to worry about forgetting an important detail as the conversation inevitably gets off track during the meeting.

 

[TB1999]

Just saw this pop up on my facebook feed.

 

[jedi]

Just saw this pop up on my facebook feed.

Yes it's all over FB and YouTube as well.

 

[Rookie]

Officer backwardshat would simply demand your photo ID to make sure you didnt just find the pink laying on the sidewalk. Sure its valid for Mr. Original Q Poster. But now officer wants to prove the person handing it to him is Indeed Mr. Original Q Poster and not Billy S Jackwagon who has never applied because he is not a proper person.

Not saying he SHOULD but that would be his argument... and my argument as to why we should have a photo ID permit like Utah. THere officer. You have everything you need.

Unfortunately, sometimes doing the relatively harmless task of giving him your license even though you arent REQUIRED to because you arent operating a vehicle is easier than convincing the ignorant officer that rattling off your details for him to call in is sufficient enough.




+11 for this. Even if you dont actually file the complaint, you have a clear, concise narrative of the events, and dont have to worry about forgetting an important detail as the conversation inevitably gets off track during the meeting.

I disagree. He has everything he needs on that pink piece of paper. Name, address, height, weight, etc. If he needs anything else to give him that warm fuzzy feeling, it's his problem, not mine.

 

[88GT]

I disagree. He has everything he needs on that pink piece of paper. Name, address, height, weight, etc. If he needs anything else to give him that warm fuzzy feeling, it's his problem, not mine.

Gawd, you sound like you're a free man or something.

 

[TheSpark]

As much as I'd like to say you're right, I can't. First, we are seventh circuit, so fourth doesn't apply. Second, under Indiana law, carrying a handgun is illegal, unless you have permission from the state. If an officer sees your handgun, he does have the authority to investigate. Showing your LTCH should end the investigation. Asking for other forms of ID? He can certainly ask, and you can refuse unless there's other circumstances that would require you to show your drivers license (operating vehicle, infraction, ordinance violation).

If he suspects your LTCH is fake, that's not your problem and you don't have to produce other forms of ID to make his job easier.

This is probably what I hate most about the gun laws in Indiana. We have a burden to prove we are legally carrying. This does allow any police officer who knows we are carrying to stop us. However, I think once you show the LTCH that is the end of it. Regardless, that law needs to be repealed.

 

[Rookie]

Gawd, you sound like you're a free man or something.

Dreams are what keep me sane.

 

[g00n24]

Yes it's all over FB and YouTube as well.

I first saw it on Reddit.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I find it funny how officers like this run a LTCH to make sure it is valid, yet I would bet money he doesn't "run" automobile insurance ID cards when he pulls someone over. He could call the company and verify that the policy is still in force, but chooses not to. Do you realize how many tickets they could hand out for no insurance doing this?

 

[TheSpark]

I find it funny how officers like this run a LTCH to make sure it is valid, yet I would bet money he doesn't "run" automobile insurance ID cards when he pulls someone over. He could call the company and verify that the policy is still in force, but chooses not to. Do you realize how many tickets they could hand out for no insurance doing this?

I've been pulled over twice in the last couple years for speeding and they don't even ask to see insurance. License and registration is all.

The ones who run the LTCH are usually the cops who would rather you not carry at all. They are just looking to make your life difficult and in their mind hopefully find out you are not legally carrying and arrest you.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I find it funny how officers like this run a LTCH to make sure it is valid, yet I would bet money he doesn't "run" automobile insurance ID cards when he pulls someone over. He could call the company and verify that the policy is still in force, but chooses not to. Do you realize how many tickets they could hand out for no insurance doing this?

They get you on the back end. Last time I got a ticket I had to submit proof of insurance when I paid it as I recall. So you dont get dinged at the side of the road for lack of insurance, they nail you to the wall when you cant provide it at time of payment/court.

 

[SteveM4A1]

They get you on the back end. Last time I got a ticket I had to submit proof of insurance when I paid it as I recall. So you dont get dinged at the side of the road for lack of insurance, they nail you to the wall when you cant provide it at time of payment/court.

I have never had to submit proof during payment of a traffic citation, but I don't get them that often either. I'm a P&C agent, and the only time the state cares if you have insurance is after an accident.