IN: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License

[ELB]

I recall that at the last Legislative Session two years ago that Open Carry almost got derailed at the last moment when the "law enforcement community" blew a gasket over an amendment that would have explicitly forbid police to stop people solely because they were (presumably open) carrying a handgun.

Recent court case in Indiana percolated up to the Indiana Supreme Court, and they recently ruled that police may not detain people just to determine if they have Licenses to Carry Handgun (LTCH). Note: Indiana is not (yet) a "constitutional carry" state, handgun carry is illegal without a LTCH or a license/permit from another state (Indiana recognizes all other states' licenses).

A Hoosier 2A attorney wrote an article on this here: http://www.wibc.com/blogs/gun-guy/gun-g ... un-license

In the particular case that made it to the ISC, a handgun fell out of the pocket of a guy getting out of a cab. The guy re-pocketed his gun and went into a movie theater (along with his female companion). The cabbie called police about the gun, but made no claim the he was robbed or threatened. Two officers found the man sitting in the theater lobby, and talked with him. He denied having a gun. When they asked him to stand up, one officer saw the butt of a handgun in his pocket. They arrested him for misdemeanor possession of a handgun without a license, later upgraded to a felony because the man had a prior felony conviction. His attorney moved to suppress the evidence (him having a handgun), arguing that the seizure and search of his client violated both the US and Indiana Constitutions because police had no reasonable suspicion that he carried the handgun illegally (and I believe also because there was no other evidence of any other illegal activity). The trial court ruled against the motion, but both the Indiana Court of Appeals and the ISC ruled his favor, basically stating that police may not infer criminal activity or suspicion solely because one is carrying a handgun.

ISC opinion here: https://publicaccess.courts.in.gov/dock ... 1-CR-00610

[bblhd672]

Great and more importantly, correct ruling.

[Soccerdad1995]

My Brother from Seattle was recently visiting me and we started talking about open carry. He was surprised that police were not allowed to ask for a license just because someone was openly carrying. I asked him why. He said that since it is illegal to carry without a license, that should be enough reasonable suspicion. I then asked him if he thought that police should stop everyone driving a car to ask them for their driver's licenses. That pretty much ended the conversation.

You could also analogize to police asking everyone walking down the street for proof of legal residence since it is a crime to be here illegally.

[rotor]

In the reported case I am ambivalent about the result because we ended up with a felon with a gun getting a free pass.

[Jusme]

In the reported case I am ambivalent about the result because we ended up with a felon with a gun getting a free pass.

I am happy about the ruling, but I wish it had been someone who was legal to carry.

[ScottDLS]

In the reported case I am ambivalent about the result because we ended up with a felon with a gun getting a free pass.

I am happy about the ruling, but I wish it had been someone who was legal to carry.

The irony is that we wouldn't have gotten the ruling if the person were legal to carry. The founders must have considered this when drafting the bill of rights, and presumably the drafters of Indiana's state constitution did as well.

Maybe the Feds can have a crack at him since that's not double jeopardy and the Federal Appellate Courts are split on this issue. 4th circuit says less protection from 5th amendment for gun carriers. Don't know what the 7th (covers Indiana) says.

[Soccerdad1995]

In the reported case I am ambivalent about the result because we ended up with a felon with a gun getting a free pass.

I don't like that a felon with a gun got a free pass.

And I am very happy with the result of this case.

[ELB]

In the reported case I am ambivalent about the result because we ended up with a felon with a gun getting a free pass.

I am happy about the ruling, but I wish it had been someone who was legal to carry.

The irony is that we wouldn't have gotten the ruling if the person were legal to carry. ...

Exactly, and this is a feature not a bug. Part of the "constitutional protections are so important that better that 9 guilty go free rather than one innocent be punished" line of thought. It strengthens the idea that the police can't shortcut constitutional protections regardless of how the results came out in the end.

In the thread I picked this up on, in an Indiana gun forum, there were at least three police officers participating, all indicated agreement with the ruling. Two of them indicated that it had been department policy long before the decision that a person carrying a handgun would not be stopped solely because he was carrying a handgun. One of those departments is the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. None of them indicated that not being able to stop somebody simply because they have a gun hobbles their law enforcement effort.
https://www.ingunowners.com/forums/gene ... cense.html

[JakeTheSnake]

Good and bad. Bad a felon got off, but good it was the felon run through the wringer instead of a good guy.

[MeMelYup]

Good on both counts. Thinking about this I guess that I am sort of a liberal. The opinion expressed here is once a felon always a felon. I disagree. When a person commits a crime (no matter what level) and pays for it by completing his/her sentence (parole, etc., everything that was adjudicated by the court). That person should be able to receive all rights back.

[ScottDLS]

Good on both counts. Thinking about this I guess that I am sort of a liberal. The opinion expressed here is once a felon always a felon. I disagree. When a person commits a crime (no matter what level) and pays for it by completing his/her sentence (parole, etc., everything that was adjudicated by the court). That person should be able to receive all rights back.

And also why we have life in prison and/or the death penalty for people too bad to let out.

[KLB]

In the reported case I am ambivalent about the result because we ended up with a felon with a gun getting a free pass.

The reality is that the limits of our freedoms are determined by circumstances in which criminals get off. Had the gun carrier not been a felon, the matter never would have gone to court.

[The Annoyed Man]

This case is purely the result of a criminal "justice" landscape in which a person convicted of a felony never truly finishes serving his sentence until the day he dies - regardless of the nature of his crime.

I think it is time to take a good hard look at what happens to felons after they've done their time. If Obama can give felons the vote while they are still in prison (arguably much more dangerous than a gun), then what is the problem with gun rights for felons........particularly if their convictions were not for violent crimes? And if the consensus is that a felon should never have their gun rights back, then what we're saying is that their debt to society can never be repaid. If someone's "debt to society" can never truly be paid off, then can we ever realistically expect released felons who have served their sentences to become stakeholders in the society?

I don't know what the answers should be, but I do know that society's refusal to consider what are the REAL meanings of liberty and human rights has resulted in the deep state we "enjoy" today. Maybe it is time to start putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to the liberty of the individual.

[parabelum]

with TAM. Well said.


And those who are quick to condemn anyone with a felony conviction, more specifically one where violence was not a factor, just remember that local/State/Federal etc. judiciary can just as easily go after you one sunny day. You'd be surprised perhaps, maybe not, at "crimes" which carry a felony conviction.

Meanwhile, the biggest gangsters actually run the show. Yay!

[rotor]

This case is purely the result of a criminal "justice" landscape in which a person convicted of a felony never truly finishes serving his sentence until the day he dies - regardless of the nature of his crime.

I think it is time to take a good hard look at what happens to felons after they've done their time. If Obama can give felons the vote while they are still in prison (arguably much more dangerous than a gun), then what is the problem with gun rights for felons........particularly if their convictions were not for violent crimes? And if the consensus is that a felon should never have their gun rights back, then what we're saying is that their debt to society can never be repaid. If someone's "debt to society" can never truly be paid off, then can we ever realistically expect released felons who have served their sentences to become stakeholders in the society?

I don't know what the answers should be, but I do know that society's refusal to consider what are the REAL meanings of liberty and human rights has resulted in the deep state we "enjoy" today. Maybe it is time to start putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to the liberty of the individual.

I guess it is possible for some to turn their lives around and have their rights restored but we also need to look at the numbers that are arrested again and we all wonder why such and such was out and able to kill someone. Sex offenders needing to register, etc. I don't know the answer but obviously our present gun laws do NOT prevent felons from acquiring guns and our justice system is not really a reflection of justice. What the system needs is a King Solomon to make these decisions but we don't have one. I noted in my local paper that the J.P.'s were complaining that their "incomes" were going down because the DA was dropping misdemeanor cases. It's not about "Justice" only money. And traffic tickets are only for "safety" and not money. Sure!