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

[chipbennett]

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.

My purpose wasn't to claim that 4DCA had jurisdiction over Indiana, but rather to point out that there are prosecutors, and courts, in the US who are making such arguments. I think it is naive and foolish to believe that (some) prosecutors and/or courts in Indiana wouldn't attempt to do the same, if given the opportunity. We already know that ISA holds to the beliefs espoused in the referenced 4DCA opinion.

 

[T.Lex]

And yet, there are officers that still do that.

My purpose wasn't to claim that 4DCA had jurisdiction over Indiana, but rather to point out that there are prosecutors, and courts, in the US who are making such arguments. I think it is naive and foolish to believe that (some) prosecutors and/or courts in Indiana wouldn't attempt to do the same, if given the opportunity. We already know that ISA holds to the beliefs espoused in the referenced 4DCA opinion.

My starting point, based solely on my experience, is that I would be surprised if any Indiana prosecutor or police department would conflate gun possession and inherent dangerousness. But, I've been surprised before.

Were I to carve-out an area, I'd say NWI Indiana is where something like that would be most likely. Particularly post-Pinner, I think everywhere else in the state will normalize to the armed AND dangerous paradigm, rather than armed IS dangerous.

One thing worth mentioning, though, is that once an officer knows an individual is armed, it would be a low hurdle to establish the reasonable concern for safety. Especially where officer ambushes are becoming disconcertingly common in the news.

 

[chipbennett]

My starting point, based solely on my experience, is that I would be surprised if any Indiana prosecutor or police department would conflate gun possession and inherent dangerousness. But, I've been surprised before.

Were I to carve-out an area, I'd say NWI Indiana is where something like that would be most likely. Particularly post-Pinner, I think everywhere else in the state will normalize to the armed AND dangerous paradigm, rather than armed IS dangerous.

One thing worth mentioning, though, is that once an officer knows an individual is armed, it would be a low hurdle to establish the reasonable concern for safety. Especially where officer ambushes are becoming disconcertingly common in the news.

In general, I (gladly) agree with you.

And yet, those same LEA lined up against passage of constitutional carry in Indiana. And ISA's statement opposing constitutional carry implies a belief that "armed" = "dangerous".

 

[actaeon277]

I know this is from 3 years ago
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-firearms-discussion/330485-pulled-over.html

But I've heard of dozens of stories from people.
Some had the guns unloaded.
Some had the guns disassembled.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I've heard stories, too - but none recently.

I've also done my share of proselytizing to various LEOs within my sphere of influence to avoid boogerhooking firearms that they don't have to.

For full disclosure, I've also told them that if they have a concern, to disarm the person.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If they can presume someone is dangerous even when NOT armed, ("You're not under arrest, but I'm going to put these handcuffs on you for your safety and mine."), it's not much of a stretch to presume that someone that IS armed is dangerous.

 

[chipbennett]

If they can presume someone is dangerous even when NOT armed, ("You're not under arrest, but I'm going to put these handcuffs on you for your safety and mine."), it's not much of a stretch to presume that someone that IS armed is dangerous.

Or, it could be that the presumption of one being dangerous is based on the behavior and other particularized evidence of the person, rather than any inanimate objects the person possesses?

 

[actaeon277]

I know this is from 3 years ago
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-firearms-discussion/330485-pulled-over.html

But I've heard of dozens of stories from people.
Some had the guns unloaded.
Some had the guns disassembled.

I'm re-reading the thread.
I forgot how much fun it was.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Or, it could be that the presumption of one being dangerous is based on the behavior and other particularized evidence of the person, rather than any inanimate objects the person possesses?

Admittedly my frame of reference is based on what I've seen on reality tv shows, but I have seen it done when no overt aggressive or suspicious behavior has been observed. Typically it is done simply while questioning someone that may or may not have even been directly involved in the situation that prompted the interaction with police. I really don't have a strong opinion about the practice one way or another, but I can understand (somewhat) the officer erring on the side of caution.

 

[chipbennett]

Admittedly my frame of reference is based on what I've seen on reality tv shows, but I have seen it done when no overt aggressive or suspicious behavior has been observed. Typically it is done simply while questioning someone that may or may not have even been directly involved in the situation that prompted the interaction with police. I really don't have a strong opinion about the practice one way or another, but I can understand (somewhat) the officer erring on the side of caution.

Deprivation of rights under color of law has no room to "err on the side of caution". Either an officer has specific ("particularlized") articulabe, reasonable suspicion that someone is dangerous, or the officer does not. If the officer does, then the temporary restraint is allowable without violating constitutionally protected rights. If the officer does not, then "erring on the side of caution" is not sufficient justification for what would otherwise be a violation of constitutionally protected rights.

If we're debating what the line of "reasonable" is, with respect to specific/particularized RAS is, then that's one thing - and that's a debate that very likely has some gray areas ("reasonable" is, by definition, subjective). But specific/particularized and articulable are not subjective.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Deprivation of rights under color of law has no room to "err on the side of caution". Either an officer has specific ("particularlized") articulabe, reasonable suspicion that someone is dangerous, or the officer does not. If the officer does, then the temporary restraint is allowable without violating constitutionally protected rights. If the officer does not, then "erring on the side of caution" is not sufficient justification for what would otherwise be a violation of constitutionally protected rights.

If we're debating what the line of "reasonable" is, with respect to specific/particularized RAS is, then that's one thing - and that's a debate that very likely has some gray areas ("reasonable" is, by definition, subjective). But specific/particularized and articulable are not subjective.

I really don't disagree with any of this. I'm just saying that it appears to be a relatively common practice to (temporarily) restrain a person during questioning. Of course in the case of reality tv, we're not always privy to the entirety of the situation, so it's quite possible that something else may have happened off camera that would justify the action.

 

[actaeon277]

Oui.


If you're getting your idea of law from TV, I hope you don't get your idea of firearms from TV.
Notice how wrong they are on that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Oui.


If you're getting your idea of law from TV, I hope you don't get your idea of firearms from TV.
Notice how wrong they are on that.

I don't know about your guns, but all my guns (even revolvers) make that "chk-chk" sound whenever I point them at something, and they never run out of ammo!

 

[actaeon277]

I don't know about your guns, but all my guns (even revolvers) make that "chk-chk" sound whenever I point them at something, and they never run out of ammo!

And you have to keep on putting a bullet in the chamber, you know, to make you seem like you mean business.

 

[SSGSAD]

Here is my new article on the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling in Pinner v. State (and why it strongly supports the adoption of Constitutional Carry in Indiana:

Supreme Court: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License | 93.1 WIBC

Guy

This is GREAT !!!!! I am glad, very happy .....

Now lets hope, that some IDIOT, doesn't screw it up, for everybody .....

 

[chipbennett]

Now lets hope, that some IDIOT, doesn't screw it up, for everybody .....

Well, if Pinner himself didn't, I don't know who could, or how...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is GREAT !!!!! I am glad, very happy .....

Now lets hope, that some IDIOT, doesn't screw it up, for everybody .....

SSG, I don't understand your concern. Could you please articulate it?

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, I've heard stories, too - but none recently.

I've also done my share of proselytizing to various LEOs within my sphere of influence to avoid boogerhooking firearms that they don't have to.

For full disclosure, I've also told them that if they have a concern, to disarm the person.

ISP was the prime culprit. They are now explicitly trained that it is not legally permissible to do so as a matter of routine.

 

[gregr]

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.

Outstanding post, and well said.

 

[Destro]

I wonder if the US Attorney is tracking this case? Since Pinner is not a "Law abiding citizen", once the case is done they should file federal charges