How will you respond when LEO stops you for OC?

imported post

I'm new to OC and have been reading many threads here on OCDO. My question for all my fellow Hoosiers who are familiar with Indiana laws is this: What is the best way to respond when you are inevitably stopped by a LEO in response to a MWAG call? What (if anything) are you required to do? Do you have to show your LTCH upon request? Do you challenge the LEO with "Am I being detained?" Then what? I want to know the best process for legally resisting unlawful intervention by the authorities with my right to carry a weapon in the state of Indiana.

imported post

carry a recorder, object to any searches, ask if you are being detained/suspected of a crime, ask to leave

imported post

Section32 wrote:

I'm new to OC and have been reading many threads here on OCDO. My question for all my fellow Hoosiers who are familiar with Indiana laws is this: What is the best way to respond when you are inevitably stopped by a LEO in response to a MWAG call? What (if anything) are you required to do? Do you have to show your LTCH upon request? Do you challenge the LEO with "Am I being detained?" Then what? I want to know the best process for legally resisting unlawful intervention by the authorities with my right to carry a weapon in the state of Indiana.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you consider best. Do you want to go along to get along or do you want to stand up for your rights?

There is much debate on subject of being required to show ID or LTCH when stopped by law enforcement. I have brought this topic up a couple of times. I still don't have a satisfactory answer.

I have yet to find anything in the IC stating that Indiana is a "Stop and Identify" state. The only IC relating to providing ID states that you must provide your personal information when stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Failure to do so is a Class C misdemeanor.

As far as providing an LTCH I have found nothing in IC that says you must do so. In the firearms FAQ on the Indiana State Police website there is a paragraph with the sentence "A law enforcement officer does have the right to inspect the permit". Unlike just about everything else in the firearms FAQ this statement does not have a reference to IC to go with it.

So, if your idea of the best way to handle a stop means not making any waves then provide your LTCH and ID upon request.

If you want to assert your rights don't provide anything. Doing that could go something like this.

LE: Hey you!

You: Yes officer.

LE: What are you doing walking around with a gun on your hip?

You: Peaceably carrying.

LE: I need to see some ID and your license to carry.

You: Am I being detained?

LE: ??? Yes.

You: For what reason am I being detained?

LE: Because your carrying a gun and we got a call about a man with a gun.

You: Peaceably carrying a firearm is not a crime. Do you have reason to believe a crime is being, or is about to be committed?

LE: Your carrying a gun that is all the reason I need.

You: At this time I decline to show my ID or LTCH. Ihave not committed a crime. Am I free to go?

After this there are a number of ways this encounter could go. Anywhere from being let go to spending the night in jail. I think the way I would handle an encounter would be to provide my LTCH and nothing more. Even doing it this way could cause problems. I hope this helps some.

imported post

The inquiry is a bit diferent in states like Indiana which requires a licens eot open carry - what does Indiana statutory law say about this? Does the law explicitly require you to show the carry license on demand?

In most states there is no requirement to have a license open carry, and in thosie states, normal Terry stop law applies, making it unlawful for police to detain open carriers without reasonable suspicion of crime afoot.

imported post

Thanks Beau. I appreciate the role play. That's kind of what is playing through my head. I guess I'll have to play it by ear like Genghis in Highland, if the cop asks nice, play nice.

Mike: Indiana law is a little odd compared to other states. It requires a permit to carry a gun off of your personal property with one exception, taking it for repairs. You cannotlegally transport your weapon to the range without a permit, even if the ammo is isolated. The law (and permit) does not distinguish between open and concealed carry. So, you get the permit and you're good for both. The one big thing we have going for us here is that we can buy a lifetime license--for an exaggerated fee of course. [The funds have been pouring into the state coffers since Nov 2008--there is typically an 8-10 week lead time] The code contains no specific reference to police inspection of documents. Who knows where there might be some other ordinance that applies. What is the "Terry stop law" and is it federal or local?

So, I'm not surprised the State Police seem to think they can demand an OCer to produce his LTCH on request. This may have to be tested to the limit to get a final ruling. I don't suppose anyone is aware of an Indiana court case?

imported post

That's the issue. We need a test case. Any takers?

To me, with what I've found, it seems clear. The mere act of openly carrying a firearm does not provide RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) that a crime is or is about to be committed. There by making a stop for that reason alone unlawful. But until we get some case law on it................?

imported post

Beau wrote:

SNIP ...If you want to assert your rights don't provide anything...

Click to expand...

No offense to Beau, fellas, but I think this isdangerous advice.

I am not a lawyer. I don't want to hold myself up as some sort of infallible expert, but I have devoted a lot of thought to this.

I consider that if a person wants to assert his rights, the best course is to politely, verbally refuse consent while complying with orders.

During a police encounter, the advantage lies with the cop. He has thepower of the state behind him.He can lie. He can plant evidence. He can claim you said things you didn't, orthat you did things you didn't. Onissues where the law is vagueor uncertain, the court can side with the cop.A legal defense will costthe citizen money. What is the penalty for an obstruction charge?

Being polite, especially if recorded (where legal), makes you look good.

Verbally refusing consent isasserting your rights. The courts say that your consent automatically makes what would otherwise be an illegal search or seizure into a legal search or seizure. See the video linked below for more information on this.[suP]1[/suP]

If you refuse consent to the encounter itself, to seizures (of your person or property), and to searches, you are asserting your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The burden then shifts to the cop to have all his legalities in order. If not, then he is open to your counter-attack by way of formal complaint or lawsuit.

But it is important to understand that yourcounteractions come after the encounter, when you are out of his clutches.

During the encounter, you have no way to know for sure whether he has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime in orderto detain (seize) you. Remember, it is not whether you know were doing nothing wrong; it is whether the cop has legal grounds to suspect you are, were, or about todoing something illegal.

You have no way to know for sure that somebody did not call 911 and make an embellished or false report that gave the cop RAS. What if the cop lies to you, saying he sees your gun, but deliberately withholds that he received a report that you were making verbal threats with your hand on your gun?

Even if you did know everything reported to the cop,you would then also have to know whichkinds circumstances or sets of circumstancesthe courts have ruled are sufficient for RAS to justify a detention.

Most of the stop-and-identify statutesI have read contain some element requiring the cop to first have RAS. This arises from the Supreme Courtruling Hiibel v 6th Judicial Court.[suP]2[/suP]The short version is that a cop may only demand you identify yourself verbally, and then only if he has RAS to detain you. But, remember how hard it is to have a high degree of certainty whether the cop does or doesn't have genuine RAS. If you guess wrong on his RAS, and there is a stop-and-identify statute, you may be open to an obstruction charge if you refuse to identify

Now, lets throw a wrench into the works. Lets say the local jurisdiction in which you are standing during your detention has a stop-and-identify local ordinance that you did not know about. If youguesswrong about whether he has genuine RAS and refuse to identify, you open yourself to whatever is the penalty forviolating the local ordinance (if there is one.)

For myself, if a cop demands my ID, I am going to give it to him while verbally refusing consent.If I do this, I am covered against violating some stop-and-identify statute or ordinance I didn't know about.It makes me look cooperative,meaning the sheeple can't paint me as obnoxious.

COP: "Hey, you. C'mere." (firm, commanding tone)

ME: "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. But I do not consent to this encounter. Am I free to go?"

COP: "Why are you carrying that gun?"

ME: "No, offense officer. I do not consent to any searches or seizures. I have nothing to say to you without my attorneys."

COP: "Lemmesee someID!" (firm commanding tone)

ME: (while reaching for wallet) "I will provide my ID, officer. I do not consent to providing it, but since you have demanded it in a tone that makes me think compliance may be compelled, I will give it you."

The same scenario can play out with a cop's demand to exhibit an LTCF.

The key point is that as long as you politely, verbally refuse consent, you are exercising your rights in a way that does not accidentally violatea legal point about which you didn't know, and you areprotecting your legal position should the encounter turn more sour. After the encounter, when you are no longer in the cop's clutches,it will be your turn to come out swinging with a formal complaint or lawsuit.

One final point. Politeness, and civility are important. If you are recording the encounter, the last thing you want is to make it a test of wills and be searched forofficer safetyor arrested and searched. If the cop's integrity is poor, the recording will likely be erased. If you simply must show some unwillingness to have your rights impinged,maybe display some mild indignation. At the most.

1. Busted by FlexYourRights.org: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

2. Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

imported post

Thank you Citizen for taking the time to share your thoughts in depth. That's why I posted this thread, to get some well thought through perspectives. I will look into your links. I am also going to contact a couple of local LEOs to get their perspective. I agree that if one is going to show ANY resistance, we better know what we're doing because the LEO is holding all the cards and is used to being obeyed.

imported post

As I ponder these issues, I keep coming back to our state constitution. The authors took an interesting deviation from the US 2A. This was written in 1851 so we had 60+ years of perspective. The Indiana authors wrote: "The people shall have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state."

How much more straightforward can you get? No confusion over militias here! No arguments over whether or not this language applies to the individual. And yet, here we are saddled with permits and fees and all kinds of off limits zones, starting with the very government facilities themselves! How can any of this possibly be considered "constitutional" when you have such plainly obvious text in our ultimate legal jurisdiction? Here we are reduced to debating whether or not we are going to get in more trouble by not producing our LTCH when our state constituition clearly gives us the right to carry without one! Hell's Bells! It's all pretzel logic! I guess I'm going to have to educate myself on case law in this area because common sense says none of this BS would hold up for one minute in front of a judge.

imported post

Seems to me that if there is no statute requiringa personto show theircarry permit on demand, then it is arguable that it is not an offense to not show it - on the other hand, carrying a handgun in IN without a license is a crime so you might be arrested until you can produce the license - but om the 3d hand, the S. Ct. said in the Prouse case that police cannot stop drivers to ask them to see driver's lic4nses - there has to be supicion of crime afoot.

In any event, you IN folks need to dig into AG opinions and cae law to see if this issue has ever been resolved.

ButI think that it would be practical to just show the license in IN - after all, it is required to both conceal and open carry.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Seems to me that if there is no statute requiringa personto show theircarry permit on demand, then it is arguable that it is not an offense to not show it - on the other hand, carrying a handgun in IN without a license is a crime so you might be arrested until you can produce the license - but om the 3d hand, the S. Ct. said in the Prouse case that police cannot stop drivers to ask them to see driver's lic4nses - there has to be supicion of crime afoot.

In any event, you IN folks need to dig into AG opinions and cae law to see if this issue has ever been resolved.

ButI think that it would be practical to just show the license in IN - after all, it is required to both conceal and open carry.

Click to expand...

Why? What RAS exists to demand proof of a license?

My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime.

The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm. Carrying a firearm is lawful with a licence in Indiana same as for driving a car.The mere presence of a firearm is not RAS or PC, (The mere driving of a car is not...) unless further information is known about the person or situation.

imported post

Well, here's why I want to learn about the law in these situations. As I mentioned above, I asked a LEO acquaintance of mine about being stopped while OCing. This gentleman is the city dept's armorer, so perhaps not the last word for the local PD, but OTOH, he probably represents the prevaling mindset:

I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can with in the limits of my personal experience and knowledge in this area. You are correct in your assumption that open carry does bring with it that potential for an investigatory stops and questioning by any LEO if they have been dispatched on such a run or feel that your action or situation justifies their interaction to determine your legal correctness to possess and carry a firearm, est. If you’ve satisfied the requirements and have been issued an Indiana License To Carry Handgun permit or such life time license, it does not state on the license that you can not carry openly. My experience in this situation; if stopped and approached by an LEO, and questioned, all you have to do is produce your license and valid picture I.D. or other acceptable forms of identification. How ever a L.E.O. can confiscate your firearm and permit, in any encounter, it is a discretionary call with in the lines of an officer safety concern. To the best of my knowledge the LEO has a great deal of latitude on their side in making that call. If you are familiar with Russ Elmore’s Gun shop in Greenwood TX # 888-5400 he carries a book authored by a local lawyer who specializes in gun laws of Indiana. Again these are responses to your questions that are respondent to the best of my knowledge only. Take care, be well...