Traffic stop, officer confiscated my firearms.

[Fargo]

I see. I went and read some more and found the page where it says the officer requested the charges in the original report but the prosecution apparently declined and went with the traffic violation (which IMO was the right charge if any at all). That is of course a completely different topic then what this thread originally started out about (which imo was the confiscation of his firearms).

I think the original point of the OP is that his guns shouldn't have been confiscated and if so, I would agree with that.

So, if a LEO is arresting a person based upon probable cause that a felony has occurred and that a misdemeanor has been committed in his presence, what is he supposed to do with guns that person is carrying? Release them to his 15 year old son?

While the prosecutor's office may have decided not to file on certain charges, that certainly does not mean there was not probable cause to arrest. PC to arrest and the prosecution's burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" are very different standards.

I also have not seen anywhere that they did not release his guns back to him once he sobered up. Can anyone point me to that info?

Best,

Joe

 

[thebishopp]

So, if a LEO is arresting a person based upon probable cause that a felony has occurred and that a misdemeanor has been committed in his presence, what is he supposed to do with guns that person is carrying? Release them to his 15 year old son?

While the prosecutor's office may have decided not to file on certain charges, that certainly does not mean there was not probable cause to arrest. PC to arrest and the prosecution's burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" are very different standards.

I also have not seen anywhere that they did not release his guns back to him once he sobered up. Can anyone point me to that info?

Best,

Joe

If the officer had PC to arrest on the felony then he should have. He did NOT (according to the OPs post he was never arrested). For whatever reason the officer did not make the misdemeanor PI arrest.

There could be several reasons for this. He could have been giving the guy a "break" though I doubt this based on the fact that he tried to seek a felony charge of neglect in his report.

More likely (based on that info) is that he was not sure and did not want to take the chance. Best to send it to the prosecutor and let them make the call. Back in my badge wearing days I did this myself for cases that may be a bit ambiguous or too close to call and either I nor my supervisor wanted to take the responsibility for a bad charge.

If what the OP has said is true, then it was a good call by the officer as the prosecution didn't bite on the felony charges and felt that the traffic violation was the way to go.

Now as far as your what to do with the guns after arrest question... it's simple. If he had been arrested then confiscation of the guns would have been a moot point. Obviously it would be up to the officer, his supervisor, and the department's policy. If the firearms were not part of the offense or do not add to an offense then the officer/supervisor may elect to have a family member, who is lawfully able to take custody of the weapons and transport them, come and pick them up rather than have to deal with them. Obviously a minor would not fit that category.

Again, since he was NOT arrested (based on the info provided) then unless there is something we do not know about (as stated in one of my replies), the firearms should not have been confiscated.

 

[newtothis]

So, if a LEO is arresting a person based upon probable cause that a felony has occurred and that a misdemeanor has been committed in his presence, what is he supposed to do with guns that person is carrying? Release them to his 15 year old son?

While the prosecutor's office may have decided not to file on certain charges, that certainly does not mean there was not probable cause to arrest. PC to arrest and the prosecution's burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" are very different standards.

I also have not seen anywhere that they did not release his guns back to him once he sobered up. Can anyone point me to that info?

Best,

Joe

had it been a felony or a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance (controlled in this instance, can refer to any substance which has its distribution monitored and includes substances such as alcohol and sudafed), the firearms would have been seized until the charges had been: filed (guns would be seized until he was found not guilty or adjudicated) or dropped (his arms would have been released barring any legitimate reason why they shouldnt).

As far as the weapons being released to a 3rd party... that one is tricky. Officer discretion is what it boils down to (the LEO may or may not release the weapon to an adult passenger if the adult passenger is a family member or close friend, as long as the 3rd party is okay'd by both the police and the owner of the firearm). The entire scenario could go either way, as no scenario is exactly like ones that have come-and-gone or ones that might occur in the future.

 

[Fargo]

Again, since he was NOT arrested (based on the info provided) then unless there is something we do not know about (as stated in one of my replies), the firearms should not have been confiscated.

I was not aware he was "NOT arrested". I may have missed something but I never saw that posted. My posts were based upon the possibility/probability that he WAS arrested.

ETA: I found it, it is in the first post which has been heavily edited from what it originally was. That info was not there last I read it.

Best,

Joe

 

[Rookie]

.

 

[lrahm]

Guy's it could be as simple as the officer making out a report and the proosecutor's office picking up the charges and filing them on what info the officer generated. Cases are made and the prosecutor's office or CPS independently cand file charges based on what info they receive.

 

[finity]

We can do a 72 hour hold in certain circumstances on weapons.

Under what "certain circumstances" & under what legal authority is that based on?

 

[Hayseed_40]

Guy's it could be as simple as the officer making out a report and the proosecutor's office picking up the charges and filing them on what info the officer generated. Cases are made and the prosecutor's office or CPS independently cand file charges based on what info they receive.

Exactly.

 

[natetheace]

I have been farming since I was 10 years old. I have driven trucks, tractors, combines, cars,and even semi tractors. Some had farm plates and some did not. I farmed for others as a source of income. Never for my family. Where these farmers committing crimes by letting me drive these vehicles before I was legally able to do so? Do LEOS just accept it? And, would the OP be receiving so much flak if alcohol had not been any part of this incident? Barring the involvement of alcohol, I don't see the harm in any of his actions. It is illegal to let his son drive. That cannot be argued. But, some of these posts calling him a bad father and person are not acceptable IMA. And saying the trailer made the situation more dangerous is grasping at straws. That's all I have to say.

 

[Bang-bang]

Are you for real? Have you been paying attention to this thread?

I have not followed the Bissard case. If he did owi and killed that man, I hope he gets a long stay in DOC. Police are not above the law - and yes, I have put my money where my mouth is on that one. I have arrested officers before - and for OWI.

Thank you for being 1 of the good guys!

 

[lrahm]

Under what "certain circumstances" & under what legal authority is that based on?

I don't havethe code handy at this time but if the person is a risk of harming themself or others, guns can be held for a 72 hour period. Let me look, it will take a bit.

 

[finity]

I don't havethe code handy at this time but if the person is a risk of harming themself or others, guns can be held for a 72 hour period. Let me look, it will take a bit.

If this is the law you are talking about:

Indiana Code 35-47-14

then you must be aware that you can't just take a gun from someone for some fixed period of time (72 hours as you say).

The person must be an "imminent threat" through some verifiable PC.

I would think that just having alcohol in his system is not enough to be considered PC to be an "imminent threat". There HAS to be something more or 90% of us should have had our guns confiscated at some point in our lives "for our safety".

Next, the reason has to be submitted to a judge for review & a determination made if the seizure was justified.

You can't just take someone's guns & give them back the next day, or even 3 days later, on a whim without some PC that the person is an IMMINENT threat & then oversight by the courts.

I assume you know what imminent means. It means the same as it does in the self-defense law. It means RIGHT NOW!

If I killed a person because I THOUGHT that they were going to do me harm but I had no PC to think that then I'd likely go to prison because the threat wasn't imminent.

It SHOULD be the same for you confiscating someone's guns.

It doesn't look like the OP was a threat to anyone. He wasn't even "legally drunk" (yes I know PI isn't some limit but if he was PI then the cop should have arrested him for it, otherwise he's not PI). I don't see the "imminent threat" justification for seizure here.

Unless of course there is some other law that I haven't seen yet.

 

[lrahm]

If this is the law you are talking about:

Indiana Code 35-47-14

then you must be aware that you can't just take a gun from someone for some fixed period of time (72 hours as you say).

The person must be an "imminent threat" through some verifiable PC.

I would think that just having alcohol in his system is not enough to be considered PC to be an "imminent threat". There HAS to be something more or 90% of us should have had our guns confiscated at some point in our lives "for our safety".

Next, the reason has to be submitted to a judge for review & a determination made if the seizure was justified.

You can't just take someone's guns & give them back the next day, or even 3 days later, on a whim without some PC that the person is an IMMINENT threat & then oversight by the courts.

I assume you know what imminent means. It means the same as it does in the self-defense law. It means RIGHT NOW!

If I killed a person because I THOUGHT that they were going to do me harm but I had no PC to think that then I'd likely go to prison because the threat wasn't imminent.

It SHOULD be the same for you confiscating someone's guns.

It doesn't look like the OP was a threat to anyone. He wasn't even "legally drunk" (yes I know PI isn't some limit but if he was PI then the cop should have arrested him for it, otherwise he's not PI). I don't see the "imminent threat" justification for seizure here.

Unless of course there is some other law that I haven't seen yet.

I understand completely. This would not be my first time performing this task and I doubt if it will be the last. Also to clear some minds who might be reading this. I would return all weapons and ammo.

 

[TTravis]

I still never got my 10 rounds of ammunition back. Next time I ask about it will be in front of the judge.

 

[lrahm]

I still never got my 10 rounds of ammunition back. Next time I ask about it will be in front of the judge.

Hope you get them back.

 

[gunman41mag]

Hope you get them back.

but with interest

 

[Hammerhead]

I still never got my 10 rounds of ammunition back. Next time I ask about it will be in front of the judge.

Hope you get them back.

but with interest

Just be sure to duck when they send them zipping by at 700 fps...

 

[lrahm]

Just be sure to duck when they send them zipping by at 700 fps...

I always carry two, too.

 

[j706]

Hmmm this thing is still going. What we have here is a perfect example of the old saying "No good dead goes unpunished". If the OP had been arrested that night we would not have been having this long drawn out whining contest by some of the internet lawyers. But seeing that the LEO decided to NOT be a Richard head and cut our OP loose instead of taking him into custody, he gets bashed all over INDGO like he was some kind of thug. Now if he would have been arrested we probably won't be having this thread would we?

I kind of think the OP was pretty lucky and got over easy. Common sense would dictate that one would be thankful and relieved after getting those breaks. But no we will go on a website and tell the world how I got screwed for a multitude of silly reasons. Everyone's fault but the person stopped.

Does anyone happen to have the date this stop happened on and or the stopping officer name? Just thinking out loud here.

 

[TTravis]

The story is ongoing but I can't give any details right now. So many people have read this that I feel obligated to follow through and tell all about it once the trial is over. Hopefully in the end, others can learn from my experience.