Supreme Court: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License

[chipbennett]

I gotta remember the phrase "felon with a gun is not the default setting" and another I forgot.

I think "a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status" is from US v Black. Though, this ruling takes a very similar tack, albeit without using exactly the same phrasing. Guy quotes the money shot in his article:

"The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663 ('hold[ing] that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment'). In like fashion, we decline to endorse such behavior to ensure compliance with Indiana’s gun licensing laws."

 

[GuyRelford]

Thanks Guy.

The other thread discussed Pinner ad nauseam.

My bad. Last time I link one of my articles to INGO. You folks obviously have it all covered.

 

[chipbennett]

My bad. Last time I link one of my articles to INGO. You folks obviously have it all covered.

I, for one, appreciate seeing them here.

 

[KellyinAvon]

My bad. Last time I link one of my articles to INGO. You folks obviously have it all covered.

Link away Guy, link away. Good to have you back in these parts.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think "a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status" is from US v Black. Though, this ruling takes a very similar tack, albeit without using exactly the same phrasing. Guy quotes the money shot in his article:

"The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663 ('hold[ing] that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment'). In like fashion, we decline to endorse such behavior to ensure compliance with Indiana’s gun licensing laws."

I may need a crib sheet

 

[phylodog]

Yup, I welcomed the ruling. So what many of us believed to be the best practice is now the law. Works for me. Posted this on my Facebook to get the word out. Sometimes the dept takes time to update the officers.

We trained on this two years ago, the officers should already be up to speed.

 

[chipbennett]

I may need a crib sheet

There are two interpretations that I can see:

1. Just as police officers can't pull drivers over merely to verify that they have a valid driver's license, because to do so would violate rights protected by the fourth amendment, neither can police officers detain someone merely to ascertain that such person has a valid LTCH. In both cases, the detention requires particularlized evidence of some criminal/unlawful activity.

2. By inference from #1, the mere carry of a firearm cannot be construed to be unlawful activity, else #1 would be eviscerated.

 

[2A_Tom]

I hope you did not take what I said in a bad way. I really didn't mean it that way. The other thread got pretty heated. I always appreciate your take on things.

 

[Shoots4Fun]

I hadn't seen the discussion before and was glad to read it. Thank you!

My bad. Last time I link one of my articles to INGO. You folks obviously have it all covered.

 

[Sling10mm]

Very cool! Where have I been? I had no idea any of this was going on, or maybe just forgot..... I'm getting old.

I predict most issues will come from people calling the police because "that person has a gun," resulting in the police contact with the carrier, the police feel they have to do something "because we got a call," and so demand "proof" of eligibility to carry.

I hope it doesn't happen, but I have seen enough videos of police stopping people and demanding ID for just filming from public areas, and those incidents don't even involve a weapon.

 

[DRob]

................

I predict most issues will come from people calling the police because "that person has a gun," resulting in the police contact with the carrier, the police feel they have to do something "because we got a call," and so demand "proof" of eligibility to carry.

...............................

This sort of thing results from dispatchers who have been taught the solution for every phone call they receive is either send the police, transfer the call to fire/ems dispatch, or both. It is pretty common knowledge that "he's got a gun" will get you the police. Officers have no alternative but to respond. What they do when they get there is another story.

 

[Sling10mm]

@DRob

I agree and understand, but imagine what would happen if someone called about a "man with a gun," the dispatcher asks if they are doing anything threatening, caller says "no," dispatcher declines to send out the police, and then the person shoots the place up. Not really the dispatchers fault, but that's where the heat would fall, and so it is just easier to send out the troops. I could be off base here, since I have no experience as a 911 operator/dispatcher, but we do live in a CYA society.

However, ultimately the police are responsible, as an organization, for being properly trained, and acting appropriately when dealing with the citizenry, armed or not.

 

[2A_Tom]

Reasonable articulable suspicion = what exactly was he doing that was suspicious.

Excuse me officer in what manner am I suspicious?

 

[fjw2]

I found it very informative and useful. Thank you for the post.

 

[WestSider]

@DRob

I agree and understand, but imagine what would happen if someone called about a "man with a gun," the dispatcher asks if they are doing anything threatening, caller says "no," dispatcher declines to send out the police, and then the person shoots the place up. Not really the dispatchers fault, but that's where the heat would fall, and so it is just easier to send out the troops. I could be off base here, since I have no experience as a 911 operator/dispatcher, but we do live in a CYA society.

However, ultimately the police are responsible, as an organization, for being properly trained, and acting appropriately when dealing with the citizenry, armed or not.

You are bringing up a valid point. Like it or not, the "suspicious man with a gun" calls do come in. Just got one recently which was described as suspicious guy at Walmart with a gun. I literally asked dispatch over the radio if there was anything suspicious about him other than the fact he had a gun. After a brief silence he answered no.. lol

However, I responded anyway (the guy was gone by the time I got there) because the one time I don't go will be the time something bad happens then I'm all over the news as the officer who didn't respond to a legitimate complaint... Like it or not as a police officer you are required to answer the calls given by dispatch.

Now having said that, if the guy was there I would have probably chatted it up with him for a few minutes and left. If he refused to talk to me I would let him walk away and not have my feelings hurt. I don't think you'll get much push back from good cops on this ruling, but it is worth noting that they are somewhat obligated to at least answer "suspicious" calls given by the public.

Maybe this needs to be clarified more at the dispatch level.

 

[WestSider]

accidental post, sorry

 

[PMR]

My bad. Last time I link one of my articles to INGO. You folks obviously have it all covered.

Guy, keep on linking, you always give valuable information...

Pat

 

[hoosierdoc]

I hope you did not take what I said in a bad way. I really didn't mean it that way. The other thread got pretty heated. I always appreciate your take on things.

I did not get a snarky tone from your post

 

[lonehoosier]

I did not get a snarky tone from your post

Nether did I.

 

[Denny347]

We trained on this two years ago, the officers should already be up to speed.

Yeah...SHOULD. . Just doing my part to keep my brothers/sisters from being "that officer" named in a lawsuit for civil rights violations.