Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Cop Baiting in St Joeseph County

  1. #1
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    342

    Cop Baiting in St Joeseph County

    My cousin is a reserve in the St Joseph County Sheriff's Department. He is pro 2A like most of his co-workers. He called me in Vermont last night (Sat July 21) to tell me about an incident that occurred earlier in the evening in the county area. An OC'er was doing his thing and apparently waiting for the police to arrive with a camera. When they did arrive he was filming them and refused to give his LTCH. In Indiana it is required to have a licence for CC & OC and present it upon demand. My cousin said none of the deputies have issues with OC, just idiots who act like smart asses. Everyone in Indiana knows the law and failing to produce a license makes us look like idiots. In Wyoming this is not an issue, but in Indiana it is the law of the land according to all websites. If you don't like the law get it changed to no permit needed for OC. Until is changed you are no longer the "law abiding firearms owner" when you fail to observe the law as written.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,873
    Citation?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    232
    Please ask your cousin to cite the law that requires a person to present his LTCH and driver's license on the demand of a police officer.
    Indiana law does not differentiate between open and concealed carry.

    Indiana weapon statutes: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    232
    p.s. please post a link to the video if it's been posted on youtube.
    Indiana law does not differentiate between open and concealed carry.

    Indiana weapon statutes: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/

  5. #5
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by cce1302 View Post
    Please ask your cousin to cite the law that requires a person to present his LTCH and driver's license on the demand of a police officer.
    Clay, you know that you need to show a LTCH to avoid possible arrest. If you are OCing the LEO has RAS of a crime and one way or another they will find out you have a valid LTCH or you might be charged with carrying without a license.

    The Drivers License is of course a different story.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,873
    So, what subsection of the Indiana Code would openly carrying a firearm give suspicion of violating? Numbers, please.

    And why "of course" would a driving license be a different story? Why would being seen in public operating a vehicle not be reasonably suspicious that the operator wasn't a licensed driver?

    I should probably take the time to point out that in current jurisprudence there is a difference between -
    "It is a class-1 misdemeanor to operate a vehicle on public roads, unless the operator is licensed" and "All operators of vehicles on public roads must have in their immediate possession a valid license." One presumes the conduct to be illegal, the other presumes otherwise.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 07-23-2012 at 11:06 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    So, what subsection of the Indiana Code would openly carrying a firearm give suspicion of violating? Numbers, please.

    And why "of course" would a driving license be a different story? Why would being seen in public operating a vehicle not be reasonably suspicious that the operator wasn't a licensed driver?

    I should probably take the time to point out that in current jurisprudence there is a difference between -
    "It is a class-1 misdemeanor to operate a vehicle on public roads, unless the operator is licensed" and "All operators of vehicles on public roads must have in their immediate possession a valid license." One presumes the conduct to be illegal, the other presumes otherwise.
    IC 35-47-2-1
    Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
    Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
    (1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
    (2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
    (A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
    (B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
    (C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
    (3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
    (A) unloaded;
    (B) not readily accessible; and
    (C) secured in a case;
    (4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
    (A) unloaded;
    (B) not readily accessible; and
    (C) secured in a case; or
    (5) the person carries the handgun:
    (A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
    (B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
    (C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (c) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun.
    (d) This section may be not construed:
    (1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting the possession of firearms on the private property;
    (2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that:
    (A) prohibits; or
    (B) has the effect of prohibiting;
    an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
    (3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute, ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that allows a person to possess or transport a firearm or ammunition if the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting the firearm or ammunition by state or federal law.
    As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.326-1987, SEC.1; P.L.195-2003, SEC.6; P.L.98-2004, SEC.155; P.L.118-2007, SEC.35; P.L.164-2011, SEC.1; P.L.6-2012, SEC.231.


    To your second point:

    2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.
    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../648/case.html

    See also:

    IC 34-28-5-3.5
    Refusal to identify self
    Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
    (1) name, address, and date of birth; or
    (2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
    to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor

  8. #8
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,050
    so they have made a law to break the 5th amendment?
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    so they have made a law to break the 5th amendment?
    Perhaps you could elaborate?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,873
    Thank you, Titanium Frost, IC 35-47-2-1 is exactly the same provision of the Indiana Code I was going to use in support of my side.

    I notice the wording, "Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun."
    By what sense (of the five most common, touching, tasting, smelling, seeing, and hearing) would one reasonably form a suspicion that a person is not licensed to carry a handgun?
    Does someone without a license issued under IC 35-47-2-1 have a different feel to his clothes, skin, or hair? Does he taste different? Does he have a different odor than one who is legally licensed? Is he a different color than a licensed individual? Is his voice noticeably different?

    Let's pretend I'm the state's District Attorney, Solicitor General or by any other name the Prosecution is known by in Indiana.
    "Officer Frost, how did you come to suspect that Mr. Guncarrier was not licensed? Please articulate for me, what you physically felt, smelled, tasted, saw, or heard that led you to believe that he was not properly licensed and therefore gave you authority to detain Mr Guncarrier? Please remember that inchoate, unparticularized suspicions aren't something I'm willing to put my reputation on the line for."
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 07-23-2012 at 08:29 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    I think you are looking at it wrong. I have seen case law (I don't have my notes handy and I'm not at my computer) that basically says that it is YOUR responsibility to prove you are licensed, not the other way around.

    The RAS would be visually identifying a handgun, bulges don't typically count and specifically don't count when you have already presented a valid LTCH (Richardson v Ind).

    There is other case law that states that mere suspicion of a firearm when not under the definition of a Terry stop does not prove to be enough for a search for a firearm- again I don't have my notes handy.

    Since this is specifically an OC forum it is safe to assume your handgun will be visible. There is no SCOTUS or ISC protection for checking your LTCH like there is for your drivers license (quoted earlier). In other words a LEO cannot pull you over just to check your license unless he has RAS to believe you aren't valid.

    "Once you prove you have a valid license all records of your arrest will be destroyed." If a LEO did not have the authority to check your license why would this even be written in the code? It would not even be an issue.

    FYI I don't agree with nor like this law but to the best of my knowledge and reading this is the case.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,873
    There are laws (few and far between thankfully) where one must prove one's innocence. These are known as affirmative defenses and the proof is an element of the defense rather than an element of the offense. For the vast majority of crimes, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove guilt. As a general rule, affirmative defenses are spelled out that way in the applicable law.



    The RAS would be visually identifying a handgun, bulges don't typically count and specifically don't count when you have already presented a valid LTCH (Richardson v Ind).
    I hope you didn't mean this Richardson v Indiana.
    That case does not address an openly carried handgun, and I would not that openly carrying a handgun in Indiana is legal with a proper license. How would one form a reasonable suspicion that there was NOT a proper license just upon seeing a handgun? Remember, the violation is not carrying a firearm, it's not having a proper license.

    I wouldn't put money on "your arrest record will be destroyed." Criminal records have to be expunged which is a legal proceeding. They don't hit the 'delete' key just for funsies.
    Am I sure about that? Yeah, I've been arrested, I've had the case 'nolle prossed', and I'm in the process of having the record expunged.

    I would note that there is no authorization for an officer to check your driving license, EXCEPT for as specifically provided for by law. Violate a traffic ordinance (or run into one of those "no RAS required, suspicionless, "DUI roadblocks") and the officer has every reason to check your driving license. Violate the law and commit a violent crime and Officer Friendly now has every reason to check your firearms license.

    I would posit that being seen driving a car is no more indicative of criminal conduct than is being seen carrying a lawful item(a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?)
    -United States v DeBerry

    Seeing an openly carried firearm is only proof that there is an openly carried firearm, it's not proof of any sort that a piece of paper (or card stock, or plastic) doesn't exist.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 07-23-2012 at 09:16 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Two things and I'm done for tonight, have to continue tomorrow.

    1) Yes that is the Richardson I was referring to and if you re-read what I wrote I said "bulge" as in concealed on your person but there is still a "bulge." I was attempting to find common ground. It is usually helpful to show the opposing view that you are correct and not just arguing to argue.

    2) I don't think Indiana handgun law has gone more than two years without being changed to some degree. The basis is that it is illegal to carry a handgun in Indiana. To get around that there is a License to Carry. You must have that license to be legal.

    I'm a contractor, I have to have my permits when I'm working on a customers house and if I don't I can get fined or shut down until I do. There is no suspicion I don't have them necessary, I have to prove I have one. Same thing here. It is illegal to carry a handgun without a license, you must have a license. I don't see why this is so complicated.

    Trust me a judge will say you have to show your LTCH. A prosecutor will tell you the same thing. Your lawyer also will tell you the same thing. I may not always ave the answers but I trust those sources.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    One more thing: your record of arrest and charges dropped are in the Ind Code right after what I quoted earlier, you can look it up.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    There are laws (few and far between thankfully) where one must prove one's innocence. These are known as affirmative defenses and the proof is an element of the defense rather than an element of the offense. For the vast majority of crimes, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove guilt. As a general rule, affirmative defenses are spelled out that way in the applicable law...
    As is the case with being licensed to carry a handgun in Indiana:

    IC 35-47-2-24
    Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
    Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
    (b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Thanks ATM, that was exactly what I was thinking but I had a brain fart as to where it was.

  17. #17
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium_frost View Post
    Perhaps you could elaborate?
    i probably should have included the 1st and 4th amendment in there to

    5th; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

    4t5h; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

    1st; can mean to keep your mouth shut
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Thanks genius. I meant how does that specifically apply to the code and cases I posted.

    Also you have some funky code causing "spoiler" to pop up in your post.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium_frost View Post
    Thanks ATM, that was exactly what I was thinking but I had a brain fart as to where it was.
    Thanks also from me, that was the sections I needed.

    Apparently I owe Titanium Frosted Flakes an apology. And I do.

  20. #20
    Regular Member griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Okemos, MI
    Posts
    851
    The Sean Combs case in MI was somewhat similar. The judge ruled that the police had RAS to ask for ID to make sure he was legal. Yet Sean still was not required by law to provide it even though the police had RAS to ask.

    In the real world the cops might arrest you, then you will eventually have to provide ID anyway or wait until trial, but by law you still aren't required to.
    "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." – William F. Buckley
    "...go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." – Samuel Adams
    Wheels

  21. #21
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566
    Is this the case you are referring to?

    http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/po...rm-driver.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •