{"id":209106,"date":"2017-08-01T17:54:40","date_gmt":"2017-08-01T21:54:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-4th-amendment-rights-when-93-1-wibc-indianapolis-blog\/"},"modified":"2017-08-01T17:54:40","modified_gmt":"2017-08-01T21:54:40","slug":"indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-4th-amendment-rights-when-93-1-wibc-indianapolis-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/second-amendment\/indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-4th-amendment-rights-when-93-1-wibc-indianapolis-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Indiana AG: Citizens Don&#8217;t Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When &#8230; &#8211; 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    On May 9, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a    long-standing dispute in Indiana:  <\/p>\n<p>    May a police officer detainan individual in    possession of a firearm in order to verify that the person's    possession of the gun is lawful?  <\/p>\n<p>    In Pinner v. State, the    court ruled that the mere possession of a gun, without some    additional indication that the possession is illegal, does not    justify a police officer in conducting an \"investigatory stop\"    of the individual to check to see if the person has a License    to Carry Handgun or that the person's possession of the firearm    is otherwise lawful. And since the possession of a gun alone    does not justify a stop - it also does not justify a search of    the individual as part of a \"stop & frisk.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Now,Indiana Attorney GeneralCurtis    Hillis asking the United States Supreme Court to accept a    case that originated in West Virginia, Shaquille Robinson v.    U.S..and urging SCOTUS to create a similar rule    for the country as a whole thatIndiana adopted in the    Pinner case.   <\/p>\n<p>    In Robinson, a witness called authorities to report    that he had seen a man in a parking lot of a 7-Eleven loading a    gun and placing that gun into his pocket. The witness    gave a description of the armed man and the car he got into in    the parking lot. Officers then pulled over the car -    purportedly because neither Robinson nor the female driver were    wearing a seatbelt - and asked Robinson to exit the vehicle.    When asked if he was armed, Robinson did not respond    verbally but gave the officer \"a weird look.\" At this    point, Robinson was directed to place his hands on the roof of    the vehicle,he was searched, and the officer recovered a    handgun from his pocket. Robinson was arrested,    prosecuted and convictedunder federal law for illegal    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  <\/p>\n<p>    On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth    Circuit, the primary issue was whether police had the legal    right to search Robinson during the traffic stop.    Robinson argued that the search violated his Fourth    Amendment rights, since the police officers were acting only on    a tip that he was armed and had no reason to believe that his    possession of a firearm was illegal or that he was a danger to    the officers at the time of the stop. In ruling that the    search was legal and upholding Robinson's conviction, the    Fourth Circuit held that the mere possession of a firearm is    sufficient for a police officer to fear for his safety and    justifies a search of the person who is reportedly armed --    even with no reason to believe that the person's possession of    the firearm is illegal.   <\/p>\n<p>    Now, Indiana is among five states (including    Michigan, Utah, Texas and West Virginia) who have filed an    \"amicus curiae\" (friend of the    court)brief, asking the U.S.    Supreme Court to grant Robinson's petition for certiorari and    to review the case.   <\/p>\n<p>    In the brief, Indiana argues that the Fourth Circuit's ruling    \"forces an individual to choose between her right to bear arms    under the Second Amendment and her right to be free from    searches under the Fourth Amendment.\" In effect, Indiana    is now asking SCOTUS to adopt arule very similar to the    ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court inthis year's    Pinner case - that the mere possession of a firearm is    not sufficient to justify a stop or a searchof a person    by a police officer without some other reason to believe that    the armed person is committing a crime or is a danger to the    officer.  <\/p>\n<p>    Hoosiers should be proud that the State of    Indiana, through our Attorney General, is taking a stand in    support of our Constitutional rightsnot only our right to bear    arms, but our right to be free from unreasonable searches and    seizuresrecognizing that a person who chooses to exercise his    Second Amendment rights should not automatically forfeit his    rights under the Fourth Amendment.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>    Guy A. Relford  <\/p>\n<p>    Guy A. Relford is a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel,    Indiana. He is also the owner and chief instructor of    Tactical Firearms Training, LLC in Indianapolis and the author    of Gun Safety & Cleaning for Dummies (Wiley & Sons    Publications, 2012). He hosts The Gun Guy with Guy    Relford on WIBC radio in Indianapolis.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Follow this link:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.wibc.com\/blogs\/gun-guy\/indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-4th-amendment-rights-when-exercising-2nd-amendment\" title=\"Indiana AG: Citizens Don't Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When ... - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)\">Indiana AG: Citizens Don't Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When ... - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> On May 9, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a long-standing dispute in Indiana: May a police officer detainan individual in possession of a firearm in order to verify that the person's possession of the gun is lawful? In Pinner v <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/second-amendment\/indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-4th-amendment-rights-when-93-1-wibc-indianapolis-blog\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[193621],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-second-amendment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209106"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=209106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}