Same reason Marion county fingerprints you in the same situation...
There is no LEGAL reason for them to do either, but it is a good way to get you on record...
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Tomorrow morning, I go to pick up my confiscated SBR.....
- Thread starter ReSSurrected
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Same reason Marion county fingerprints you in the same situation...
There is no LEGAL reason for them to do either, but it is a good way to get you on record...
I have never read the federal law as I have no items that need to be registered. Guess I should study up so that I don't make myself look stupid if I were to encounter someone with an SBR, machine gun, or suppressor.
I think the point is that unless the police have a reason to believe that someone is breaking the law, then the police are required to assume that people are not violating the law. It has to do with the US and Indiana Constitutions. Not trying to be smart either, but the officer was way over his bounds and I'll bet I know the name of at least one of the officers involved.
The officer did not ask for a copy of the title to the car. The officer did not ask for a copy of the individual's NCIC to prove that he was not a felon.
An officer can always make a check of the areas readily accessible to the driver. It is a safety issue that has been upheld by the Courts repeatedly. The officer should know if the individual has stashed weapons or had weapons within arms reach of the driver.
The officer could not search the trunk without consent or a search warrant. If he would have found a body or drugs, that evidence would be supressed by any Court.
By the way, I know a little about the law.
The best remedy in this case is to file a written complaint with the ISP. It should be non-offensive and acknowledge what the officer did right and what he did wrong. Don't you think the best result would be for the officer to have to spend a few days off in some mandatory classes or counseling?
Last edited:
A VISUAL check, you mean, yes? Arizona v Gant seems to disagree with you if you are referring to a physical inspection.
Really? Can I get a cite on the caselaw in which the courts have "repeatedly upheld" such searches on general principle absent PC or articulable evidence that a person is armed and dangerous?
Thanks,
Joe
No, not a visual check, a search of the area accessible to the driver. As long as the driver is not in handcuffs or back locked in the officer's car, even Arizona v. Gant gives the officer access the person's vehicle. Also, you forget about the "furtive gesture". If there is a concern for the officer's safety, such as the officer saw the occupant make a furtive gesture immediately prior to the stop, then the officer can also search the vehicle.
Your reading of Arizona v. Gant may be better than mine. I have appeared in approximately 5,000+ criminal cases. I believe that most searches of the passenger compartment of a vehicle where the occupant was not in cuffs would be upheld especially with the "correct" testimony of the officer.
Your reading of Arizona v. Gant may be better than mine. I have appeared in approximately 5,000+ criminal cases. I believe that most searches of the passenger compartment of a vehicle where the occupant was not in cuffs would be upheld especially with the "correct" testimony of the officer.
Sure, check any pre-Gant Indiana passenger compartment search. The Indiana interpretation of Gant is still not complete. To save you a little research, Here are the first 5 I found.
Meister v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1137 (Ind.App. 2007)
p.std { margin- 0; margin- 0; 0 0 0 0; }dispatcher to run a license check. Wymer pulled into a convenience permitted to search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle, including 'closed receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes.
04/27/2007
30% 4.Bell v. State, 818 N.E.2d 481 (Ind.App. 2004)
p.std { margin- 0; margin- 0; 0 0 0 0; }Earl Sharp (Sharp) as his passenger. Deputy Steve Rivers (Rivers) a a permit to carry a weapon. (Tr. 32). Rivers "recovered a that the deputies did not check the wallet. Mahone testified that patted down allegedly for officer safety and secured in a police were allowed to search the passenger compartment, and the area behind .
11/30/2004
59% 5.State v. Moore, 796 N.E.2d 764 (Ind.App. 2003)
p.std { margin- 0; margin- 0; 0 0 0 0; }officer could properly search the passenger compartment of the vehicle as a to arrest or for officer safety. Moore also presents one issue s identification and a subsequent check indicated that Moore's driver was sitting in the front passenger seat, and Moore's friend.
09/30/2003
100% 6.Jackson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 615 (Ind.App. 2003)
p.std { margin- 0; margin- 0; 0 0 0 0; }Jackson lean over toward the passenger side of his car while was trying to get a weapon, Officer Krider drew his own to his patrol car to check the information on the license that the zipper on the passenger side seat was partially open against the interests of officer safety. Wilson v. State, 745 N.
03/24/2003
34% 7.Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. 2001)
p.std { margin- 0; margin- 0; 0 0 0 0; }the car for a sobriety check. Lockett did not respond to seat, and he took the weapon for his own safety. After unloading the handgun and confronting a claim that a weapon was improperly seized during a 2d at 335-36. The safety of police officers is a.
Well, certainly IANAL, so enlighten me if I read this wrong...
"Reaching distance" seems to contradict what you stated, does it not?
...and by "correct testimony", well... correct me if I am wrong, but I read that as you implying... "as long as the Officer tweaks his story to justify his/her actions".
Ummm, No they do not meet the Standards of the Handgun Section at all.
IC 35-47-1-6
"Handgun"
Sec. 6. "Handgun" means any firearm:
(1) designed or adapted so as to be aimed and fired from one (1) hand, regardless of barrel length; or
(2) any firearm with:
(A) a barrel less than sixteen (16) inches in length; or
(B) an overall length of less than twenty-six (26) inches.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.
Well, according to the Toeller rule, reaching distance is 21 feet. So as long as the occupant is still at the car not in cuffs, he is probably within "reaching distance".
Officers testify to what officers testify. I have heard officers testify to support their cases to evidence that does not seem to be supported by the evidence. Anyone who does not believe that some officers tailor their testimony to support their arrest is naive.
Officers testify to what officers testify. I have heard officers testify to support their cases to evidence that does not seem to be supported by the evidence. Anyone who does not believe that some officers tailor their testimony to support their arrest is naive.
20 posts and you are already jaded enough you EXPECT to be flamed??
No flames here, I thought we were just having a discussion..
LOL
NP, I agree with you that the new interpretation by the Supremes will need new interpretation in Indiana. However, I have enough experience to know that some officers will tailor their situations to the new rules established by Indiana Courts.
NP, I agree with you that the new interpretation by the Supremes will need new interpretation in Indiana. However, I have enough experience to know that some officers will tailor their situations to the new rules established by Indiana Courts.
ReSSurrected
I think you probably did the right thing, even though the LOE may have been in the wrong it seems like anything other then what you did may have just swallowed up more of your time then it already has, not to mention if you would have really went fist-to-cuffs with this you may have ended up spending all kinds of time and $$ in and out of court.
It doesn't make it right, but sometimes the path of least resistance is just the right one. At the end of the day, you got the situation resolved and got a few pot shots in when picking up your property. I would hazard to guess the 1SGT likely had a talk with the local troops in regards to this matter. I say well played on your part.
I think you probably did the right thing, even though the LOE may have been in the wrong it seems like anything other then what you did may have just swallowed up more of your time then it already has, not to mention if you would have really went fist-to-cuffs with this you may have ended up spending all kinds of time and $$ in and out of court.
It doesn't make it right, but sometimes the path of least resistance is just the right one. At the end of the day, you got the situation resolved and got a few pot shots in when picking up your property. I would hazard to guess the 1SGT likely had a talk with the local troops in regards to this matter. I say well played on your part.
If there were furtive movements as stated before then the area that the person can control, the whole vehicle if there is an arrest. However he can inventory search your car if he's just going to tow it and anything found at that point can be used against you.
Pretty much , they can tailor the entire stop to do what ever they damn well please.
The only one that gets to decide wether "furtive movements " were made is the officer
So the moral of the story is; Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, and like to hang around the P.D.. And have lots of money for your attorney ( ask my divorce lawyer ). Then have your Form 1 in your wallet.
If I am working near 38th and College and I stop someone with an SBR or AOW, And he says that I left my Form 1 at home. I'm going to believe him. No one ever lied to me.
The law is kind of vague. Just use common sense. The only one that counts in interpreting the law is the judge you're standing in front of.
If I am working near 38th and College and I stop someone with an SBR or AOW, And he says that I left my Form 1 at home. I'm going to believe him. No one ever lied to me.
The law is kind of vague. Just use common sense. The only one that counts in interpreting the law is the judge you're standing in front of.
Good advice !!
It makes no sence to me why someone would leve the house with a title 2 firearm & not have documentation with you ?????
I know im gonna here the ol " but we dont have to produce it to state LEOs " Uhhhhh, obviously you do !!!!!
IMO having a copy of your stamp for each title 2 firearm you have with you is the only way to go
VUPDblue
Silencers Have NEVER Been Illegal !
IMO having a copy of your stamp for each title 2 firearm you have with you is the only way to go
QFT and repped.
- Status
