Apolgies For Your Delayed Afternoon Eastside Commute

[92ThoStro]

I can't help but wonder if there isn't a difference, legally speaking, between having the gun ON you in a holster, and having it in a closed glovebox.

IANAL, but I would think that in the glovebox would require permission to access, even under the guise of "Officer Safety" because the LEO has to enter the car, OPEN the glovebox, and remove the weapon..

Or am I way off base here?

That's a good point as well.
Sometimes I wish a lawyer was on here full time to answer all our questions

 

[PKendall317]

I cant stop laughing at the idea of how the officer felt that the probable that he needed to search the vehicle in question was the denial of the the officers request to search the vehicle!

hey can I search your car?

NO!

Well, since you said No I now have probable cause GTFO!

Seriously?!?

Yeah that wouldn't really hold up well in court. The simple fact that someone did not consent to a search when asked for permission is not probable cause to search without permission. I doubt the officer in question would be able to articulate his argument very well to a judge. I think it's a shame that a lot of people don't know that they can refuse a search and be legally justified in doing so.

 

[bodyguardone]

I don't know but that wouldn't surprise me considering the close proximity to ILEA. If they're out in patrol cars I'd imagine that they're rookies who should be accompanied by a more experienced FTO. Lastly, in Indiana, technically the moment you're shipped off to ILEA you're an employee of whatever department hired you, but you have no arrest powers until you've completed the academy, so I'm not entirely certain that a trainee pulled you over. Probably just a trooper with a big ego, or an inexperienced rookie ignorant of the law.

PKendall317- Police officers in the state of Indiana have one year from the date their employment starts to attend any of the certified academies in Indiana. Once an officer is hired (sworn in) he will complete the 40hr pre-basic class at his dept. or under the insruction of a certified instructor. Once the pre-basic test is given a passing score, the officer has arrest powers and may carry a firearm.

 

[PKendall317]

PKendall317- Police officers in the state of Indiana have one year from the date their employment starts to attend any of the certified academies in Indiana. Once an officer is hired (sworn in) he will complete the 40hr pre-basic class at his dept. or under the insruction of a certified instructor. Once the pre-basic test is given a passing score, the officer has arrest powers and may carry a firearm.

Right on. I thought they had to complete the whole academy before they got arrest powers.

 

[Jarhead77]

It was not a problem. I saw you over there.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Trooper screwed up, assuming all facts are as presented.

1) He shouldn't have asked about weapons on a seat belt stop. Seat belt stops are a special class of stop and, absent other factors like furtive movements, etc, questions must be restricted to those relevant to the seat belt infraction.

2) Refusal to consent to a search certainly doesn't provide PC for a search.

 

[buckwacker]

Did the trooper ask you any other questions other than "Do you have any weapons"? The reason I ask is I wonder if your LTCH came up when he ran your plate.

No other questions. I dont believe that information is connected to your BMV info.

Did the trooper ask you to get out of your car, or did he stay with you and tell you to stay away from the glove box?

I was not asked to get out of the car, but he did tell me to keep my hands visible and away from the glove box. He did threaten to get me out of the vehicle when his supervisor arrived because I chose to "make this an issue". I never was asked to.

It strikes me as odd that 6 troopers showed up. There are not usually that many around which leads me to think it was a training exercise. They go back to ILEA from time to time to get their required hours of training every year.

He said he was going to call in the reinforcements, again, because I chose to "make this an issue". At one point I objected to being treated like a suspect for refusing a search, and he said when everyone else gets here you are going to be treated like a criminal. It was my fault, he said.

 

[PKendall317]

To the OP, will you be filing a formal complaint with ISP, or just let this one slide? Personally, I'd send a letter to the officers supervisor for blatantly violating your constitutional rights which have been affirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[TTravis]

It sounds like the trooper was way out of line. I would encourage you to file a complaint.

 

[MikeDVB]

Curious question (didn't see it mentioned). You were, in fact, not wearing your seatbelt?

 

[buckwacker]

I should also state that the only trooper that seemed to be a problem was the guy who pulled me over. The three others I talked to were much more courteous and seemed to have a better understanding of the law.

 

[TTravis]

What was the trooper's name?

 

[buckwacker]

Curious question (didn't see it mentioned). You were, in fact, not wearing your seatbelt?

I was when he got up to my window. Except it was under my arm and not over my shoulder, hence the citation for "not wearing it properly".

 

[PKendall317]

I should also state that the only trooper that seemed to be a problem was the guy who pulled me over. The three others I talked to were much more courteous and seemed to have a better understanding of the law.

I'm guessing the trooper who made the original stop was either ignorant of the law or just being a dick, probably both though, which is unfortunate. I'd send a letter to the supervisor and file a formal complaint if it were me, but that's your decision.

 

[MikeDVB]

I was when he got up to my window. Except it was under my arm and not over my shoulder, hence the citation for "not wearing it properly".

Interesting, I wasn't aware there was a citation for that...

I'll have to make my wife aware of this as she consistently wears her seat belt 'improperly'.

 

[TTravis]

I would fight the ticket in court. Make a "Discovery" request for any dash cam video and drag his ass into court. He won't want to show up and have you play that video to a judge. Then put the entire video on INGO and youtube to make him famous.

 

[MikeDVB]

I would fight the ticket in court. Make a "Discovery" request for any dash cam video and drag his ass into court. He won't want to show up and have you play that video to a judge. Then put the entire video on INGO and youtube to make him famous.

^^ THIS ^^

If there is a fee for acquiring the video, I'll donate $10 to the cause.

 

[TTravis]

^^ THIS ^^

If there is a fee for acquiring the video, I'll donate $10 to the cause.

Maybe. I did this a couple years ago and it did not cost anything. If you are serious, PM me and I can send you a copy of some simple discovery requests I made myself. They will have to comply with the request.

 

[MikeDVB]

Maybe. I did this a couple years ago and it did not cost anything. If you are serious, PM me and I can send you a copy of some simple discovery requests I made myself. They will have to comply with the request.

Sure, $10 isn't a whole lot so long as I get to see the video and it's as posted . My wife spends more at Starbucks when she gets the urge for a frappuchino.

 

[kludge]

Trooper screwed up, assuming all facts are as presented.

1) He shouldn't have asked about weapons on a seat belt stop. Seat belt stops are a special class of stop and, absent other factors like furtive movements, etc, questions must be restricted to those relevant to the seat belt infraction.

2) Refusal to consent to a search certainly doesn't provide PC for a search.

This^