Apolgies For Your Delayed Afternoon Eastside Commute

[Goodcat]

I got caught in this traffic and don't care! Thanks for exercising your rights!

 

[Cavman]

I have been lucky. I was pulled over twice on 421 between Versailles and Madison. First time I let the officer know right away that I had a firearm. I was new to carrying. He just looked at me said "got your license"? I said yes and he simply shrugged and said cool. Other time the police officer asked if I had any weapons I said yes and he asked to see my permit. I showed him the permit and that was it. Neither wanted to see my gun.

 

[Tripp11]

I need to apologize to those getting onto 465 from 70E on the east side this afternoon. I was pulled over by a state trooper for "not wearing my seatbelt properly" at about 5:30. When he asked if I had any weapons, I answered in the affirmative and handed him my LTC. After informing him it was in the glove box, he stated that he would remove my handgun and run the serial# to ensure it wasn’t stolen. I asked him upon what authority he was able to search the effects of a law-abiding citizen who had not nor was suspected of committing a crime. He responded that he now had probable cause because I had refused a search, and that, if I continued to refuse the search, he would call asupervisor, and that "we will get that weapon and run the number". Well, six or so additional state troopers later the sergeant shows up, has a short discussion with the original officer, and then walks up to politely inform me that the officer would write me a citation for the seat belt violation after which I could be on my way. The extra 45 minutes was worth it, and kudos to the sergeant for knowing the law. Remember your rights folks. And, again, apologies to anyone who got hung up in the traffic backed up gawking at,six state troopers behind my old red F150 on the side of the road.

I saw the stop, but only after some asshat in a black Pontiac Sunfire came from the FAR left lane (the far left lane staying on 70 East) and crossed all lanes of traffic AND crossed the Chevron median and cut me off. I apologize to the Ford F-150 behind me who was forced to brake into the left median, but if I didn't get on my brakes, this crazy lady was going to take off the front of my car.

I thought FOR SURE the Trooper who watched it happened would have gotten the last Trooper parked to head out and pursue this asshat, but nope. He just watched it happen and went back to bugging you apparently.

 

[PX4me]

would you mind sharing that with us? i for one wouldn't mind having a copy or two

You can go here and download the PDF's like I did and print them out.

Hopefully you don't keep it in the glove compartment with your handgun... it could get awkward when you reach in to get the paper during a stop....

Center console for me as soon as I get my LTCH. It's a loooong way to the glove box in an F250. I can't even reach it with my seatbelt on.

 

[Roadie]

Hopefully you don't keep it in the glove compartment with your handgun... it could get awkward when you reach in to get the paper during a stop....

This is why I keep my "papers" on the passenger sunshade..

 

[lww]

Im sorry but officer safety does not nullify the 4th Amendment. If he believes his "safety", or percieved lack thereof, is more important than a citizens rights, he should find another occupation. I will protest just as determinedly to a unlawful seizure for "officer safety".

You can protest, but you probably won't win. This has already been decided; see Terry v. Ohio and subsequent cases that expanded the Terry “armed and dangerous” doctrine to traffic stops. Basically in these decisions, SCOTUS is saying that the 4th is there to protect you from searches/seizures intended to gather evidence, and does not really apply to other types of searches. If the officer can convince a court that he had a reasonable basis to believe that you and your gun posed a danger, then you lose.

Unfortunately, the "officer safety" code words often seem to be used as a pretext to seize firearms during traffic stops with out any real danger to the officer. I think that most people will not want to fight this and turn a traffic stop into a constitutional case, unless the search/seizure turns into something prosecutable.

--Bill

 

[cordex]

Are you sure that info is included when they run your license. I was told that it was not.

Quite certain. It has been discussed here on INGO as well.

 

[stephen87]

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.

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?

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.

No, it did not come up when he ran they plate. However, if I remember correctly, the owner of the vehicle's OLN comes up and he could copy that and paste it and it would come up.

Right, but the situation gets murky once "officer safety" is invoked. The argument put forth by some of our resident LEOs is that if your gun is seized for "officer safety" the serial number is now in plain sight, so there is no violation of the 4th. Personally, I think that this practice represents bottom-of-the-barrel police work, but I am not a judge. YMMV in court.

Another previous poster asked if it would matter if the gun was on your person instead of in the glove compartment, as in this case. Maybe? In Washington v. Indiana the gun was under the front seat, Mr. Washington had a valid LTCH, was cooperative and did not behave in any threatening way. The search was tossed because "the officer lacked an articulable basis of concern for officer safety." So, Washington v. Indiana makes it clear that the mere presence of a gun in the car of a licensed individual is not sufficient to trigger a valid "officer safety" claim. It will all depend on how much the officer plays up the "officer safety" angle, and wether or not the judge/appeals court buys the officer's [STRIKE]histrionics[/STRIKE] legitimate concerns. So, be nice and smile for the dash cam.

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I can read and write.

--Bill

The situation would "get murky" with the officer safety deal. However, it would not get murky for you, if the officer can't explain why you were a threat then he's in trouble for breaking the law. I would believe that you could have him reprimanded, but I'm not sure it could go much farther.

Seeing all of these incidents regarding carry and the LEO's occasionally not knowing the laws regarding it, I have decided to print out the applicable IC's. There will be copies in the glove box. Makes it easier than trying to memorize them all.

If you do that, make sure you print out applicable case law as well.

Are you sure that info is included when they run your license. I was told that it was not.

Yes, it is linked to your license.

 

[jbombelli]

I remember when we are all promised left/right/sideways that not wearing a seatbelt would NEVER, EVER EVER be the primary reason for pulling someone over. Then, when enough people's suspicions were assuaged that they could get the law passed, we suddenly started having seatbelt checkpoints, and people getting pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

Who all here remembers that?

 

[MikeDVB]

I remember when we are all promised left/right/sideways that not wearing a seatbelt would NEVER, EVER EVER be the primary reason for pulling someone over. Then, when enough people's suspicions were assuaged that they could get the law passed, we suddenly started having seatbelt checkpoints, and people getting pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

Who all here remembers that?

I don't, sorry, I've just always worn a seatbelt from day 1 so it's never been a concern for me.

 

[griffin]

I remember when we are all promised left/right/sideways that not wearing a seatbelt would NEVER, EVER EVER be the primary reason for pulling someone over. Then, when enough people's suspicions were assuaged that they could get the law passed, we suddenly started having seatbelt checkpoints, and people getting pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

Who all here remembers that?

I do. Many states pulled the same crap.

 

[foszoe]

As far as officer safety is concerned what if when told the firearm would be seized, one offered to get out of the vehicle and stand outside it handcuffed if necessary, wouldn't that alleviate any concern of officer safety and halt any need for the officer to take possession of the weapon?

 

[Harleyrider_50]

As far as officer safety is concerned what if when told the firearm would be seized, one offered to get out of the vehicle and stand outside it handcuffed if necessary, wouldn't that alleviate any concern of officer safety and halt any need for the officer to take possession of the weapon?

?......... WHUT ? ..........


......Uhhh.....WRONG,dude......in so many ways I cain't list'em all.......

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I remember when we are all promised left/right/sideways that not wearing a seatbelt would NEVER, EVER EVER be the primary reason for pulling someone over. Then, when enough people's suspicions were assuaged that they could get the law passed, we suddenly started having seatbelt checkpoints, and people getting pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

Who all here remembers that?

Thank the Feds. Indiana never wanted the seat belt law to begin with, but would have lost highway funding if it didn't pass. The original law was a secondary offense only and only for cars (trucks didn't have to). Its also why the fine is so low and there are no court costs. Like DUI laws and the lowering of BAC limits, the Feds said play ball or we'll cut your highway funds, and Indiana played ball.

 

[jbombelli]

Thank the Feds. Indiana never wanted the seat belt law to begin with, but would have lost highway funding if it didn't pass. The original law was a secondary offense only and only for cars (trucks didn't have to). Its also why the fine is so low and there are no court costs. Like DUI laws and the lowering of BAC limits, the Feds said play ball or we'll cut your highway funds, and Indiana played ball.

You can blame the state of Indiana just as much as the Feds. There is such a thing as standing on principle. Unfortunately that's a foreign concept to most people these days.

 

[Spike_351]

Usually when they do sonething like that I tell them what the serial number is since I know my all of my carry guns serial numbers.

 

[Hammerhead]

You can protest, but you probably won't win. This has already been decided; see Terry v. Ohio and subsequent cases that expanded the Terry “armed and dangerous” doctrine to traffic stops. Basically in these decisions, SCOTUS is saying that the 4th is there to protect you from searches/seizures intended to gather evidence, and does not really apply to other types of searches. If the officer can convince a court that he had a reasonable basis to believe that you and your gun posed a danger, then you lose.

Unfortunately, the "officer safety" code words often seem to be used as a pretext to seize firearms during traffic stops with out any real danger to the officer. I think that most people will not want to fight this and turn a traffic stop into a constitutional case, unless the search/seizure turns into something prosecutable.

--Bill

First off, Terry has three qualifiers, not just armed and dangerous, but armed, dangerous AND suspected of committing, or having committed, a crime. Terry is also only about stop and frisk, NOT about traffic infraction stops, which are not crimes.

Second, while Terry does deal with "officer safety" there are other case laws that cover this situation even if Terry applies. I have already mentioned the most important one above, Richardson v. IN. Richardson deals directly with a seatbelt stop, a valid LTCH being presented, and an illegal search on a calm, cooperative subject who presented no danger. Once the OP presented his (I'm guessing valid) LTCH, the inquiry (including an attempted illegal search) ends. This trooper walked right into the exact same situation (hopefully minus the hidden cocaine) and had he performed the illegal search, the state would have been giving the OP a rather large payout.

Thirdly, Washington v. IN also covers an illegal search during a traffic stop under the guise of "officer safety." When a subject is being cooperative (cooperative does not mean submitting or giving up rights) and calm with no indication of
dangerous activity, "officer safety" does not give enough justification. In Washington's case he had also been removed from the vehicle, cuffed and sitting on a curb behind the vehicle.

Let us not also forget that IC 35-47-14-3 also covers the confiscation of a firearm without a warrant. The trooper would have had to articulate to a court what danger the OP posed to seize his firearm. The OP knew his rights and stood up for them. This isn't "presenting a danger" no matter how much the trooper rants and raves about it.

Lastly, if the original stop was about a seatbelt, and the trooper attempted to do anything beyond the scope of the seatbelt stop, he would be in violation of not only the seatbelt law, but Richardson again.

Don't believe for a second that you can't protest. Don't think for a second that you can't keep this knowledge handy and use it to protect yourself and your rights. Don't think that you can't say "NO" when officers try to make you give up your rights.

 

[Hammerhead]

I remember when we are all promised left/right/sideways that not wearing a seatbelt would NEVER, EVER EVER be the primary reason for pulling someone over. Then, when enough people's suspicions were assuaged that they could get the law passed, we suddenly started having seatbelt checkpoints, and people getting pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt.

Who all here remembers that?

I remember that. I also remember that was the reason they changed the law to only allow seatbelt stops to occur as regular traffic stops, limit the scope of the stop to the seatbelt, and put an end to the seatbelt checkpoints.