Tuesday, March 09, 2010

I'm a Happy Hoosier.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the standard for a Terry frisk is whether the officer reasonably suspects the person is “armed and dangerous.” “Armed” alone shouldn’t be enough...
Shootin' Buddy, sometimes known as "The Rosa Parks of Broad Ripple" for his run-in with the local Five-Oh over the dangerous crime of open-carrying a firearm in a coffee house, is no doubt pleased at this latest ruling from the Indiana Court of Appeals.

If merely having a visible firearm is probable cause to stop, demand papers, and pat down your pockets, then merely driving down the road is probable cause to pull you over, demand your operating license, and look in your trunk. In neither instance is there prima facie evidence of a crime being committed.


Jay G said...

That incident - and the hundreds/thousands of others just like it that go unreported - is part of the reason I don't OC (when possible).

I plain don't have the patience to deal with the "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAY!" types...

Anonymous said...

LEO's are rarely versed in the law.
They are however very well versed in regulations and procedures. This leads to conflict with folks who understand the law and don't give a hoot about regulations and procedures.


Anonymous said...

Holy Cow. No way I would have had the patience for that crap. Around here they usually cite you for "Disturbing the Peace" as a catch all that costs you several hundred dollars.

Al T.

Fred said...

We just had a massive victory in Wisconsin regarding open carry (the City of Racine and two officers were ordered to pay $10,000 to an individual they wrongfully arrested for OCing), just the first ruling to come down from the suit. This added to the memo from the State AG last year should have a good impact on Wisconsin LEOs to not overstep their boundaries.

This sounds like something along the same lines. (Ours was "simply open carrying of a holstered firearm is not disorderly conduct")

Wolfwood said...

So what you're saying is that if a uniformed, armed police officer comes toward you, you should call the other police on him to report a man with a gun? At least, that's what I'm getting out of all of this.

Anonymous said...

Damn Wookie Suiters, always trying to start up trouble.

Shootin' Buddy

Anonymous said...

To my dismay, a case in Georgia was recently ruled upon with the opposite outcome. The case concerned an incident in which MARTA police officers observing a man conceal a pistol before entering a MARTA facility. The man was stopped, patted down, and otherwise detained while the cops determined he had a valid CCW permit. He was taken to a private area and his pistol was returned to him.

"The court ruled that Raissi presented all the elements of both carrying a concealed weapon and boarding a train with a firearm." Evidently, the CCW permit is an affirmative defence to such charges, but police have reasonable suspicion to stop and search an individual they suspect to be carrying.


Fred said...

Anon's case above kind of makes sense. It sounds paramount to suing the police for making you sit on the side of the road while they run your plates, finding that you did indeed renew your tags, they just haven't shown up in the mail yet, and let you go.
The gentlemen (the case includes two separate incidents of false arrest as well as challenging the legality of the 1000' Gun Free School Zone and vehicle carry laws) were both arrested, jailed, and at least one of them has yet to have his gun returned to him (may be the case for both, not sure off hand).

It also appears that the Georgia case has some other things going on, other than just carry issues.
"The court also ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the state open records act claims, but ruled that some defendants (he could not tell which) were liable for Privacy Act violations."
Without knowing more about the case, it sounds shaky at best to me, and the outcome doesn't surprise me much. The lesson learned should be to holster up your CCW piece before you leave the house if anything.

staghounds said...

Exactly, assuming carrying is ORDINARILY a crime in Ga., as it is in many states.

The officer who sees a gun in public is ALWAYS going to have SOME contact with the person he sees with it.

Because the officer's other option is to ignore the gun. And then get shot with it. Or have to explain why he "let" the crazed killer shoot up the mall he was entering as the police officer walked away.

I think the ISC was right. As was the officer, up to the handcuffing point. And maybe even then, depending on the circumstances.

The search, no.

Anonymous said...

In Wisconsin I think it is important to point out that the gun carrier was on his own property.

In Joe-juh the gun carrier was living in a state where the license was an affirmative defense. Lack of license was not an element of the statute, but rather a defense to the crime of carrying a gun.

In the Indianapolis case, it gives us good precedent against IMPD's fascination with fondling guns when there is no reason to do so subjecting them to civil suits and criminal chares as "department policy" no longer flies.

In Broad Ripple the gun carrier was incredibly suave, a super cool dude, and who looked good in a University of Texas t-shirt (I still think I was stopped because the cop is gay and he was hitting on me).

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

It's pronounced "Jaw-juh", you heathen yankee. :p

Anonymous said...

Oh, I doooo apologize, honeychild, I was sipping on a Mint Julep while wearing my white suit with a black string tie and got that there pronuceeashun, accent, I say, I say, incorrect.

Shootin' Buddy

Ed Foster said...

Here in CT, at least in Hartford, I would be hard pressed to find a serving officer who wasn't wildly pro armed citizens. Urban politicos, no, but badge toting cops out on the street, damn near 100%. And the percentile of cops as members of gun clubs is easily double digits.

Cop/Son #1 sounds like me, but louder, something that might have suprised me when he was 18. What was the old Mark Twain line concerning how a guy thinks about his father at age 10, 20, and 30?

In CT, a permit to possess is a permit to carry concealed, and most permit holders do so.

It has lead to the common supposition that exposed carry is illegal, which isn't true. But it is rarely found outside hunters in the field, shooters on ranges, or plinkers on private property, all of which (again, your mileage may differ) strikes me as reasonable.

Consider. The requirements to obtain a pistol permit in CT are more difficult than those required to become a police officer of the minority persuasion (yes, I can back that up). Consider also that something like 17% of the adult population has permits.

It becomes more and more difficult for the media to brand us as unshaven loonies, especially since the majority of newer permits go to women.

Empowerment and all that. Very P.C., but also true. "God didn't make all men equal, Colonel Colt did".

I haven't been stopped while heeled, but a few of my buddies have been, and they all report that politely telling the officer you are carrying, and that you are a permit holder, will always get you a pass.

Perhaps it's just the way CT trains police, but they all seem to realize that if you have a permit, you are most likely a citizen, not a perp.

There are buttheads anywhere, but by and large, I'm pretty impressed with CT cops.

Matt G said...

There are those of us, Shootin' Buddy, who are trying to spread to good word of freedom among the ranks. And we're appalled at the way you were treated at the coffee shop.

What became of your tomato-red, allegedly-latent, civil rights trampler? I would be a bit surprised if you did not follow up with his agency, but I've not seen any mention that you had.

CarlS said...

Interesting. I read the whole story, including the portion at the Volokh Conspiracy, where it was said:

"While I am sure no person here wants to see an innocent dead cop we know they know two things for sure...

1) The job was dangerous before they volunteered to do it.

2) Every person is a potential danger.

Which leads to your solution of locking everyone up when in a face-to-face with a law enforcement official."

Very thought-provoking. I too volunteered for a dangerous job and I always knew I had to accept attendant risks – that I was not allowed to violate the Geneva Conventions just to guarantee my personal safety.

Given the increasing number of "fake cop" crimes, and "real cop" crimes, I would be highly suspicious of any cop asking for my weapons.

Anonymous said...

Matt, I've been carrying a pistol since I was 13 and in public since I was 18, but I've never had that happen to me. Seeing the muzzle of one of your own pistols leaves a mark (and why he was so fascinated with my 1911 and not the other two guns I had on, I have no idea).

Maybe it's my once and only incident?

Complaints and reports were made but insufficient grounds to do anything were found to do anything. Hopefully this new Court of Appeals decision gives me a stronger argument for a special prosecutor if this happens again as there will be no refuge in "department policy" or "officer discretion".

I was delighted when I heard this case was up when I heard about it at my last IPDC seminar. I believe it provides a nice clean line to end the gun fondling, assuming arguendo it is constitutional for these license checks to occur. I think based on that Jaw-juh case wherein the license is an affirmative defense that since Indiana law is similar that the stop itself would be upheld.

I wasn't really angry about being stopped about inquiring if I had a pink card, I objected to all the gun fondling and the endangerment of everyone in Broad Ripple by that dufus.

Shootin' Buddy

Joel said...

...merely driving down the road is probable cause to pull you over, demand your operating license, and look in your trunk.

Yet there are lots of cops who believe (or behave as if they believe) exactly that.