Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[YukYuPhat]

I know that if and when I ever become an LEO, which I hope to do one day, that if I ever pull over a person for speeding or a busted headlight, that if there are weapons in the car, one of which an assault weapon, I know I'm making damn sure that those weapons are secure and don't pose even the slightest threat, no matter how friendly or courteous the driver is.

-2 I am sure that you think you are doing the "right" thing, but unfortunately the law is not on your side for this. Terry v. Ohio case law states that an Officer must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to search someone. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. Indiana Code states that it is illegal to carry a firearm unless you have a LTCH. So an Officer has to have reasonalbe suspicion to believe you have a gun on you, then he must ask to see said LTCH. And remember, Indiana is not a must inform state, so really the OP didn't have to tell the Officer about the handgun. If the LTCH is presented, all questioning must stop to the firearm, because it is no longer a crime for the person to have the firearm. If the Officer does confiscate the firearm for any reason, by Indiana Code, the Officer cannot return the firearm to the individual. The Officer must present a hand receipt confirming confiscation, and within 3 weeks must testify before a Judge the reasons for the confiscation, and if the owner can have is property returned. I understand your feelings for the "slightest threat," but if that is such a problem for you, I would suggest you consider not getting out of bed. Ever. Because the "slightest threat" presented by a LTCH is ALOT less threatening than just taking your life in your own hands by driving I465 around Indianapolis. Because if you do your research, you would be hard pressed to find a LTCH holder that ever physically assaulted an Officer.

 

[the1kidd03]

So how much do you figger all that lawyerin will set you back?

3000?
5000?


I know a cop who has been threatened to be sued hundreds of times.

Never once did someone go thru with it.

That's why attorney and court fees are included in the lawsuit.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I know that if and when I ever become an LEO, which I hope to do one day, that if I ever pull over a person for speeding or a busted headlight, that if there are weapons in the car, one of which an assault weapon, I know I'm making damn sure that those weapons are secure and don't pose even the slightest threat, no matter how friendly or courteous the driver is.

Sounds like if you ever become an officer you will be the one posing the threat. Here on a gun forum you are threatening all of our Rights just so you can be the only one armed in that situation, how do we know we can trust you?

 

[wtfd661]

That's why attorney and court fees are included in the lawsuit.

As long as you win

 

[jeremy]

I know that if and when I ever become an LEO, which I hope to do one day, that if I ever pull over a person for speeding or a busted headlight, that if there are weapons in the car, one of which an assault weapon, I know I'm making damn sure that those weapons are secure and don't pose even the slightest threat, no matter how friendly or courteous the driver is.

If you are looking at wearing a Badge here in the State, you might want to learn the Laws before you do that. In my County that kind of behavior will have you on the unemployment line faster than anything...

 

[88GT]

Are you this cavalier with all of your other rights? Assuming the OP accurately represented the facts as they happened, what RS or PC was present for the officers to seize his property?

If they were so concerned about their safety, why would they choose to remove guns from their safe positions and operate them along side a busy highway? Seems to me, since there were 2 officers present, the OP disclosed the guns locations, it would be safer for all to simply keep the guns alone and the driver seated where he could be watched until a disposition of the stop could be reached.

You've read his posts in the ACA SCOTUS ruling, haven't you?

Define "cavalier" in this context please.

It means, in layman's terms, that you snatch them from the people, throw them to the ground, and after stomping them to bits, do the Mexican Hat dance around them. WTH do you think it means?

Tell me, if the officer hadn't seen the rifle and the OP had not informed, would the actual threat of violence from the OP have changed?

 

[jeremy]

Define "cavalier" in this context please.

I think he is calling you a crappy Chevolet Car...

 

[PKendall317]

All I meant in my first post on this thread, is that traffic cops have a legitimate reason to be concerned for their safety when they pull over someone, particularly if there's a gun in the car. Like I mentioned before, too many good cops have been killed simply making a routine traffic stop. I didn't intend to start a discussion on 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[jeremy]

All I meant in my first post on this thread, is that traffic cops have a legitimate reason to be concerned for their safety when they pull over someone, particularly if there's a gun in the car. Like I mentioned before, too many good cops have been killed simply making a routine traffic stop. I didn't intend to start a discussion on 2nd Amendment rights.

No they do not have a Legitimate Reason, Legal Reason to just take Firearms from someone during a traffic stop. They do not have a Legal Reason to take Weapons from a Vehicle just cause it is a Firearm. If more Hoosiers were aware of what their Legal Rights were you would not even see/hear this crap.

There are a fairly significant number of Motorists killed on the sides of the road by LE Impersonators as well. Does that mean I get to take the Cops Firearms until we have it sorted out who is Dangerous and who is not...

Not to mention I am getting damn tired of hearing it is for Officer Safety...
Don't like how dangerous your job is, then pick another one and STHU...

 

[KLB]

All I meant in my first post on this thread, is that traffic cops have a legitimate reason to be concerned for their safety when they pull over someone, particularly if there's a gun in the car. Like I mentioned before, too many good cops have been killed simply making a routine traffic stop. I didn't intend to start a discussion on 2nd Amendment rights.

Don't you think having the citizen exit his vehicle puts the officer in danger? I'm sure there are a lot of people that could whip him bare handed, and there are more than a few that carry knives.

Using your logic they should just handcuff everyone they pull over until the stop is done. That way there is very little chance of them getting hurt.

 

[cp009]

I know that if and when I ever become an LEO, which I hope to do one day, that if I ever pull over a person for speeding or a busted headlight, that if there are weapons in the car, one of which an assault weapon, I know I'm making damn sure that those weapons are secure and don't pose even the slightest threat, no matter how friendly or courteous the driver is.

You don't want to be a LEO. You want to be a right violating douche bag just like the officers in this story. Not the right thing to say on this forum.

 

[PKendall317]

Don't you think having the citizen exit his vehicle puts the officer in danger? I'm sure there are a lot of people that could whip him bare handed, and there are more than a few that carry knives.

Using your logic they should just handcuff everyone they pull over until the stop is done. That way there is very little chance of them getting hurt.

I agree with you on that. I've actually been told by one or two LEO's that I've met that they prefer to keep motorists that they pull over inside the vehicle rather than outside.

 

[iChokePeople]

All I meant in my first post on this thread, is that traffic cops have a legitimate reason to be concerned for their safety when they pull over someone, particularly if there's a gun in the car. Like I mentioned before, too many good cops have been killed simply making a routine traffic stop. I didn't intend to start a discussion on 2nd Amendment rights.

I'd argue that you went a step further in saying that if you become a LEO, as you hope to, you intend to do the Mexican Hat Dance (thanks, 88GT) on the rights of law-abiding, LTCH-holding citizens.

 

[Mr. Habib]

I know that if and when I ever become an LEO, which I hope to do one day, that if I ever pull over a person for speeding or a busted headlight, that if there are weapons in the car, one of which an assault weapon, I know I'm making damn sure that those weapons are secure and don't pose even the slightest threat, no matter how friendly or courteous the driver is.

Once the driver has been removed from the vehicle, any weapons in it are NOT a danger to anyone, per Washington v State. Searching and removing any personal property from the vehicle, or driver, without consent, PC, or a warrant was illegal. Seizing the OP's firearm without following the requirements clearly spelled out in IC 35-47-14.2,3 was illegal. Once the LEO's knew that the OP had a valid LTCH then any further questions about his firearms were illegal per Richardson v State. If you hope to be an LEO someday, then actually learn and understand the laws that you hope to enforce.

 

[JetGirl]

one of which an assault weapon, I know I'm making damn sure that those weapons are secure

Please define "assault weapon".

 

[PKendall317]

Please define "assault weapon".

In this case I probably should've just said "rifle." There's too many ways to define "assault weapon" depending on who you ask.

 

[bigus_D]

You are going to work, in a vehicle that doesn't lock, with an AR in the backseat

I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention, the trip into the store for food. Where was the AR at that point? Plainly visible in the unlocked car?

 

[Bruenor]

Please define "assault weapon".

 

[KLB]

Please define "assault weapon".

A big scary black gun with a large capacity clip!

 

[Dirtebiker]

- If the Officer does confiscate the firearm for any reason, by Indiana Code, the Officer cannot return the firearm to the individual. The Officer must present a hand receipt confirming confiscation, and within 3 weeks must testify before a Judge the reasons for the confiscation, and if the owner can have is property returned. s:

Source please!?