TipsyMcStagger
Banned
imported post
NOT ALLOWED HERE
NOT ALLOWED HERE
PIG223 wrote:Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did. For verification of this you need to see IC 35-47-2-24. See below
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. emphasis added.
The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.
I've read this too.
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.
Could the key word here be defendant?
de⋅fend⋅ant
[di-fen-duhnt or, especially in court for 1, -dant]
1.
Law. a person, company, etc., against whom a claim or charge is brought in a court
By definition you are misusing this code. A defendant is a person who has been charged with a criminal offense.
How is peaceably carrying a firearm RAS that a crime is being committed?It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress.
I'll answer for you. It's not.
Since the law you quoted is irrelevant the gun owner does not have to prove anything to you.Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.
So what you are saying is "ignorance of the law" IS a diffence for a LEO?Amazing.... I didn't read all 32-someodd posts in the link cited, but in the pages I Did read, not once did anyone bother to actually cite the Indiana code re: any requirement to identify oneself.
A much better response here as I have seen several citations although I don't think I've seen IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24. (emphasis mine)
Everyone, I am sure, will note the phrase '...believes in good faith that an infraction or violation has been commited'. That is the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion part, an officer must first have RAS before detaning a citizen.
Ask the officer 'Am I Free To Go',
..... If he answers 'yes' then it's a voluntary encounter (tier 1) and you may or may not answer any questions at your lesiure.
..... If he answers 'no' , then it becomes Tier 2 in the opinion of the Court and he must have RAS. At that point I would advise anyone to refuse to answer any further questions without a lawyer present. As everyone has seen the "Do Not Talk To The Police" videos is aware, Officer Friendly is no longer your friend at this point.
Edited to Add...(because citing a Complete code can be rather revealing)
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.
Someone kinda forgot to add the rest of the code, I'm sure it was merely overlooked
(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.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.
It would appear that the officer could charge you, and then when it's time to appear in court weeks later, one merely has to produce one's license and the charges will be dropped and the record wiped clean. Nice way to spend an afternoon and perhaps spend a little of the State's money if one cared to do so. If enough citizens stood for their rights then might such wasting of the State's money might be curtailed?
IC 35-47-2-1 states that said license must be in one's possession, it does not state it must be carried on one's person. (Try getting out of being charged with drug possession because the drugs are in your house and you're outside in the yard, as an example.)
IC 35-47-2-24 is the only instance where it must be produced, and only then are any and all charges dropped and the record wiped clean.
I'm a bit of a novice at these things.SNIP Everyone, I am sure, will note the phrase '...believes in good faith that an infraction or violation has been commited'. That is the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion part, an officer must first have RAS before detaning a citizen.
Exactly.So an unseen/unknown person comes up from behind me and says "I'm a cop, I'm going to disarm you" or something similar, I'm supposed to just let that happen? No way dude! You come up behind me and grab me or my weapon, and you are gonna get hurt, bad!
ANYBODY can just walk up and do some dumb sh*t like that! A smartperson that cares to see the next day betterapproach from the front,period.
But to the general population this is an Animal Farm by George Orwell reference.First to the person who called the officer a PIG in this thread I want you to know what pig means to an officer Pride Integrety and Guts.