Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin

[John_M52]

It's moving forward in Indiana. Indiana is a shall issue and has lifetime permits. They also waived fees the last few years. IN is moot on concealed or not, but most do make an attempt to hide it.

Of course, all crime in Chicago comes from Indiana lax gun laws.

 

[RetCapt]

An LEO stopping someone who is 'printing' is a temporary detention, not an arrest.

Terry v Ohio is the landmark case and created the precedent for the nation. There are four elements necessary for a legal temporary detention.
1. A reasonable suspicion,
2. Of something out of the ordinary,
3. Pertaining to criminal activity,
4. And connected to the person(s) to be detained.
This is not an arrest as long as several ground rules are followed, and there are no exigent circumstances.
1. The time of the detention cannot exceed ten minutes or about the time it takes to complete a traffic citation.
2. The detainee is not moved.
3. The detainee is not restrained.
These ground rules may not apply if certain exigent circumstances are present, such danger to an LEO (via numbers of detainees, verbal threats), flight, etc.

Once the reason for the detention has been resolved, the detainee must be released. As long as the three ground rules have been followed (again, barring exigent circumstances) no arrest has taken place.

Probable cause is the set of facts and circumstances necessary to effect an arrest. That is a far higher bar than the standard for a temporary detention. In this thread, the term 'probable cause' should not have been mentioned. It has no relevance since no arrest is involved.

Years ago I was off-duty and in another jurisdiction. We had gotten out of the car to take some photographs. My shirt blew up exposing my firearm. A plain clothes LEO saw this, approached me and politely demanded to see my CCW. I told him I was an off-duty LEO, my ID was in the car, and said I would get it out for him. I did, and that was the end of it. I knew of course that I was legal, but he did not (which is a point thus far ignored anywhere in thus thread), and thus the burden of proof was on me. He was reasonable. I was reasonable. How difficult can that be?

Lowering the intensity of emotions, and doing enough homework to understand and correctly apply the law and attendant legal definitions makes for a more persuasive and credible argument.

 

[Llance]

RetCapt: " He was reasonable. I was reasonable. How difficult can that be?"

My way every time I've been stopped, accosted, detained. Yes sir. No sir. May I get it from the glove box sir?

The very first time I was stopped for a traffic violation was in late 68" or early "69" in Los Angeles. There had been a shooting of a Highway Patrol Officer and the suspects had a car much like mine. Same colour, make, model, and year. I pulled off the highway on to a surface street and set the brakes put my hands on the steering wheel and waited for the officer to approach. He got to my car and stood behind the driver's door. I had the windows down because I had no air conditioning and was just waiting for him. He asked for the usual, license, registration and insurance papers. I reached into my jacket for my wallet (inside left pocket) and he said two fingers only. I did as told. I then told him the other papers were in the glove box and could I get them out? "Yes." I undid my seatbelt and leaned across the counsel to undo the button on the glove box when I heard a rather ominous sound not normal to the area. His partner was standing on the passenger side and had his revolver out. He had cocked the hammer. I mean to tell you, the barrel of that gun was as big around as a 155 howitzer. Very carefully I removed the paperwork and never let either of my hands go unseen.

When it was all over they explained about the extra caution used, and to tell the truth I didn't blame them one bit. Had to go to court for the citation and beat it before the judge. I was pulling a trailer and had stayed in the left most lane of the freeway longer then the officer thought I should. I explained to the judge my reasoning and he understood having encountered such a situation himself. My guess, he didn't have to stare up into a pistol barrel pointed at his head. My gawd that barrel was huge. Only a .357, but from the front end it was nothing less than a 155.

 

[steelslaver]

Where there is reasonable suspicion of a criminal actions a LEO does and should have the right to stop you. If you have any belief in the 2nd ''He had a gun" is not reasonable suspicion. Just 3% of the population has a felony conviction and few others would be prohibited persons. Therefor just printing is a huge leap to a person being in violation of the law in a "free state". I will be polite and cooperate with the police if they are polite and actually have some reason to take up MY TIME.

Here, notice the part with the ##### before and after. It is not hard here to present your case in front of the State Supreme Court and they take individual tights here very seriously. For example 2 individuals were given a ticket indecent exposure for relieving themselves on a roadway. They were convicted and appealed to SSC. A good source said the judges had some good laughs about it, before overturning the conviction.


Investigative Stop And Frisk

46-5-401. Investigative stop and frisk. (1) In order to obtain or verify an account of the person's presence or conduct or to determine whether to arrest the person, a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in

#####circumstances that create a ###particularized suspicion### that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.#######
In other word he must have a fairly solid suspicion


If the stop is for a violation under Title 61, unless emergency circumstances exist or the officer has reasonable cause to fear for the officer's own safety or for the public's safety,

#####the officer shall as promptly as possible inform the person of the reason for the stop.#####

(2) A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person or vehicle under this section may:

(a) request the person's name and present address and an explanation of the person's actions and,

####if the person is the driver of a vehicle, demand the person's driver's license and the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance; and#####
notice he can not do so with a passenger.

(b) frisk the person and take other reasonably necessary steps for protection if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the person is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or another person present. The officer may take possession of any object that is discovered during the course of the frisk if the officer has probable cause to believe that the object is a deadly weapon until the completion of the stop, at which time the officer shall either immediately return the object, if legally possessed, or arrest the person.

He can only check for a weapon if he has the necessary portion under part 1

 

[BB57]

If I was stopped by an LE for printing, I'd thank him/her for the notice then reposition my clothes.

Are you new to concealed carry?

I ask because a I usually encounter the obsession with printing from people fairly new to concealed carry.

People who have concealed carried for a significant period of time usually get past that and realize that the general public just won’t notice a handgun printing under a shirt, unless it’s something glaringly obvious like a Glock 17 under a tight spandex tee shirt.

The new guys are the worst, but you’ll spot them from their behavior, not the actually printing. For example, you’ll see them step out of their vehicle and then look down to see if they are printing and or adjust their shirt, vest or jacket. Then you’ll see them do it all again as they walk across the parking lot. Wearing a cover garment in warm weather is another give away. My favorites are the guys in tactical pants and operator beards scanning for threats as they walk to the door of the Food Lion. A closer look will then disclose the print or a belt clip or holster loops for an IWB holster.

Being effectively concealed requires you *not* go around acting like you are armed.

But again, the general public doesn’t notice things like that. Even if the do, they don’t know what it is they are seeing. For example, I was in an elevator with a lady who asked me about the clip on my belt. I was carrying a handgun in a tuckable IWB holster in a suit but with the jacket off, so the belt clip was visible. I told her it was the clip to my TENS unit and we had a pleasant elevator conversation about back pain. I have never owned a TENS unit and have no idea what the clip might look like. But it was an effective away to avoid her feeling uncomfortable or potentially have her make a big scene and disturb the public order in a large metropolitan area where concealed carry was legal but uncommon.

Ensuring your carrying of a weapon doesn’t cause discomfort for others is a a key concept in a polite society where personal responsibility is important. It’s why some states allow concealed carry but ban open carry, and it’s why many businesses ban open carry but are silent on concealed carry. Police departments in those jurisdictions do not want people upset that someone is carrying a firearm and do not want to have to respond to “man with a gun” complaints not associated with suspicious or criminal behavior. Businesses do not want to lose customers because someone is open carrying and making other customers uncomfortable. Starbucks, Chipotle and Target are all local examples where the incredibly misguided 2A demonstrations resulted in bans on *open* carry, but not specifically on concealed carry.

Unfortunately many state laws are very prescriptive on enforceable signage and may not allow for a distinction between the two.

The intent of these laws is important for officers to keep in mind as they enforce laws related to concealed carry as well as related brandishing statutes.

For example, it is a misdemeanor in North Carolina, rather dramatically titled “Going Armed to the Terror of the People”, to display or brandish a gun in a manner that either causes or can reasonably be expected to cause fear or panic. Pointing a gun at people, even unloaded, or waving a gun around is clearly going to run afoul of that statute and its intent. In NC, as an open carry state, open carry by itself will not trigger a violation and clearly the printing of a concealed handgun will not violate the intent of that law either.

But in states where open carry isn’t legal, officers can potentially use poor discretion and decide they need to stop someone they suspect might be carrying a firearm solely due to printing or due to the presence of belt or holster clips in the absence of any suspicious or usual behavior that would create “reasonable suspicion” and valid probable cause for a stop. That kind of enforcement is almost always disproportionately applied based on other prohibited factors.

The law in Ohio is a perfect set up for that type of enforcement over reach and similar challenges.

 

[BB57]

RetCapt: " He was reasonable. I was reasonable. How difficult can that be?"

My way every time I've been stopped, accosted, detained. Yes sir. No sir. May I get it from the glove box sir?

The very first time I was stopped for a traffic violation was in late 68" or early "69" in Los Angeles. There had been a shooting of a Highway Patrol Officer and the suspects had a car much like mine. Same colour, make, model, and year. I pulled off the highway on to a surface street and set the brakes put my hands on the steering wheel and waited for the officer to approach. He got to my car and stood behind the driver's door. I had the windows down because I had no air conditioning and was just waiting for him. He asked for the usual, license, registration and insurance papers. I reached into my jacket for my wallet (inside left pocket) and he said two fingers only. I did as told. I then told him the other papers were in the glove box and could I get them out? "Yes." I undid my seatbelt and leaned across the counsel to undo the button on the glove box when I heard a rather ominous sound not normal to the area. His partner was standing on the passenger side and had his revolver out. He had cocked the hammer. I mean to tell you, the barrel of that gun was as big around as a 155 howitzer. Very carefully I removed the paperwork and never let either of my hands go unseen.

When it was all over they explained about the extra caution used, and to tell the truth I didn't blame them one bit. Had to go to court for the citation and beat it before the judge. I was pulling a trailer and had stayed in the left most lane of the freeway longer then the officer thought I should. I explained to the judge my reasoning and he understood having encountered such a situation himself. My guess, he didn't have to stare up into a pistol barrel pointed at his head. My gawd that barrel was huge. Only a .357, but from the front end it was nothing less than a 155.

Absent the circumstances (trooper shot by a suspect in a similar vehicle) I doubt you’d have been stopped in the first place. It’s pretty reasonable to stay in a passing lane longer then normal when pulling a trailer if you don’t pull one frequently.

It became a pretext for the stop - one that is understandable under the circumstances. But personally, I would not have issued a citation. Your day was traumatic enough and calling the left lane violation an offense was a real stretch.

 

[Llance]

BB57 The stop did two things and I think the most important one was to make me aware of jut how many 63 Galexy 500 in the then popular tan gray colour there were on the Los Angeles freways. (not many)

The other thing it taught me was to find another way to my destination.

 

[Muddyboot]

The bill was signed today....

 

[llowry61]

The bill was signed today....

I heard it on the news tonight. 90 days from now it becomes law if I understand correctly.

 

[ladder13]

The bill was signed today....

Most excellent.

 

[Tom S.]

Several posts removed because people either can't read or think they are above the rules:

This is NOT:
This is not where you post general political discussion and comments on OTHER issues not related to the 2A. Other issues are the economy, Obamacare, general Lib bashing, tinfoil and black choppers, how to start a revolution, etc, etc.
Keep it focused on the 2A issues.

If your post was removed, PLEASE READ ALL THE RULES!

 

[johngalt]

I read that it also removes the duty to notify, which is long overdue.

 

[IndianaDave]

Good for Ohio. The Indiana bill has reached the Governor's desk today. If i understand it correctly he has 7 days to either sign it or not. If not it passes in to law after 7 days anyway. I'm not sure what kind of process there is for him to veto it. He's a Repub but i don't trust him.

 

[llowry61]

I read that it also removes the duty to notify, which is long overdue.

From what I understand you are correct, however you are bound to respond if asked. I think this was what the LE (local sheriff) in Hamilton county was so opposed to. I have to assume that law enforcement is always going to ask if you have any weapons and that law abiding citizens will have no issue responding. I always felt that the burden of notice being on the CCW was misplaced.

I doubt a criminal will advise in any instance.

 

[johngalt]

From what I understand you are correct, however you are bound to respond if asked. I think this was what the LE (local sheriff) in Hamilton county was so opposed to. I have to assume that law enforcement is always going to ask if you have any weapons and that law abiding citizens will have no issue responding. I always felt that the burden of notice being on the CCW was misplaced.

I doubt a criminal will advise in any instance.

I thought Simon Leis was gone. Is the new sheriff as bad?

 

[Rustyt1953]

I thought Simon Leis was gone. Is the new sheriff as bad?

Leis was replaced with Jim Neil. Charmaine McGuffy is the new sheriff in town. She, the mayor, the city council, the CPD and other police organizations had urged DeWine to veto the bill.

Not long ago Sheriff McGuffy had her county issued vehicle stolen from her driveway. Her issued firearm was in it. They hushed it up pretty quickly.

 

[llowry61]

Leis was replaced with Jim Neil. Charmaine McGuffy is the new sheriff in town. She, the mayor, the city council, the CPD and other police organizations had urged DeWine to veto the bill.

Not long ago Sheriff McGuffy had her county issued vehicle stolen from her driveway. Her issued firearm was in it. They hushed it up pretty quickly.

Thanks Rusty1953 - I really did not know much about her other than her vocal opposition to the new legislation. I am with others here, timing is everything and with Gubernatorial election on the table I think it got through.

 

[johngalt]

Leis was replaced with Jim Neil. Charmaine McGuffy is the new sheriff in town. She, the mayor, the city council, the CPD and other police organizations had urged DeWine to veto the bill.

Not long ago Sheriff McGuffy had her county issued vehicle stolen from her driveway. Her issued firearm was in it. They hushed it up pretty quickly.

She sounds like a real winner!

 

[steelslaver]

An LEO stopping someone who is 'printing' is a temporary detention, not an arrest.

Terry v Ohio is the landmark case and created the precedent for the nation. There are four elements necessary for a legal temporary detention.
1. A reasonable suspicion,
2. Of something out of the ordinary,
3. Pertaining to criminal activity,
4. And connected to the person(s) to be detained.
This is not an arrest as long as several ground rules are followed, and there are no exigent circumstances.
1. The time of the detention cannot exceed ten minutes or about the time it takes to complete a traffic citation.
2. The detainee is not moved.
3. The detainee is not restrained.
These ground rules may not apply if certain exigent circumstances are present, such danger to an LEO (via numbers of detainees, verbal threats), flight, etc.

Once the reason for the detention has been resolved, the detainee must be released. As long as the three ground rules have been followed (again, barring exigent circumstances) no arrest has taken place.

Probable cause is the set of facts and circumstances necessary to effect an arrest. That is a far higher bar than the standard for a temporary detention. In this thread, the term 'probable cause' should not have been mentioned. It has no relevance since no arrest is involved.

Years ago I was off-duty and in another jurisdiction. We had gotten out of the car to take some photographs. My shirt blew up exposing my firearm. A plain clothes LEO saw this, approached me and politely demanded to see my CCW. I told him I was an off-duty LEO, my ID was in the car, and said I would get it out for him. I did, and that was the end of it. I knew of course that I was legal, but he did not (which is a point thus far ignored anywhere in thus thread), and thus the burden of proof was on me. He was reasonable. I was reasonable. How difficult can that be?

Lowering the intensity of emotions, and doing enough homework to understand and correctly apply the law and attendant legal definitions makes for a more persuasive and credible argument.

OK, a cop sees someone printing. Just what is his reasonable suspicion? (elemernt #1) Having a gun is not illegal if one has a permit especially if you are in a no permit needed state or even a shall issue state.. What is the bases for ANY suspicion that person has no permit????? What is so unusual about some one having a gun, 21.5 million concealed carry permits in the US, That is about1 in 15 people, hardly "UNUSUAL". (element #2) This is especially a factor in the fact that only people in the 28 repressed states even need a permit to carry concealed. Just what "criminal activity" (element #3)?? Practicing their 2nd Amendment right?? Be like saying "I saw the person driving a car your honor and pulled him over because I suspected he had no license". Ya, right. Explain why one is more suspicious than the other. The number of unlicensed drivers may not even be lower than unlicensed concealed weapon carriers. About 15.9% of Americans don't have a valid driver's license. The age groups with the highest percentage of adults without a driver's license are 16-19 years old (65.2%), 85 and older (39.9%) and 20 to 24 (19.2%). It is no wonder so many cases get tossed out of court when the accused get a decent attorney. You might get away with it in some states, but only because no one has ever screamed loud enough. IF the person printing needed a permit and didn't have one any public defender or cheap attorney should get the case tossed anyway. Way to easy to display the lack of satisfying any of needed elements for the "detention"

I am not going to get in a big argument on the street with a LEO on this, but if it ever did happen, I would make an issue out of it afterwards. But, then I wake up and drink coffee and play cribbage with my favorite attorney every morning.

 

[RetCapt]

Steelslaver,

In your post of 3/5/22 you asked where the probable cause was for the temporary detention of someone who is 'printing'. My point was that a temporary detention does not require probable cause. What it does require is reasonable suspicion (and the other three elements - all three) as set forth in Terry v Ohio.

Thus the use of the term 'probable cause' was incorrect. Reasonable suspicion is a lower bar. Reasonable suspicion does not allow for an arrest, so any arrest based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause would be a false arrest.

The courts also recognize 'totality of circumstances' so that is why the elements of a temporary detention are so general. Thus the fact of printing, taken in isolation of all other attendant circumstances, does not reveal much. Among those other facts adding necessary context are what the laws are in specific states and areas, behavior/demeanor of the person to be detained, circumstances of the observation, time of day or night, incidence of crime in an area. I have no interest in debating individual elements of a temporary detention absent the complete context. I will note that countless court decisions, in upholding the lesser bar for a temporary detention, is that it allows for innocence to be established as easily as criminal behavior, as my example clearly indicted.

If you are truly interested in objectively (in other words with no predisposition of advocacy either way) learning the laws pertaining to temporary detentions and the laws pertaining to arrests, I would suggest taking a course in constitutional law at a local college or university. There is a lot to this, and a forum is not a convenient venue to go into the required depth.

My point of probable cause being an inapplicable legal standard to justify a temporary detention still stands.

I have nothing to add to my point, so I don't intend to further discuss the issue.