Police Spare A Car But Not A Guy's Guns

A report in today's online Star recounts efforts by Indianapolis police to avoid potentially costly damages to a man's red Ferrari, who was stopped for speeding and eluding police. A more docile dog was dispatched to the scene because police feared the drug-sniffing dog already at the scene might cause damage to the car valued at a quarter of a million dollars. As it turned out, the driver of the car was rushing to Community South Hospital to treat chest pains he was experiencing. "A quick-thinking Indianapolis police officer worked to simultaneously protect public safety and taxpayer dollars Sunday when police on the Southeastside searched a red Ferrari for drugs," the story says.

Indianapolis police did not appear to be as quick-thinking and concerned about taxpayer dollars in another case where they mistakenly searched the wrong home for a suspect and seized guns belonging to the home's owner. According to a lawsuit filed in the federal district court in Indianapolis by attorney Paul Ogden, police obtained a search warrant to search the Winfield Avenue home of Grady Scott on November 30, 2006 for a man known as "Bang" based upon bad information the police had obtained from an informant. Scott's complaint alleges that he arrived at his home to find it surrounded by police cars and several police officers already in his home. Police instructed Scott to be seated when he entered his home while they conducted their search, but when he asked for a copy of their search warrant, police refused to show him one. After police told him they were looking for "Bang", he explained to them that a person who went by that name possibly lived elsewhere in his neighborhood. The complaint alleges that police seized two firearms which Scott claimed to lawfully possess during their search of his home. When he later attempted to retrieve the guns, police told him he would have to complete a form and agree to be fingerprinted before the guns would be returned to him pursuant to department policy.

Scott's complaint charges that Indianapolis police violated his right to due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by seizing his guns and depriving him of their possession. The complaint further charges that IMPD's policy of requiring Scott to complete a form and submit to fingerprinting, acts not required under Indiana law, violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The complaint states that Indiana law did not require Scott to obtain a permit or be fingerprinted in order to possess the firearms in his home. Scott's complaint is based on the U.S. Constitution, but it could have asserted claims under the Indiana Constitution as well. Section 32 of Indiana's Bill of Rights makes possession of arms a fundamental right. It reads: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." The Indiana Supreme Court, relying on Section 32, struck down administrative efforts by the City of Gary to deprive its citizens from obtaining a license to carry a firearm in Kellogg v. City of Gary in 1990. The Supreme Court held that the protected right is an interest in both liberty and property.

If police made a mistake in seizing firearms they otherwise weren't entitled to seize in Scott's home, it would seem the prudent thing to do would be to admit to the error and return the guns. Instead, the City now faces a lawsuit for which it must expend money to defend. I guess a guy's guns aren't as valuable as a guy's Ferrari; otherwise, the police would have simply returned Scott's guns, unless there are salient facts that Scott's complaint omits.