You can have your gun, but not your ammo

[UncleMike]

Would this case also be within the 4th Amendment, in your opinion? Obviously I have previously opined that he was morally right, legally wrong, but your mention of "reasonable" reminds me of the wording of that Amendment...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Obviously the officer lacked any manner of warrant to seize any property, but would that qualify in your opinion? I am honestly curious at this point as this case is not as "foul-smelling" to me as others I have seen posted.

That's exactly what the Courts refer to when a decision is handed down supporting a case like this.
If an Officer walks up to you on the street, asks if you have a weapon without any suspicion that you've committed a crime, then takes it away, that would be unreasonable.
If your mental state is in question due to trauma from a head injury, you volunteer information that you have a weapon, the Officer temporarily disables the weapon by taking the ammo, that would likely be considered not only reasonable, but prudent, given the fact that people with head injuries often exhibit irrational behavior.

 

[RockofStrength]

That's exactly what the Courts refer to when a decision is handed down supporting a case like this.
If an Officer walks up to you on the street, asks if you have a weapon without any suspicion that you've committed a crime, then takes it away, that would be unreasonable.
If your mental state is in question due to trauma from a head injury, you volunteer information that you have a weapon, the Officer temporarily disables the weapon by taking the ammo, that would likely be considered not only reasonable, but prudent, given the fact that people with head injuries often exhibit irrational behavior.

I see. When you mentioned "the courts" before, my eyes were automatically rolling . Then I turn to the 4th and see it giving me the face. I was getting all nice and ready for a big, long, fact-filled rant too. I was disappointed .

I am happy that in this case it now appears that the only real issue was the lack of a receipt, but that's IMO merely a mistake and easily overlooked at that considering the situation.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I admit, I was reminded of that star wars quote...

"I don't believe that...
And you're sounding like a Separatist"

"What this war represents is a failure to listen."

 

[PatriotPride]

OK
Your quote was;
"Behold, the wonder of those who condone the nanny state. "
THAT was calling her a Nanny Stater, which as every INGO member knows is damn near as bad as the "N" word around here.
Again I call BS!!

Then I extend my apologies. I didn't mean it as an insult, and I certainly didn't intend for it to be percieved as so disrespectful.

 

[RockofStrength]

"What this war represents is a failure to listen."

 

[SMiller]

So you fell asleep at the wheel and hit a truck head on and your biggest concern is getting your ammo back??? You have another mag for starters and plenty more to worry about, like the poor guys truck you hit and how he is going to get to work or make a living now...

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Where does it state in IC that an officer can confiscate you weapon if you've been in a traffic accident and weren't arrested for anything?

Where in I.C does it say we have to unlock your car when you lock your keys in it?

Where in I.C. does it state that we have to stop and help you change a flat tire?

Where in I.C. Does it say that we have to escort funeral processions?

It doesn't but we do these and other things because it is the right thing to do. Just like it was the right thing to do by retaining the OP's ammo until he got right in the head.

Picture this, OP gets in a wreck, gives LEO his weapon to secure it while being extracted. OP is now out of the car and asks for his weapon and ammo back. For what ever reason, medical (due to undiagnosed closed brain trauma), psychological reasons, or uncontrolled anger because of both of the before mentioned issues decides to smoke himself and/or others. The next days headline would read as follows.

A crash victim, who was a licensed owner of a handgun, voluntarily turned the gun over to a deputy for safekeeping while he was being removed from the wreckage. Deputy returns crash victims weapon after he refused medical treatment only to have the victim who was suffering from an undiagnosed brain injury commit suicide at the scene of the crash. Deputy is now on administrative leave pending disciplinary procedures.
__________________

Nothing in law enforcement is black and white, so I give a +10 to the Deputy for exercising professional discretion.

 

[KG1]

This thread has pretty much ran it's course and it's been determined that under the 4th he was covered because it was'nt an "unreasonable" seizure of the ammo because the OP had head trauma. So the officer has been vindicated and he's all clear

 

[PatriotPride]

After thinking about it some more, I'd have to say that my only issue was that no receipt was issued. That was pure slopiness on the part of the officer. Other than that, I'll admit I was wrong and that the officer exercised his discretion in a fair manner consistent with case law.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

After thinking about it some more, I'd have to say that my only issue was that no receipt was issued. That was pure slopiness on the part of the officer. Other than that, I'll admit I was wrong and that the officer exercised his discretion in a fair manner consistent with case law.

Patriot I do believe that in the short amount of time I have been on INGO, this is the first time that you have given a LEO the . Welcome to the dark side!! LOL, just giving you a hard time!

 

[PatriotPride]

Patriot I do believe that in the short amount of time I have been on INGO, this is the first time that you have given a LEO the . Welcome to the dark side!! LOL, just giving you a hard time!

Do you have cookies?

I give credit where credit is due---and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. In this case I was wrong.

And you'd be surprised---there was an epic thread on here I want to say about a year ago where a LEO shot and paralyzed a man on a motorcycle. I was one of the few who called it a good shoot and defended the LEO

 

[Rookie]

I would still like to see case law.

 

[rugertoter]

Well I suppose someone with a concussion might be a little more likely to overlook one of the rules. If he can see that you've hit your head and it turns out you did have a concussion, and he can't possible determine whether you've actually scrambled your brains or not, it seems like he erred on the side of caution. By your own admission you can't remember part of the encounter likely due to your concussion. Probably not a good state to be loading a firearm.

I'm not seeing how this isn't a reasonable judgment call.

I'm with you on this one. What I am saying is this. If, lets say for arguement, the cop was involved in the accident, then I'm sure he would have to have surrendered his firearm just to be on the safe side. I'm afraid if I had a bad head injury, I would want someone to keep my gun until I was better, just to be on the safe side.

 

[rmabrey]

Im glad to see this thread came to the conclusion it did. I Have no issue with the officer confiscating the OP's ammo under the circumstances. He should have been given a receipt though

 

[JoshuaW]

I'm with you on this one. What I am saying is this. If, lets say for arguement, the cop was involved in the accident, then I'm sure he would have to have surrendered his firearm just to be on the safe side. I'm afraid if I had a bad head injury, I would want someone to keep my gun until I was better, just to be on the safe side.

I do to, which is why I surrendered until I was sure of my condition. Now, I will admit that in hindsight I was not as sure as I thought I was.

I still maintain that the officer shouldnt have taken it, especially since there was someone there to "monitor" me. Oh, and for the record, I am not angry at the officer, and I dont feel like my civil rights have been violated, I just dont entirely agree with how it was handled. I do understand though.

 

[finity]

Unless there is a law permitting the officer to exercise judgement in returning weapons/ammunition to a citizen regarding their mental state he was in the wrong.

While we're not SPECIFICALLY dealing with a mental illness as per the following IC, the precedent is there in the law to allow the officer to exercise some discretion where the mental state of the individual is in question.

A question for the medical types on here, though: Is a head injury that causes impaired judgement & irrational/violent actions considered to be a "psychiatric disorder" even if only temporary?

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

According to the precedent set in the IC the cop could have taken his WHOLE gun not just the ammo. At that point I think it would have gotten WAY harder for the OP to get his gun returned compared to "come on down & pick up your bullets tomorrow."

I think the cop did the right thing & reasonably minimized the intrusion on the OP while trying to ensure some minimum standard of public safety.

Isn't that what we pay them for, to help ensure public safety?

At least he didn't do it for the tired old "officer safety" excuse.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I'm happy you weren't hurt worse.

But......, not to be nitpicky, but at the time, neither you nor the police officer knew you "had a concussion" only that you had some sort of head injury. People with head injuries who refuse medical treatment are demonstrating questionable judgment. Head injury symptoms can worsen suddenly and make people confused, disoriented, agitated and combative.

Huge to the Marshall County Sherriff department, and for Patrolman Joe Giordano who was showing far better judgment in the situation than you were, IMO.

I came into this thread after over six pages have been posted. I read through most of the posts before making up my mind about it. I think this is one of those situations where no matter what the LEO does, he is wrong. Both sides have been presented very strongly in this thread, and several excellent posts have been made for both points of view. Here is my , FWIW.

1. Very glad the OP was able to walk away, and that he was able to get treatment on his own later in the day.

2. Very glad no one was seriously injured. It appears the truck driver was able to walk away and no other vehicles were involved. It could have been a very different story.

3. I am also very glad the LEO kept the ammo.

4. I wish the OP would have exercised better judgement and not reloaded the weapon with the spare mag.

Last October I had hip resurfacing surgery (Birmingham procedure). For several days post-op I was on strong sedatives at home. After the first night, I had my son lock my bedside piece in the safety box. I recognized that I was not thinking clearly. I told my son, "Lock this up. I do not want to make a mistake if I wake up in the middle of the night."

The OP, fine gentleman that he is, was not "thinking clearly" based on his own statements. He can't remember the incident, his boss had to tell him what he (the OP) actually said and did, and he was diagnosed later in the day to have a concussion. I do not like the idea of someone in that mental state walking about with a loaded weapon.

In the last year or so, I have lost confidence in the LEO community. There have been too many incidents of rogue cops abusing the citizenry, of SWAT fools killing Marines, or other stupid behaviors by arrogant fools who carry a badge, a grudge, and a chip on their shoulder—as well as a loaded weapon. I am not in the mood to give any LEO (with a few exceptions) the benefit of any doubt any longer. In spite of this, I have to say I think the LEO in this instance did the right thing. We often hear that the LEO is to "serve and protect." I think this officer tried to do just that. I think the OP demonstrated his own lack of good judgement, only due to the trauma of the blow to the head, in reloading immediately and not heeding the advice of the LEO.

Regrets to the OP, but I think you should have let others hold the weapon for you until you completely recovered. Tip of the hat to the LEO. As we say in Dale Carnegie training courses, "You did good!"

 

[Bapak2ja]

Behold, the wonder of those who condone the nanny state.

In what other situation do you hope an LEO arbitrarily decides to confiscate your weapon and ammunition "for your own good"? Driving erratically? Open carrying? Diagnosing you as medically unfit to defend yourself when said officer has no training nor authority to do so?

It is not the love of the nanny state that motivates me to disagree with you. It is my fear of a man who, by his own admission cannot remember what he was doing, walking about with a loaded weapon. I do not trust the judgement of someone in that condition. I do not want such a one to be driving, to be operating heavy equipment, to be driving a train or 18-wheeler, or to be carrying. I do not want such a one out and about any more than i want a drunk behind the wheel or a diabetic in a low blood sugar episode. Such people are dangerous to themselves and others.

I see some parallels in this debate with drunk driving, impaired driving and mental cases. "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." Impaired drivers are dangerous. Most firing ranges will not allow an intoxicated shooter on the range. Nearly all of us would agree that a mentally unstable person should not be allowed to exercise his/her Second Amendment right. The history and theory of the "social contract" (which is explained well in Blackstone) presents valid justification for the limitation of personal liberty for the benefit and safety of the larger society.

With respect to those who are denouncing the nanny state and who demand the free exercise of their right to carry, a person with impaired capacity should not be handed a loaded weapon and should not be allowed to carry. Once the impairment is resolved, return the weapon.

Friends, would you hand a loaded G19 to a drunk? Would you hand the car keys to your daughter's drunk date so they could go to Applebees for desert?

Wise men wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They expected that we, the citizens in years to come, would be wise in our application of both. Let's not try to justify handing a loaded weapon to a man who, by his own admission, cannot remember what was said or done. That is not the way of wisdom.

I really enjoyed learning from this thread. It reminds me why I joined INGO. Good folks here.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Eh, given the accident, yes. Based upon medical examination? No. He asked me a series of questions trying to identify my condition when he originally arrived on scene. To the best of my knowledge, I answered all of that correctly. The EMTs did the same. No one on scene said I had a concussion, nor did I have any obvious head wounds (I now have a knot just above my hair line though).




No, I even said that wouldnt have gone over to well. His failed to accomplish his "best intentions" and if there had been any legal precedent to take any action, he should have taken everything.

I propose the following action that could have been taken:
"Sir, here is your firearm and your ammunition. You have been in a very serious action, and your judgement may be clouded. I would suggest you allow her (my boss) to hold onto everything until you certain you are alright"

That simple. Instead, he confiscated my property improperly, and accomplished nothing, since I was able to reload within five minutes. Had he actually expressed himself similarly to what I described I can honestly say that I would have taken his advice.

Does your boss have a LTCH? If not, he sure isnt going to ask her to commit a crime on your behalf.

This pretty much all boils down to the officer covering his ass, if he gives a handgun back to a guy who had just fallen asleep at the wheel, caused a major accident, with a really strong chance of a major head injury and said driver later does something he doesnt even remember, the officer will get sued, the PD will get sued.

Those folks who are sue happy are the ones who cause this type of stuff. I have no issues with what he did under the circumastances. Go pick up your ammo and move on with your life.

 

[Hoosierdood]

snip...

Isn't that what we pay them for, to help ensure public safety?

NOPE!

Law Enforcement Officer - one who enforces the laws of the state. Have you so quickly forgotten that SCOTUS has even determined that our LEO's have no duty to protect? (i.e. - prevent violence) Now, I am a very strong supporter of our LEO's, and am in no way trying to bash this deputy. I believe that he did what he thought was right. However his thinking was flawed.

I'm not sure why RockofStrenght's post didn't garner a little more support, because I believe he said it best: (BTW, reps inbound once I reload)

Unless there is a law permitting the officer to exercise judgement in returning weapons/ammunition to a citizen regarding their mental state he was in the wrong. I'm not going to call him a JBT; in all likelihood he was merely doing what he could to ensure you didn't do something stupid. I respect the intention, but that was not his place to make that call.

Unfortunately, he had a reason, if not a legally justifiable cause. If he had handed the ammunition back to you and you had shot someone that night, he would have been sued into the ground. IMO, he was put into a bad position with no real good way to handle the situation and he erred on the side of rights-crumpling caution.

So file the complaint simply because every effort has to be made to preserve our rights against the real threats, but don't give the officer himself to much of a hard time here.

I honestly can't believe some of the comments that are being made about this situation. The basic consensus of many in this thread is that the officer had the right to take the OP's liberties for the sake of "safety". But where does that road lead? Confiscation of firearms in a national emergency like Hurricane Katrina? Hopefully you can see my logic here. Yes it's just ammo. But where do we draw the line folks? If we forfeit our freedoms a little at a time, eventually we will have none.

I will summarize my belief in this situation with a well known quote by Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.