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

[Denny347]

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

Excuse me officer in what manner am I suspicious?

Existing

 

[2A_Tom]

Denny, are ALL of your officers cis gender, or you making assumptions that will make you "that officer" named in a lawsuit for civil rights violations.

 

[Expat]

I did not get a snarky tone from your post

If you added it on to a couple of other posts informing him that it was old news, I can understand his reaction.

 

[T.Lex]

Try to stay with me.

Guy

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

Lighten up, Francis. Its just some friendly ribbing.

You are an excellent ambassador for gun rights and possession. When you come "home," we have to make up for lost time.

 

[Trigger Time]

Well constitutional carry better happen next year then.

 

[2A_Tom]

I tried to PM him but his box is full.

There is a member or two who were totally invested in the prior thread and were all "Pinner is the end all for police stops" and are very happy that the SC ruled in their favor.

I am pleased that it turned out this way but was of the opinion that the elements did not make this ruling "locked in" and the court could go any way. Kirk seemed to be of the same mind, which historically was the way that INGO favored several years ago.

I know because when I first joined I thought police hah no right to stop me just because I was carrying and was sternly advised I was wrong. I even found case law that backed me up. Such as DL stops and US v Black and was told that IC made it illegal to carry with out a license.

I found it interesting to be on the other side with a couple of fellows who tend to have more read more law than I have.

Someone earlier said, they may have gone this way in order to avoid another debacle like Barnes and they may be correct.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Good ruling!

Good Intel!

Now. How do we ensure this information - couched exactly as Guy wrote it up - is in the hands of the summer study committee for CC in Indiana?

 

[Destro]

If you take the gun out of the equation, I wonder if the court would have found the stop and question consistent with Terry? Based on the comments regarding the response of the officers it seems a bit inconsistent

 

[Fargo]

If you take the gun out of the equation, I wonder if the court would have found the stop and question consistent with Terry? Based on the comments regarding the response of the officers it seems a bit inconsistent

If the officers had kept to a consensual encounter and foregone the orders Terry never would have been implicated and there wouldn't be a successful appeal.

 

[Expat]

Good ruling!

Good Intel!

Now. How do we ensure this information - couched exactly as Guy wrote it up - is in the hands of the summer study committee for CC in Indiana?

I know that Jim Lucas has the article. I would think he will do what he can.

 

[Alamo]

So nobody has even alluded to, much less answered, the important question: Why is Guy Relford's article illustrated with a picture of a Makarov?

 

[2A_Tom]

If the officers had kept to a consensual encounter and foregone the orders Terry never would have been implicated and there wouldn't be a successful appeal.

.
Had the officers kept to a consensual encounter there would have been no case period.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So nobody has even alluded to, much less answered, the important question: Why is Guy Relford's article illustrated with a picture of a Makarov?

In order to celebrate INGO gun hipsters.

 

[bgcatty]

A great decision by a court that can read the constitution, apply it correctly and arrive at a well reasoned intelligent decision. Bravo for the Court. Now if only some other states would follow suit maybe, just maybe law abiding firearms owners in other states could breathe a sigh of relief. Thanks Guy for the report; well done!!!

 

[actaeon277]

My question is, does this in any way affect the "I need to check the serial number on your gun" officer?
Or the one that feels it necessary to "hold on to that for office safey"?
Such as the one Mark1911 ran into in the great anti-gun city of Hammond.

 

[chipbennett]

My IANAL understanding:

My question is, does this in any way affect the "I need to check the serial number on your gun" officer?

Yes. Under Pinner, "running a serial number" would require particularlized RAS that the specific firearm was unlawful (e.g. stolen, used in a crime, etc.)

Or the one that feels it necessary to "hold on to that for office safey"?
Such as the one Mark1911 ran into in the great anti-gun city of Hammond.

No. I believe that there are other (ridiculous) court cases on which police rely in order to disarm someone "for safety". That said: under Pinner, the officer would still need "particularized" RAS that the person in question was acting unlawfully, in order to initiate an investigative detention. Without the investigative detention, the officer would not be able to disarm a person "for safety". (That is: police cannot disarm someone in a consensual encounter.)

 

[T.Lex]

I think the current state of the "officer safety" doctrine is parallel to RAS. The officer must have a reasonable articulable reason why he or she was concerned about officer safety.

See:
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07310704pds.pdf

An officer may conduct a limited search for weapons only when he has areasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous.

 

[chipbennett]

I think the current state of the "officer safety" doctrine is parallel to RAS. The officer must have a reasonable articulable reason why he or she was concerned about officer safety.

See:
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07310704pds.pdf

I seem to recall the "and dangerous" part being the subject of much debate/disagreement. Didn't one of the more loony circuit courts recently opine that merely possessing a firearm constituted danger, and thus being armed with a firearm, absent any other evidence, alone met the standard for "armed and dangerous".

Right, it was the 4th Circuit:

Fourth Circuit shreds civil liberties for public gun carry | TheHill

The majority opinion condensed Terry's "armed and dangerous" into "armed and therefore dangerous":

The presumptive lawfulness of an individual’s gun possession in a particular State does next to nothing to negate the reasonable concern an officer has for his own safety when forcing an encounter with an individual who is armed with a gun and whose propensities are unknown...

Judge Wynn wrote a concurring opinion in United States v Robinson, that went even farther:

If the majority opinion were not bad enough, Judge James A. Wynn wrote an incendiary concurrence berating the majority for focusing broadly on “weapons” rather than on firearms specifically. Wynn’s opinion argued that the majority’s reasoning also necessitated recognition of two other “key issues.” The first, Wynn wrote, is that “individuals who carry firearms -- lawfully or unlawfully -- pose a categorical risk of danger to others and police officers, in particular.” The second is that “individuals who choose to carry firearms [therefore] forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.”


Judge Wynn went on to explain how he believes the law of the Fourth Circuit – which includes Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia – is now that lawful gun owners are second class citizens.


“[T]he majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights,” Wynn wrote, “like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers ‘knock-and-announce’ before forcibly entering homes.” He continued, “Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.”

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...lawful-gun-carriers-must-forfeit-other-rights

 

[T.Lex]

Ah, right. It is difficult for me to see an Indiana state court, let alone the ct. of appeals, following that line of divergent authority from a federal court of appeals in an separate district. Indiana courts are more likely (in my experience) to follow the factors articulated by the Indiana Supreme Court. Like they should.

I know of no Indiana state court decision aligned with that 4th circuit (federal) case, but I am open to correction on it.

 

[actaeon277]

And yet, there are officers that still do that.