While writing a post on another case, I just realized I never followed up on this thread.
The Indiana Supreme Court found in favor of the defendant in the original trial and ruled that the search of the defendant was in violation of the 4th Amendment. Effectively, in Indiana, the mere fact of having a gun in public is not justification for police to stop the person to see if he has a LTCH or is otherwise in legal possession of the firearm.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05091701RR.pdf
Search found 3 matches
Return to “IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"”
- Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:13 pm
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
- Replies: 13
- Views: 6342
- Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:53 am
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
- Replies: 13
- Views: 6342
Re: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
Whether or not the individual ultimately had a license is of course completely irrelevant to whether the stop was legal or not.casp625 wrote:If the individual did not possess a license, how in fact is the stop deemed "illegal"?
The legality of a stop can only turn on information (reasonable suspicion) that is available to the officer BEFORE he makes the stop, it would be absurd to base it on the results of the stop.
As Mr. Relford notes, police generally may not stop you to check for a driving license just because you are driving a car. The act of driving a car, an activity licensed by the state, does not provide reasonable suspicion that you might not have a valid license to drive. In the hierarchy of constitutional rights, driving a car certainly ranks below keeping and bearing arms. So why would the fact that you are carrying a handgun, also an activity licensed by the state, be reasonable suspicion that you don't have a license to carry?
I believe that is the point the Indiana appeals court came to.
- Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:54 pm
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
- Replies: 13
- Views: 6342
IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
"Mere possession of a firearm, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop" per the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Link to article: http://www.wibc.com/blogs/gun-guy/court ... rying-guns
The article is a blog post on the website of radio station WIBC in Indianapolis. The blog author is Guy Relford, who does a lot of 2A law in the Indy area and IIRC has his own radio program on WIBC every week. Relford is not the lawyer for the appellant in this case, the appellant has a public defender.
The appellant is not exactly a 2A poster boy. He and a female friend were getting out of a taxi at a movie theater when he dropped a handgun. The taxi driver noticed and called police, gave them a description. Two cops showed up, got a description of the couple, then went inside. They saw a woman matching the description walking away from a man who also matched, so they stood in front of him and (among other things probably) asked him if he had a gun. He denied having one but according to police he was "nervous." They asked/told him to stand up and when he did, one officer noticed the butt of a handgun in one of the guy's front pockets. The police arrested him for carrying without a license, and it subsequently turned out the guy also had felony conviction, so the charge was upgraded from misdemeanor to felony.
The man's lawyer asked for the evidence to be suppressed, arguing that this was an illegal stop by the police, but the trial court denied this. However (if I understand correctly) the trial court did grant a motion to take this question (stopping person solely for carrying a handgun) to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appeals court ruled that it was an illegal stop, using (among other things) the verbiage at the top of the post.
Some lawyers on an Indiana website I follow think this is headed to the Indiana Supreme Court, and think there's no way the ISC is going to let this stand. Standby.
Actual opinion:
Pinner vs State
Link to article: http://www.wibc.com/blogs/gun-guy/court ... rying-guns
The article is a blog post on the website of radio station WIBC in Indianapolis. The blog author is Guy Relford, who does a lot of 2A law in the Indy area and IIRC has his own radio program on WIBC every week. Relford is not the lawyer for the appellant in this case, the appellant has a public defender.
The appellant is not exactly a 2A poster boy. He and a female friend were getting out of a taxi at a movie theater when he dropped a handgun. The taxi driver noticed and called police, gave them a description. Two cops showed up, got a description of the couple, then went inside. They saw a woman matching the description walking away from a man who also matched, so they stood in front of him and (among other things probably) asked him if he had a gun. He denied having one but according to police he was "nervous." They asked/told him to stand up and when he did, one officer noticed the butt of a handgun in one of the guy's front pockets. The police arrested him for carrying without a license, and it subsequently turned out the guy also had felony conviction, so the charge was upgraded from misdemeanor to felony.
The man's lawyer asked for the evidence to be suppressed, arguing that this was an illegal stop by the police, but the trial court denied this. However (if I understand correctly) the trial court did grant a motion to take this question (stopping person solely for carrying a handgun) to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appeals court ruled that it was an illegal stop, using (among other things) the verbiage at the top of the post.
Some lawyers on an Indiana website I follow think this is headed to the Indiana Supreme Court, and think there's no way the ISC is going to let this stand. Standby.
Actual opinion:
Pinner vs State