Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
9/17/2020 5:59:48 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:40:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:43:42 PM EDT
Holy shit, is that common sense I see?
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:44:06 PM EDT
Good ruling.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:44:14 PM EDT


Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:45:41 PM EDT
Seems reasonable logic to me.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:50:21 PM EDT
Score one for the Good Guys!
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:50:47 PM EDT
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:52:12 PM EDT



Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Seems reasonable logic to me.






 
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:53:48 PM EDT
I always chuckle when they find "a small bag or marijuana" anytime they search a car for any reason.

I have never even smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone done any illicit drugs, but I am quite certain "a small bag of marijuana" will be magically found under my seat if the police ever decide they want to search my car.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:57:15 PM EDT
Thought the INSC already handled this in a previous case?
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:57:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sic_ness:
I always chuckle when they find "a small bag or marijuana" anytime they search a car for any reason.

I have never even smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone done any illicit drugs, but I am quite certain "a small bag of marijuana" will be magically found under my seat if the police ever decide they want to search my car.


I'm pretty certain that the "small bag of marijuana" was not a plant by the officer in order to issue a ticket for possession.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:08:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DanielT:
Originally Posted By sic_ness:
I always chuckle when they find "a small bag or marijuana" anytime they search a car for any reason.

I have never even smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone done any illicit drugs, but I am quite certain "a small bag of marijuana" will be magically found under my seat if the police ever decide they want to search my car.


I'm pretty certain that the "small bag of marijuana" was not a plant by the officer in order to issue a ticket for possession.


After all an officer with such obvious repect for the 4th ammendment would obviously be far too upstanding to plant drugs during an illegal search.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:11:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ClaimsAssassin:
Holy shit, is that common sense I see?


You would be shocked how many cops feel like they can search you or your car solely because you have a CHP or are open-carrying.

I currently have two clients whose weapons were confiscated by police officers during a routine traffic stop where the officers had zero evidence that the person was presently dangerous.  One guy was cuffed for 40 minutes while the cops desperately tried to find something to arrest him for, merely because he had a CHP and refused to discuss whether he had a gun in the car –– and this was after he had gotten his summons for expired tags.  The other guy was lawfully open-carrying and was stopped for "shit dangling from rearview mirror."  Neither one had any outstanding warrants or BOLOs.  The cops just got a case of My Badge Makes My Balls Bigger Than Yours and pushed the issue.

And, with that, in before _____________________ says "BUT I NEED TO GO HOME SAFE AT THE END OF MY SHIFT!!!!11!!"  When you've seen dashcam videos that clearly indicate the cop is engaging in "YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE LEGALLY CARRYING A GUN IS MAKING ME NERVOUS! STOP MAKING ME NERVOUS, SIR!! OK, THAT'S IT, I AM CUFFING YOU FOR YOUR SAFETY" in a jurisdiction that does not require you to inform officers whether you are armed, then you tend to get tired of the crap.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:12:47 PM EDT
HE SMOKES THE DEVILS WEEDS!!!1!

BURN HIM
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:13:42 PM EDT
Indiana is an awesome state for laws.

They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement.

Indiana rocks.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:17:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MlTCHELL:
Indiana is an awesome state for laws.

They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement.

Indiana rocks.


Virginia's pretty good too, although you cannot be under the influence while carrying and cannot concealed-carry in a bar (which is just a restaurant serving alcohol for consumption on the premises).  But for some reason, there are a lot of police officers who believe "peasants with guns is bad"  Not all of them, but enough to make you wonder where they get this stuff from.
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:25:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:26:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:27:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Good ruling.


Link Posted: 3/8/2010 1:59:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I agree with the court.


we need modern science to clone your ass like the Clone Army and have you be the model for law enforcement.  But then I guess we'd have several hundred thousand new Arfcom members clogging up teh General Discussion form:


Bama-Shooter:  Good shoot.
Bama-Shooter 000001:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000002:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000003:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000004:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000005:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000006:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000007:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000008:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000009:  +1
Bama-Shooter 0000010:  +87
Bama-Shooter 0000011: +1
Bama-Shooter 0000012:  IBTL!
Bama-Shooter 0000013:  +1
Bama-Shooter 0000014:  +1
Link Posted: 3/8/2010 2:24:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:11:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine.


Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court?  Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air?  It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:16:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I agree with the court.


we need modern science to clone your ass like the Clone Army and have you be the model for law enforcement.  But then I guess we'd have several hundred thousand new Arfcom members clogging up teh General Discussion form:


Bama-Shooter:  Good shoot.
Bama-Shooter 000001:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000002:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000003:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000004:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000005:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000006:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000007:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000008:  +1
Bama-Shooter 000009:  +1
Bama-Shooter 0000010:  +87
Bama-Shooter 0000011: +1
Bama-Shooter 0000012:  IBTL!
Bama-Shooter 0000013:  +1
Bama-Shooter 0000014:  +1


From basic academy to refresher academy, iirc 14 years of doing this job and I can't count how much advance training, I have zero hours of training in dealing with CCW holders.



Is part of training a mandate to throw common sense out the window?
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:21:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcouey:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine.


Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court?  Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air?  It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here.


I think what he means is that the appeal to INSC is inevitable.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:24:35 AM EDT
I had a cop search my car because I had a CHL.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:28:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:29:53 AM EDT
Sounds good.....but What do I know?
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:30:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:43:17 AM EDT



Originally Posted By spartacus2002:



Originally Posted By ClaimsAssassin:

Holy shit, is that common sense I see?




You would be shocked how many cops feel like they can search you or your car solely because you have a CHP or are open-carrying.



I currently have two clients whose weapons were confiscated by police officers during a routine traffic stop where the officers had zero evidence that the person was presently dangerous.  One guy was cuffed for 40 minutes while the cops desperately tried to find something to arrest him for, merely because he had a CHP and refused to discuss whether he had a gun in the car –– and this was after he had gotten his summons for expired tags.  The other guy was lawfully open-carrying and was stopped for "shit dangling from rearview mirror."  Neither one had any outstanding warrants or BOLOs.  The cops just got a case of My Badge Makes My Balls Bigger Than Yours and pushed the issue.



And, with that, in before _____________________ says "BUT I NEED TO GO HOME SAFE AT THE END OF MY SHIFT!!!!11!!"  When you've seen dashcam videos that clearly indicate the cop is engaging in "YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE LEGALLY CARRYING A GUN IS MAKING ME NERVOUS! STOP MAKING ME NERVOUS, SIR!! OK, THAT'S IT, I AM CUFFING YOU FOR YOUR SAFETY" in a jurisdiction that does not require you to inform officers whether you are armed, then you tend to get tired of the crap.




+1 Spartacus.





I'm prior civilian, and retired military LEO and you're absolutely right.  There are alot of cops (not all, but unfortunately too many) out there that have that "I need to make you safe!" attitude.   It's also amazing at how many cops are anti-gun.  And by that I mean they don't like them at all.  The only one they will have is their dept issue weapon and that's it.  And if there was a way that they didn't have to carry that gun, they wouldn't.  



This is a good ruling from Indiana.  I hope the ISPD doesn't buck it up further, and that maybe other states will look at it.  





 
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:46:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MlTCHELL:
Indiana is an awesome state for laws.

They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement.

Indiana rocks.


I love my state

Link Posted: 3/9/2010 5:49:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mcouey:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine.


Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court?  Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air?  It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here.


Yeah. I can't see why the lower court can't make it ruling like this. It seems like they are either: 1. hoping that the additional costs involved with an appeal will force a plea bargin or   2. have been told to pass such issues to a higher court  3. liberal/communist or don't know the law
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:12:04 AM EDT
I am shocked to learn that a bag of MJ found within proximity to a gun is not an automatic felony...the article does not even mention a charge for the MJ...just the headlight.

Did I read something wrong?
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:22:14 AM EDT
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed.  The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable.

Flame away.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:26:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:29:44 AM EDT
No duty to inform in Indiana.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:32:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th ammendment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine.


Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court?  Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air?  It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here.


I would have to read all the court documents but it's pretty well established you can't just cuff and search a person based only on a CCW permit.

An officer has to be able to articulate why he did it, not that he just wanted to do it. This does not mean for the duration of a stop an officer cannot seperate a CCW holder from his weapon.


I've been stopped 3 times in Alabama. Each time I notified the officer that I had a weapon and a permit. Not once did the officer want to take my weapon and only once did the officer actually ask to see my permit. I got to keep my gun on my person. No problems. One officer was a dick but he was a dick when he approached my car.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:36:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xylo:
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed.  The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable.

Flame away.


Then what you are telling me is that I need to keep my mouth shut when you ask or tell you to MYOB? If I tell you that are you going to assume that I have a weapon and search anyway?
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:41:40 AM EDT
A great example of the "US vs Them" mentality in law enforcement.
Cuff and stuff is easy. Gun !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Im surprise this case got so far seems pretty common sense.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 6:42:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 7:17:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 7:17:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 8:11:36 AM EDT
So now all the Indy police will put in all their reports "officer safety" is why I did this and that.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 8:42:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 9:05:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sparkym37:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By mcouey:
The deeper question here is will the state appeal to the IN supreme court or will they respect the ruling and the 4th amendment?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


This is no brainer and pretty much established doctrine.


Then why did the lower court rule that the search was legal to later be overturned by the appeals court?  Do you mean it's established in your state, but not in Indiana, or that this is pretty much Nationally established and IN just decided to pull their heads out their ass for some air?  It's easy to understand one cop making a mistake like this, but for a court to agree with him first go round, and the appeals court to overturn, that leaves me confused WRT what "established" means here.


Yeah. I can't see why the lower court can't make it ruling like this. It seems like they are either: 1. hoping that the additional costs involved with an appeal will force a plea bargain or   2. have been told to pass such issues to a higher court  3. liberal/communist or don't know the law


There is probably no hidden agenda at the lower court. There is simply better talent on the bench the higher you go. Every court down the totem pole is gaining experience that the higher courts have already developed.

Link Posted: 3/9/2010 9:07:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xylo:
I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed.  The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable.

Flame away.


And what crime would that be in this case?
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 10:29:47 AM EDT
Ask permit holder if he's carrying.
If firearm is in car, ask him to step back between the two cars to discuss the traffic infraction.
If firearm is on his person, ask him to secure it in his vehicle, and then step back from the car to discuss the infraction.
How hard is it to do the right thing?

How do you make the logic jump that "this guy is licensed to carry.  he says the gun is in the car.  I need to search the car to verify that the weapon he said he has, which he has permission to carry, is actually in the car"  JUST ASK HIM TO STEP AWAY FROM THE MOTHERFUCKING CAR AND BAM, WEAPON IS NOT DANGEROUS!  It should also go without saying that the kind of person you should be worried about in a traffic stop is the one that doesn't have a CCW permit, and doesn't tell you they have a weapon on them.
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 12:00:37 PM EDT



Originally Posted By xylo:


I disagree with the courts ruling, based on what I read here. The officer should have the ability to secure a weapon, whether legally carried or not, when that officer suspects a crime has been committed.  The CCW itself is not a "license to search" but a CCW saying, after a lawful stop, I have a gun under my seat, or in a holster at my side or in my pocket etc, the officer should be able to secure that weapon, and any contraband found while doing so should be admissable.



Flame away.


We're talking about a taillight out.  How many people get arrested and go to jail for a taillight? (taillight only, no other issues or warrants)?  The state gives a person the "ok" to carry a concealed firearm, but lets an LEO treat him/her like a suspect.  If that's the case, then anyone driving a car that is pulled over should be cuffed too, just because they have a license to operate a vehicle.



 
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 12:17:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 12:47:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By ilike9s:
So now all the Indy police will put in all their reports "officer safety" is why I did this and that.


It's more than that.

Take for example my disarm, guy ran a red light, rental vehicle, firearm laying on the center console in plain view and did not disclose(not required), two people in the vehicle, both acting very nervous and when I pulled them over they seemed to be seat diving. So for the duration of the stop I secured the firearm. I also asked if there were anymore.


So if the stop is the same scenario, except the 2 people are acting normal, respectful, etc and one or both have a CCW do you personally feel you have to secure the weapon.  I guess what I'm asking is it a discretion (vibe) thing?
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 12:52:54 PM EDT
Good shoot...I mean ruling
Link Posted: 3/9/2010 1:41:55 PM EDT





Originally Posted By satellite:





Originally Posted By MlTCHELL:


Indiana is an awesome state for laws.





They issue at 18 years old, you can carry pretty much anywhere but a courthouse or K-12 school, there's no limit on BAC or carrying in the bar, they don't require notification of law enforcement.





Indiana rocks.






I love my state










+1 million













 
 
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top