open carry stopped by hobart pd while pumping gas

[Cameramonkey]

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.

I could be mistaken, or maybe its only for certain infractions? (like >20mph over but not for failure to stop) Its been several years since I have been in an accident or got a ticket of any significance.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Hey Dan, did you change those "old" rounds yet?

That was a good one. If true, then I have a thousand rounds of surplus 8mm I better replace because we all know that when bullets get old they don't work anymore!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

Please understand that the 4th Circuit (federal appellate court) does not include Indiana. The issue in the Black decision was a North Carolina statute which permits individuals to carry handguns openly without a license.

In Indiana by carrying a handgun (openly, concealed, taped to your forehead) you are committing a crime. Having a Larry is an affirmative defense of carrying a handgun. When we all go out with handguns, we are committing crimes in Indiana.

If the police see you committing a crime Indiana courts have deemed this reasonable. Once the poooleeece determine that you is legal, then full stop. It should end.

Any challenge in Indiana under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, §11 will like be analogized to the case from Georgia (Christopher Raissi) which has a statute similar to Indiana where the stop and detention of Mr. Raissi was reasonable.

This does not excuse the officer from being short with the OP. This does not excuse the officer for getting certain points of law incorrect. This does not excuse the officer from taking the pistol (I think it is a matter of timing), but it does remind us all that when we carry guns, even though we have no plans for criminal activity, we are committing crimes. Our Larrys are merely defenses to that crime.

It is the way our statute is written.

 

[cbhausen]

I will say this again. There are only so many ways to change a person's willingness to be a jackass and one of the most powerful ways is to subject him to unrelenting pain that promises to continue unless he changes his ways.

If you do not receive some satisfaction from the police and you believe that this office is being let off without penalty for obviously being an uninformed dork then take your own steps to provide that pain (with the help of INGO)

I assume you have his name. Let's call him Fred.

With the help of the local INGO folk organize an "officer Fred" open carry march at and around the police station. Have signs that graphically point out officer fred's shortcomings, and inability to follow the law. And his dorkiness. Be polite but graphic. You even have pictures of Fred being dorky. How much better can that be? BTW, you can get really, really, really strong-worded with the signs. The courts have ruled that you can pretty much direct any ire you want to the cops and they have no recourse.

Promise the chief (and Fred) that these marches will continue on a regular basis until you and the LTCH community receive full assurance that the dept. will follow the law and quit harassing open carriers by seizing their gun, running the card, and dismantling the gun into pieces. Fred lives and works in that community. It won't take long before he realizes that being made a laughing stock of is not in his best interest. Again, this approach should be used only if you get no other satisfaction from the department.

BTW, what would Fred have done it you had told him, "Screw you, I'm putting the bullets back in it right now. Want to watch me?"

The more I think about this the more I like the idea. Maybe we should organize an OC event at the Hobart PD HQ. I'd come up for that. Maybe with a rifle, too.

 

[88GT]

Ugh. Resubscribing.

 

[dansgotguns]

The more I think about this the more I like the idea. Maybe we should organize an OC event at the Portage PD HQ. I'd come up for that. Maybe with a rifle, too.

* Hobart PD *

 

[ScouT6a]

"In Indiana by carrying a handgun (openly, concealed, taped to your forehead) you are committing a crime. Having a Larry is an affirmative defense of carrying a handgun. When we all go out with handguns, we are committing crimes in Indiana."

Mr Freeman,
This sounds strange to me but is this the case with any activity that requires a license or permit from the State?
Are you technically committing a crime by operating a motor vehicle and a driver's license is your affirmative defense? Would it be the same with hunting wild game and a hunting license?

 

[shortyforty]

This is why if an officer seizes your property ( firearm, or otherwise) refuse to accept the property back. Ask for a property receipt ,if it's videoed as this was and they say they didn't seize your property only "detained" or held for their safety , force them to defend it in court. Our rights will be trampled if we don't. If he then refuses to give you a receipt you have video evidence of him depriving the rightful owner of property call 911 and report the theft at the very least it's conversion which is in fact an arrest able crime.

 

[rosejm]

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

It's easy to fix. Next time, use your phone in LANDSCAPE MODE like every other video ever filmed. I.E.: Hold that ***** sideways when filming/taking pictures.

 

[cbhausen]

* Hobart PD *

Thanks, corrected.

 

[Rookie]

Cell phone. Accidently had the screen turned sideways when I hit record so it stayed that way.

It's easy to fix. Next time, use your phone in LANDSCAPE MODE like every other video ever filmed. I.E.: Hold that ***** sideways when filming/taking pictures.

Someone didn't read...

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

He was detaining the individual. He even admitted to doing so. On what grounds was he detaining him?

 

[dansgotguns]

He was detaining the individual. He even admitted to doing so. On what grounds was he detaining him?

"Officer safety" im sure

 

[cce1302]

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.

-Just a reminder: police don't have "rights" to tell citizens what to do. They have "authority."

Whether or not the officer in question had authority to continue to disarm and detain the OP after he saw the pink slip seems to be up for debate.

 

[Hoosierdood]

He was detaining the individual. He even admitted to doing so. On what grounds was he detaining him?

He was detained for carrying a firearm which is a crime in the state of Indiana. The detention was only for the time that it took for the officer to verify the LTCH, this providing affirmative defense to breaking the law.

 

[dansgotguns]

He was detained for carrying a firearm which is a crime in the state of Indiana. The detention was only for the time that it took for the officer to verify the LTCH, this providing affirmative defense to breaking the law.

I believe the pink card is verification.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I believe the pink card is verification.

And that's where I'm not sure that I agree. How does the LEO know your pink card is valid? Did you do something that could have resulted in your LTCH being revoked? Where is that exact moment in the timeline when all questioning should stop? Is it once you produce your LTCH or when you produce a VALID LTCH (valid being the key word and subject to verification)? I honestly don't have an answer to that question and I'm not sure any of us does. I'm on the fence about it.

 

[dansgotguns]

And that's where I'm not sure that I agree. How does the LEO know your pink card is valid? Did you do something that could have resulted in your LTCH being revoked? Where is that exact moment in the timeline when all questioning should stop? Is it once you produce your LTCH or when you produce a VALID LTCH (valid being the key word and subject to verification)? I honestly don't have an answer to that question and I'm not sure any of us does. I'm on the fence about it.

If someones ltch becomes invalid I believe its leos job to go get it. Can someone post something that says we must provide a VALID ltch? Or does it say we must posses a ltch? But either way were fittin to find out

 

[Mark 1911]

This might be a nice accessory - camcorder sunglasses:
HD video sunglasses

 

[Hoosierdood]

If someones ltch becomes invalid I believe its leos job to go get it. Can someone post something that says we must provide a VALID ltch? Or does it say we must posses a ltch? But either way were fittin to find out

Because it's unheard of to make multiple copies of your LTCH to keep in your safe, range bag, glove box, dresser, etc.