They read Malone too broadly. Malone was on his property. Pinner was not.
I cannot foresee the Indiana Supreme Court allowing this to stand.
I know there are quite a few LEO's (including myself and Frank) on here that were saying the same thing. You were not alone. We welcome court clarification. I guess time will tell if this holds up.I have been "falsely" asserting this for years. I'm glad someone else was the test case.
I know there are quite a few LEO's (including myself and Frank) on here that were saying the same thing. You were not alone. We welcome court clarification. I guess time will tell if this holds up.
They read Malone too broadly. Malone was on his property. Pinner was not.
I cannot foresee the Indiana Supreme Court allowing this to stand.
Why? I mean, I agree that it is a small extension, but when you include the guy that got pulled over and had a carry permit along with the changes to the law that Fargo mentions, my thinking is that they'll deny transfer and see what happens.
The addition of the exceptions to the CWOL prohibition really seems to dilute the RAS of just seeing a guy with a gun. Plus, I'm pretty surprised that that panel reached that conclusion anyway.
And, I think I know 2 votes that would affirm. I'd go watch the oral argument on it. (Wonder if Tom Fisher would step up and try to argue it. Kinda hope so. I don't think he'd do it right.)
They read Malone too broadly. Malone was on his property. Pinner was not.
I cannot foresee the Indiana Supreme Court allowing this to stand.
I though I read where the guy did not have a LTCH. (the guy in the appeal, that dropped the gun exiting a taxi, out in public [in a movie theater, I think]).
If that's the case, this might be a good pdf to keep on the phone for when a cop tries to play 20 questions with you when they see your gun.
Ind.Ct.App. said:On appeal, the State does not address reasonable suspicion.
paragraphfromState'sBrief said:The totality of the circumstances supported Officer Palmer’s reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous and/or that criminal activity was afoot. All of this evidence supported any reasonable person’s belief that Defendant was carrying a handgun for which he had no license, see Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1, or that some other criminal activity was “afoot.” Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (stating that police may, without a warrant, stop an individual for investigatory purposes if, based upon specific, articulable facts, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity “may be afoot”)). As this Court has stated, “[p]rotecting the public from gun violence is a legitimate and paramount concern of law enforcement, and the State is legitimately concerned with deterring gun violence and possession of firearms by unlicensed individuals. Grayson v. State, --- N.E.3d ----, 2016 WL 881951, slip op. at 8 (Ind. Ct. App. March 8, 2016).
You (and Kirk) need to go back and read the LTCH statute from 2008 when Malone was decided. (Hint: it didnt have a general private property exception).I see nothing in the exceptions that allow a person to carry a loaded gun in a cab or a theater without a license. Both are private property and would require permission from the owner. Neither is there any exception allowing a person to carry a loaded gun IN PUBLIC without a license, it is in fact explicitly forbidden.
Malone was about private property, excepted, and that is not a new exception.
The court of appeals found it was not a consensual encounter. As noted above, there was already a named complainant saying he had a gun. Under the Terry caselaw, that is reasonable suspicion if the activity is it self criminal.This may be totally moot.
The appellate held there was no RAS for a search. It was a consensual encounter. There was no gun visible until Pinner stood upon confrontation.
If a gun is clearly visible or observed as concealed before the encounter an officer could continue observation and if the carrier acted in any suspicious or furtive manner (in the officer's opinion) he could claim RAS.
Consensual Interaction or Investigatory Stop?
[8] Before the trial court, the State conceded “[t]his case involves an investigatorystop,” (App. at 39), and argued the officers had the reasonable suspicionrequired by Terry to approach Pinner. But on appeal, the State argues theofficers’ interaction with Pinner was consensual, and thus not subject to FourthAmendment protections, until they saw the gun. This encounter was notconsensual and Pinner was subjected to an investigatory stop.
Indiana Code 2009 - Indiana General Assembly, 2016 SessionI mis read this paragraph.
It should have been consensual, but was carried out as an investigatory stop (w/o RAS).
I do not have an archive copy of dash 2 could you please direct me to a link or post it. My understanding is that Indiana never had a duty to retreat or requirement to be licensed to carry on private property.
Indiana Code 2009 - Indiana General Assembly, 2016 Session
Prior to 2011 Indiana's license requirement covered all private property except your own dwelling or a business you owned or ran.
That is a current link, my googlefu can handle that.
Yeah so how does that change Malone. Did you reap your grain and have a lot of straw left over?
That is a current link, my googlefu can handle that...
Because the case wasn't decided on the basis that it was Malone's dwelling... In fact, I don't believe the word even appears in the opinion.