Finally we have a LEGAL directive on how to deal with armed citizens.

[2A_Tom]

Dennys, thanks for sharing this.

We finally have a legal directive that was issued to ALL employees on how to deal with armed citizens. This is coming ahead of the NRA Convention but it is not JUST for that. This sounds like the work of our dept lawyer who is a fellow officer and a firearms instructor. I'm happy to see this addressed in a common sense and LEGAL manner. I am not posting the actual bulletin but rather I cut/posted the body. I added/deleted/changed nothing. I think this addresses our most common complaints here in this board.

Officers confront armed persons on a daily basis. The most important mission for officers is the
preservation of life. Officers should remember to use good officer safety tactics in all situations they
encounter; however, all tactics and practices used by officers must be in accordance with legal
principles and department policy. This bulletin will address the actions an officer may take and actions
an officer should avoid when confronting an armed citizen.

Legal basis for detention

An officer may detain an individual temporarily for criminal investigation purposes only when the officer
has developed reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Reasonable suspicion exists
where the facts known to the officer and the reasonable inferences therefrom would cause an ordinarily
prudent person to believe that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Perez v. State, 981
N.E.2d 1242, 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive
or environmental factors.

Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable
suspicion for detention. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Where a
state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify
an investigatory detention.”). Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to
point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO
Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun
solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.

Officers lacking reasonable suspicion, but still having a need to investigate further, may have a
consensual encounter to gain additional facts as needed. The encounter must be voluntary, and a
reasonable person should feel free to leave or stop answering questions at any time. If the person
refuses to talk or attempts to leave, and the officer has not developed reasonable suspicion, then the
person must be allowed to leave and/or stop answering questions. Drayton v. U.S., 536 U.S. 194
(2002).

Handling firearms

If during the course of a detention, the officer reasonably believes the handgun should be removed, he
or she may do so. Handguns being returned to persons should be done in a “safe manner.” The
practices of field stripping semi-auto pistols and/or confiscating live ammunition are prohibited.

Private property

Businesses and property owners may prohibit persons from carrying firearms on their property. When
an officer encounters an armed citizen carrying a firearm on private property where the owner or
owner’s agent has restricted such activity, the officer should assist the agent/property owner in
informing the citizen that refusal to leave the property could constitute criminal trespass. All
requirements for criminal trespass as outlined by law should be followed for the
trespass arrest, if necessary.

The sections marked in red give me pause. The first is too vague and too broad and needs to be refined. Whereas many officers are level headed some will we their pants when contact with an armed citizen.

The second because PPO's should be charged a security fee for for calling the Police for policy enforcement when they have not made a request that the person leave, if that person was not acting in a suspicious manner. If the patron entered to browse, eat, shop and etc. And the establishment does not allow carrying firearms they should ask him to leave themselves. If they are too afraid or just want to make an anti point they should be billed for services.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Thanks much for posting Denny.

 

[2A_Tom]

I wonder if forwarding that to the St. Joseph's County Sheriff's Office would help? Or if everyone would forward that to their local PD. Couldn't hurt.

I am planning on doing just that. Lake County and Gary.

 

[public servant]

I am planning on doing just that. Lake County and Gary.

Please be sure to let us know how receptive they are to the info.

 

[Trigger Time]

If you carry a gun you should carry a mini camera or tape recorder (even your smart phone). Hit record at the first hint of police interaction. Not all cops are our (gun owners) friends, and I hope they follow this new directive or else.
i like the part that includes unless suspectenof criminal activity it is not acceptable to ask for an ltch. Great!
this will get them ready for when we get our rights honored with constitutional carry in Indiana hopefully soon.

thanks for posting Denny!

 

[Ryno300]

This great to see. There's always room for pause when the word "reasonable" is used, but it's better than nothing. I think it falls in line with Indiana's common sense approach to license and carry.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Will someone please CC this to the THPD, c/o Chief John Plasse and Ofcs. Jonathan Ryan Ringo and Daniel Armentrout. Thank you.

John.Plasse@TerreHaute.IN.gov

 

[TTravis]

I hope they get this passed around at the NRA convention so they will see that Indianapolis, and IMPD in particular is making good progress. This might put Indy on their short list of places to hold future conventions. I will print this out and put in my car along with my copy of IC.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Will someone please CC this to the THPD, c/o Chief John Plasse and Ofcs. Jonathan Ryan Ringo and Daniel Armentrout. Thank you.

John.Plasse@TerreHaute.IN.gov

Its your beef, why don't you send it to them?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Because I don't have access to the whole enchilada, just Denny's excerpt.

 

[public servant]

Because I don't have access to the whole enchilada, just Denny's excerpt.

Denny left nothing out except the official IMPD header. The body of LB14-003 was complete and unedited.

 

[Dirtebiker]

This is for IMPD

It would be great if you shared with ISP!

 

[Dirtebiker]

I dunno, I've only been stopped once (and it was a legitimate stop, I was in the wrong), and when the LEO asked to see my driver's license, I handed him my DL AND my LTCH. He asked where my firearm was, told 'em in a shoulder rig under my right arm. He just requested that I leave it there. About 2 minutes later, he thanked me for informing him, cautioned me to watch the speed limit signs, handed me back my documents and I was on my way.

Not all officers are like that!

 

[Dirtebiker]

There's another percentage (perhaps overlapping) that choose to be confrontational at every instance, even when such confrontation is unnecessary and/or avoidable. We call that, "stupidity".

Are you referring to officers or the gun carrying public?

 

[cigarman454]

Thanks for the post. Good to know.

 

[Bung]

I thought IC provided for stopping and asking for LTCH for the sole reason and purpose of verifying one has a LTCH.

 

[actaeon277]

I thought IC provided for stopping and asking for LTCH for the sole reason and purpose of verifying one has a LTCH.

I think that was court precedent. Not IC.
But I could be wrong.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I thought IC provided for stopping and asking for LTCH for the sole reason and purpose of verifying one has a LTCH.

It does not specifically say one can be stopped to check for the posession of an LTCH. Caselaw states that one cannot be stopped for OCing only if there is no reasonable belief criminal activity is occurring.

 

[lonehoosier]

FYI that is not Indiana case law and the case law was only in states that have constitutional open carry. Its a grey area in Indiana and this is only a LEGAL directive for IMPD.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

FYI that is not Indiana case law and the case law was only in states that have constitutional open carry. Its a grey area in Indiana and this is only a LEGAL directive for IMPD.

I think you're right, I may be thinking of the caselaw on seizing a firearm. Caselaw for stopping one for OCing hasn't neen made, yet.