2 day carrying with LTCH. +.5 Conservation Officer

[Clay]

Police Officer Under Investigation for Aggressiveness

This is a story about a Canton, OH police officer who lost his mind on at least two separate occasions when he found out the driver was armed.

Small different though. In Ohio you have a 'duty to inform', we have no such requirement in IN

 

[Scutter01]

Small different though. In Ohio you have a 'duty to inform', we have no such requirement in IN

Good point.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I refer you to the information regarding titles the state publishes:


WHEN YOU SHOULD EXPECT TO RECEIVE THE TITLE
A title is an important part of your car purchase. At the time of purchase, you should confirm the location and possession of the title. If you have made all agreed upon initial payments including delivery of a trade-in vehicle (if applicable), car dealers and individuals from whom you have purchased a vehicle are required to deliver the title to you at the time of sale or delivery OR within 21 days of the date of the sale.

• If the party from whom you have purchased your vehicle is a licensed car dealer and cannot deliver the title at the time of sale, the dealer is required to provide you with a 21-day affidavit.
• The affidavit shall state that the dealer will deliver the title for the vehicle within 21 days of the date of sale.

IF YOU DON’T RECEIVE THE TITLE WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SALE

You must write the dealer and demand delivery of the title. After receipt of your written demand, the dealer has an additional 10 days to provide the title.

• Return the vehicle
  • The vehicle must be in the same or similar condition as when it was purchased.
  • Upon return, the dealer is required to provide you with a refund of:
    • The purchase price, plus tax
    • Finance expenses
    • Insurance expenses
    • Any other amount you paid to the dealer
• You may be able to obtain your title from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) Legal Help Desk if you paid $2,500 or less for the car. If you paid more than $2,500, you will need a court order to obtain the title from the BMV.
• If you purchased your vehicle from a car dealership, file a complaint with the BMV’s Dealer Division and the Indiana Attorney General’s Consumer Complaint Division.
• Seek the advice of a private attorney.

 

[Hammerhead]

Sorry, no offense but -1 to you for informing and -1 to the CO for writing the numbers down after you showed your LTCH.

You don't have to inform and there's no need to. It's not relevant to the stop, even if he were to "tow" your vehicle. You have no reason to fear strapping up if they were to do that. If they gave you crap for it, they're now legally liable for any action they take against you.

The officer cannot "run" your numbers or "look" at your firearm after you've "nicely informed" and provided your LTCH.

In before Kirk says "shut up and blow kisses, et. al."

 

[Sylvain]

Sorry, no offense but -1 to you for informing and -1 to the CO for writing the numbers down after you showed your LTCH.

You don't have to inform and there's no need to. It's not relevant to the stop, even if he were to "tow" your vehicle. You have no reason to fear strapping up if they were to do that. If they gave you crap for it, they're now legally liable for any action they take against you.

The officer cannot "run" your numbers or "look" at your firearm after you've "nicely informed" and provided your LTCH.

In before Kirk says "shut up and blow kisses, et. al."

I agree.
There is not need to tell the officer you are armed.
There is no need to run the serial number without your approval.

 

[rhart]

I actually feel that there some things better left unknown. You telling a LEO that you have a firearm probably would raise their blood pressure a bit. Then SOME feel its thier duty to assume you are a bad guy and make you prove it as he did in your case. I dont see any reason that he shold have written down your serial number at all. If you have a LTCH, you have already been "checked out"
I was once asked "do you have any illegal firearms or drugs in the vechicle?" The answer was no sir. I had a legal firearm and legal drugs but he didnt ask me that.
I have no disrespect for LEO's, I assume they are cool and treat them with respect and expect the same.
Also, I find it a bit interesting that a CO pulled you over. They dont usually do that unless they suspect a fish or game violation. I know they can but they usually dont.

 

[canav844]

You were driving your truck illegally, the fact you were stopped was your fault, it is your responsibility to make sure they provide the title within the proper time frame and your responsibility to escalate things as necessary. It is your responsibility to get the plates on the car, no matter how legit your story was or who he could have called to prove it (you're upset because he trusted you) you knew before you got in the truck that it wasn't properly registered. I don't personally know a single LEO out there that wouldn't have at least written you a ticket, and I know many would have indeed towed the truck on top of the ticket and made you call for a ride.

You informed, that's your choice, and IMO it shows your respect for the officer. You brought it up; it made the stop take longer with some questionable investigative tactics but also is probably what kept you from having to pay up.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I don't understand why people say smart ass things to the cops. If you had just kept quiet after he said other officers could have or would have towed your car you would have been out of there. If you didn't like what he said, file a complaint. But all you did was extend the length of your stop.

I'm not saying what the cop did was right, but come on a little common sense goes a long way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You were driving your truck illegally, the fact you were stopped was your fault, it is your responsibility to make sure they provide the title within the proper time frame and your responsibility to escalate things as necessary. It is your responsibility to get the plates on the car, no matter how legit your story was or who he could have called to prove it (you're upset because he trusted you) you knew before you got in the truck that it wasn't properly registered. I don't personally know a single LEO out there that wouldn't have at least written you a ticket, and I know many would have indeed towed the truck on top of the ticket and made you call for a ride.

You informed, that's your choice, and IMO it shows your respect for the officer. You brought it up; it made the stop take longer with some questionable investigative tactics but also is probably what kept you from having to pay up.

Here's one.... I'm assuming you don't know many others. Stuff like that happens all the time. However what I wouldn't have done, was not check the vehicle to see if it was legit, and IF I did run someone's firearm, I'm not going to write down the serial numbers and not check it THEN and THERE. I surely wouldn't let you go after you asked. What happens if it IS stolen? Do I run signal 10 trying to catch back up with the thief?

 

[Hayseed_40]

You were driving your truck illegally, the fact you were stopped was your fault, it is your responsibility to make sure they provide the title within the proper time frame and your responsibility to escalate things as necessary. It is your responsibility to get the plates on the car, no matter how legit your story was or who he could have called to prove it (you're upset because he trusted you) you knew before you got in the truck that it wasn't properly registered. I don't personally know a single LEO out there that wouldn't have at least written you a ticket, and I know many would have indeed towed the truck on top of the ticket and made you call for a ride.

You informed, that's your choice, and IMO it shows your respect for the officer. You brought it up; it made the stop take longer with some questionable investigative tactics but also is probably what kept you from having to pay up.

ding ding ding - best answer!

However, the CO did NOT have the right to run your gun like that - but you were in a tight spot.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Here's one.... I'm assuming you don't know many others. Stuff like that happens all the time. However what I wouldn't have done, was not check the vehicle to see if it was legit, and IF I did run someone's firearm, I'm not going to write down the serial numbers and not check it THEN and THERE. I surely wouldn't let you go after you asked. What happens if it IS stolen? Do I run signal 10 trying to catch back up with the thief?

Catch up with the armed thief you just let go...

Another good answer . Probably about 1/3 would have let you go. It was stupid on his part to not run the plates and VIN. To me that is a gray area - the vehicle is not legal to be on the road and if you cause a PI then it might come back on the CO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Catch up with the armed thief you just let go...

Another good answer . Probably about 1/3 would have let you go. It was stupid on his part to not run the plates and VIN. To me that is a gray area - the vehicle is not legal to be on the road and if you cause a PI then it might come back on the CO.

Ding! The trick is to have them "park" the vehicle, and get "someone" to tow it. And of course mentioning that you won't be in the area for the next 15 minutes or so, doesn't hurt either.

 

[bassplayrguy]

I know I don't have to inform but if I was a LEO I would want to know. It's more of a respect thing for me. If they were to tow the truck and I reach in a grab my pistol do you think it would have freaked them out. I want to go home every night just like they do. I have a some what dangerous job myself. So if someone can inform me of potential danger I appreciate it.

If it had gotten to the point of you having to exit the vehicle, THAT would be the time to inform. Until then it is none of his business. Did you tell him you have a cell phone in the vehicle? It is just as legal. They (leos) freak out sometimes at the thought of us carrying and go into a power trip. Best to keep it hush hush until they need to know. Just my opinion.

 

[Indy317]

It's funny, reading State V. Richardson, as referenced above, there was one line that really stood out:


How many times has that been repeated around here recently?

Richardson has to do with a detainment (traffic stop) based solely on Indiana's seat belt law. The law is very specific as to what officers can and can't do while enforcing just this violation. I know people like to hold up this case as a slam dunk in cases where someone is stopped for speeding, running a stop sign, etc., but it actually is totally different based on the restrictions found in the seat belt law.

The officer cannot "run" your numbers or "look" at your firearm after you've "nicely informed" and provided your LTCH.

Court ruling to back this up? Richardson has to do more with an officer stepping over the bounds set-up while enforcing Indiana's seat belt law and Washington has to do with a search after the vehicle occupant was not only removed from the vehicle and away from the gun, but also handcuffed. I have yet to read a case where the judges specifically say that an officer can't write down S/Ns of firearms and run them.

 

[bassplayrguy]

Richardson has to do with a detainment (traffic stop) based solely on Indiana's seat belt law. The law is very specific as to what officers can and can't do while enforcing just this violation. I know people like to hold up this case as a slam dunk in cases where someone is stopped for speeding, running a stop sign, etc., but it actually is totally different based on the restrictions found in the seat belt law.



Court ruling to back this up? Richardson has to do more with an officer stepping over the bounds set-up while enforcing Indiana's seat belt law and Washington has to do with a search after the vehicle occupant was not only removed from the vehicle and away from the gun, but also handcuffed. I have yet to read a case where the judges specifically say that an officer can't write down S/Ns of firearms and run them.

The cop was obviously an idiot. What would you write down his numbers to run later for? What would you do later when the gun came back stolen? Just another power trip IMO.

 

[Hammerhead]

Richardson specifically states "once the LTCH was presented, all further inquiry should have ceased." It does not say "only because of the seat belt law." The officer in the case, as stated in the court decision, was concerned with the validity of the LTCH as the expiration date was obscured. She didn't do the math (13 months into a 4 year license) and continued to question Richardson about the gun in his pocket. This lead to the (eventually found illegal) search and discovery of narcotics, and subsequent resistance to arrest.

The court ruled that the search and discovery weren't valid because she didn't have any PC or RAS to continue after the valid LTCH was presented, not because the initial stop was only under the seat belt infraction.

In the OP's case, he presented his LTCH immediately. Any inquiry into his firearm(s) is over, including asking to "run the numbers" and writing them down.

Sorry, you're wrong, and have been every time we've had this discussion. The seat belt had nothing to do with the court ruling that once a valid LTCH is presented, any further inquiry into firearms must stop.

The ruling in Washington means that once a "threat" is ended, i.e. being handcuffed away from the car, the "Terry stop" is no longer valid, and the search of Washington's car wasn't legal either. Terry states that carry isn't PC or RAS unless you're a threat, or there's evidence of a crime having been or being committed.

Since the OP wasn't committing a crime, and presumably wasn't a threat (or the CO would have done something completely different) and he presented his LTCH immediately, there's no PC or RAS to inquire further about firearms. Terry, Washington and Richardson are a trifecta of "stop fishing for weapons charges when none exist."

Now, the opposite side of this, the OP volunteered to show the CO his firearm. He gave up any protection under these three cases when he opened the door so the CO could "run the numbers." That was his own fault, which is why I gave him a figurative -1.

 

[Roadie]

The cop was obviously an idiot. What would you write down his numbers to run later for? What would you do later when the gun came back stolen? Just another power trip IMO.

I tend to agree.
Would the Officer have cause to write down the S/Ns for a phone in the car? It might be stolen.

Would the Officer have cause to write down the S/Ns for an MP3player in the car? It might be stolen.

Would the Officer have cause to write down the S/Ns for a power drill in the car? It might be stolen.

IANAL but it seems to me those items would be just as prone to such action as a gun in the same situation. None of them had anything to do with the stop itself, and there was no PC or RS...

Am I off base here?

 

[Hammerhead]

I also forgot that Washington also had a statement about being cooperative, which was cited specifically in Richardson. Washington was cooperating, Richardson was cooperating.

The OP was cooperating.

 

[Cam]

You were driving your truck illegally, the fact you were stopped was your fault, it is your responsibility to make sure they provide the title within the proper time frame and your responsibility to escalate things as necessary. It is your responsibility to get the plates on the car, no matter how legit your story was or who he could have called to prove it (you're upset because he trusted you) you knew before you got in the truck that it wasn't properly registered. I don't personally know a single LEO out there that wouldn't have at least written you a ticket, and I know many would have indeed towed the truck on top of the ticket and made you call for a ride.

You informed, that's your choice, and IMO it shows your respect for the officer. You brought it up; it made the stop take longer with some questionable investigative tactics but also is probably what kept you from having to pay up.

This ^^^

 

[Indy317]

Richardson specifically states "once the LTCH was presented, all further inquiry should have ceased." It does not say "only because of the seat belt law."

That is part of what the ruling states. You can pick and choose which parts of the ruling you want to quote, but look at how the trial court worded their ruling in simple terms:
"The trial court concluded that this inquiry went beyond that authorized by Indiana‟s Seatbelt Enforcement Act. We agree with the trial court‟s determination." That is the ruling. The rest of the text is just them laying out how they came to the ruling. What the ruling doesn't say: "The trial court concluded that inquires after the presentation of a LTCH should cease immediate. We agree with the trial court's determination."

Under the discussion, the first thing they point out is the restrictions of LE actions while enforcing seat belt law:

"Indiana Code section 9-19-10-3.1, also known as the Seatbelt Enforcement Act (“Act”), provides that “a vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.”

If this was about questioning a person with a LTCH, why didn't they open up with that?

The ruling also states:

"However, Washington did not involve a seat belt stop; the defendant was stopped for, inter alia, repeatedly driving a moped left of center. Id. The language of the Act and subsequent case law clearly dictate that in adopting the Act, the Legisla-ture intended the statute to limit, rather than expand, police authority with respect to seat belt en-forcement stops and sought to circumscribe the power of police to use a seat belt stop as an opportunity to inspect, search, or detain on other grounds, even if constitutional law would permit such police behavior."

The court ruled that the search and discovery weren't valid because she didn't have any PC or RAS to continue after the valid LTCH was presented, not because the initial stop was only under the seat belt infraction.

I can't read the ruling and come to the same conclusion. There is way too much emphasis on the limitations spelled out in the seat belt enforcement act. I fully believe that had this been any other infraction, the court would have sided with the officer. They even make mention that this detainment is based "solely under the Act after she observed Richardson driving without wearing a seat belt."

In the OP's case, he presented his LTCH immediately. Any inquiry into his firearm(s) is over, including asking to "run the numbers" and writing them down.

Sorry, you're wrong, and have been every time we've had this discussion. The seat belt had nothing to do with the court ruling that once a valid LTCH is presented, any further inquiry into firearms must stop.

I can't see how anyone can read the passages I posted above and come to the conclusion you come to. We have multiple sentences pointing out the relationship of this incident to the limitations found within the Act. If this case was about what you want to be, there would be absolutely no reason to waste time and space discussing the limitations of the Act.

The ruling in Washington means that once a "threat" is ended, i.e. being handcuffed away from the car, the "Terry stop" is no longer valid, and the search of Washington's car wasn't legal either. Terry states that carry isn't PC or RAS unless you're a threat, or there's evidence of a crime having been or being committed.

Terry states that officers can't use an "officer safety" rational to go and search and retrieve a handgun from a vehicle when the only occupant is removed and handcuffed. I see no where in that case where the court ruled "Terry states that carry isn't PC or RAS unless you're a threat, or there's evidence of a crime having been or being committed." If you have that language from the case, please post it.

Since the OP wasn't committing a crime, and presumably wasn't a threat (or the CO would have done something completely different) and he presented his LTCH immediately, there's no PC or RAS to inquire further about firearms.

Well PC and RAS is needed to detain someone. Questions about inquires come into play if the detainment is extended longer than it needs to be. I think this issue still will further determined by the court. Is an officer allowed to detain the person further to call in and have the license information ran? Is the officer allowed to confiscate the handgun for the duration of the traffic stop? Is the officer allowed to call in the S/N? In what order are these actions allowed/not allowed? These cases aren't slam dunks, though most seem to think they are.

On a related note, there is a new case out of Florida that deals with RAS when it comes to a person with a gun in a state that allows for licenses/permits:

U.S. v. MONTAGUE*-*August 15, 2011.