Ohio man files $3M lawsuit after being harrassed for legally OCing

[10-Ring]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/video-ohio-man-illegally-arrested-open-carry-sparks-3m-lawsuit

 

An Ohio man has slapped local government with a $3.6 million lawsuit after policemen allegedly violated his Constitutional rights. Police detained Ray Call and confiscated his weapon because he openly carried his firearm into a store.

According to reports, Call entered a store late one night with his gun openly on display. The authorities were alerted, and fairly soon two policemen arrived on the scene. The police officers held Call in the back of the police car, took his weapon, and demanded that he identify himself.

Call refused to identify himself. According to Ohio Revised Code, an individual is not obligated to identify himself to a police officer unless the officer reasonably suspects that the individual is involved in a crime.

When police didn't get any answers out of Call, they threatened to charge him with reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics intimidated Call into revealing his name, at which point police discovered that he had a CCW permit. Police returned his weapon and sent him on his way.

They also charged Call with obstruction of justice but later dropped those charges.

You can watch the video below and form your own opinions.

 

 

[DaveS]

My question is how does a person know that a cop "suspects that you commited a crime"? I wish Mr. Call all the luck in the world with his lawsuit. He could have prevented this whole thing by identifying himself. He provoked the cops actions, then he wants to sue?

 

Dave S

[Chucktshoes]

My question is how does a person know that a cop "suspects that you commited a crime"? I wish Mr. Call all the luck in the world with his lawsuit. He could have prevented this whole thing by identifying himself. He provoked the cops actions, then he wants to sue?

Dave S

His actions (regardless of whether you agree with them or not) were not reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. In a state where unlicensed OC is legal, the courts have rules that the open carrying of a gun does not meet the level needed for a Terry Stop and as such, he was under no obligation to identify himself and the detainment by the officers was arguably illegal and a violation of his civil rights.

[TMF]

Sounds like this guy went fishing, but if unlicensed OC is legal the cops don't have a leg to stand on for their actions.

[DaveS]

His actions (regardless of whether you agree with them or not) were not reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. In a state where unlicensed OC is legal, the courts have rules that the open carrying of a gun does not meet the level needed for a Terry Stop and as such, he was under no obligation to identify himself and the detainment by the officers was arguably illegal and a violation of his civil rights.

I was basically questioning the law. "Ohio law does not require you to identify yourself, unless the police suspect you commited a crime". That was my whole point. My other point was/is identify yourself and get on with life. I know if I ask a person for their name and they refused, I may think they are hiding something too.

 

We all have rights, and we all know it. We also know what and when to exercise those rights. But way too many people play the MY RIGHTS game with everything. Mr. Call had full rights to withhold his name. The cops had full right to detain him until he could be identified, as until he could be identified he was committing a crime by carrying a handgun. In which he was CLEARED of as soon as he IDENTIFIED HIMSELF. He could have prevented this whole matter by identifying himself at the get go!

 

I know some of ya'll don't agree, but think about the situation and what brought the actions of the cops. Man with a gun, and, a man who refuses to tell the cops his name. What would you want the cops to do? Send him on his merry way to possibly commit a crime? This is a new era in america, it's called don't play games with cops!

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

Mr. Call had a CCW. He refused to identify himself to the cops. Once he did, his weapon was returned to him and he was sent on his merry way. HE could have prevented this whole situation! I wish him well in court, as we don't know what attitude he displayed or that of the cops. The article doesn't weally say that. Got to be more to it.

 

Dave S

[peejman]

I was basically questioning the law. "Ohio law does not require you to identify yourself, unless the police suspect you commited a crime". That was my whole point. My other point was/is identify yourself and get on with life. I know if I ask a person for their name and they refused, I may think they are hiding something too.

 

We all have rights, and we all know it. We also know what and when to exercise those rights. But way too many people play the MY RIGHTS game with everything. Mr. Call had full rights to withhold his name. The cops had full right to detain him until he could be identified, as until he could be identified he was committing a crime by carrying a handgun. In which he was CLEARED of as soon as he IDENTIFIED HIMSELF. He could have prevented this whole matter by identifying himself at the get go!

 

I know some of ya'll don't agree, but think about the situation and what brought the actions of the cops. Man with a gun, and, a man who refuses to tell the cops his name. What would you want the cops to do? Send him on his merry way to possibly commit a crime? This is a new era in america, it's called don't play games with cops!

 

Dave S

 

I think that was the point... In OH its legal to open carry without a permit, hence open carrying by itself is not a crime, hence the police had no cause to detain him or demand his identification.  Granted, life would've been a lot easier for everyone if he'd just shown his ID/permit and gone his merry way.  However, it's obvious the officers involved don't understand the law and attempted to coerce him into doing what they wanted, even if it what they wanted isn't legal to the letter of the law.  It could've been handled better by both sides, but there's no reason to just roll over and comply. 

 

The training budget is always one of the first things to get cut when money is tight.  Want to spend $5000 to send a couple people to a training class?  Not gonna happen.  The fact that there could be a $3.6 million consequence to that lack of training isn't something management likes to acknowledge. 

[JWC]

Can one be stopped and detained for suspicion of dui if their merely seen driving? Or buying beer?

[Chucktshoes]

Just because life would have been easier if he had complied with police orders that he was under no obligation to comply with is immaterial. You are basically arguing for the "papers please" style of policing where the citizen is under obligation to prove his/her innocence as opposed to the police having to show a reasonable and probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed.

These types of incidents are the beginning of the slippery slopes that justify a militarized tactical squad cordoning of an entire neighborhood and pulling folks out of their homes at gunpoint sans a warrant.

Does putting the onus on LE to justify their actions when questioning or detaining citizens make their job more difficult? Absolutely. That is as it should be in a nation whose founding documents places liberty as a primary right such as ours do. You can live in a police state or a free state, you choose. Edited May 16, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Smith]

"Reckless inconvenience"? That a real charge?

 

In all seriousness Mr. Call must be related to Leonard Embody.

 

Yeah, I invoked it. :)

[Lowpower]

Personally I hope his law suit is won and we see many, many more. The law is the law and not even the Police are above the law. 

 

America is not yet a Police State but they keep trying.

 

Lp

[101]

Mr. Call had full rights to withhold his name. The cops had full right to detain him until he could be identified, as until he could be identified he was committing a crime by carrying a handgun. In which he was CLEARED of as soon as he IDENTIFIED HIMSELF. He could have prevented this whole matter by identifying himself at the get go!

Dave S

The problem with this statement is, Ohio is not like TN. It is NOT a crime to carry a gun openly. Therefore he was not in commission of any crimes at all. Thus, no need to ID himself or be detained in any fashion because Ohio has ruled repeatedly that carry a gun is not a reason for stopping someone. Edited May 16, 2013 by 101

[Hershmeister]

"Reckless inconvenience"? That a real charge?

In all seriousness Mr. Call must be related to Leonard Embody.

Yeah, I invoked it. :)

Perhaps it's related to the disorderly conduct law?


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11

[DaveS]

Police are required to respond to MWG calls. Period. And if determining whether a crime has been commited, will be committed and/or for public safety in general, cops must ask you your name at times. Your answer or lack thereof, tells the LEO alot about you. I don't agree with the situation either, but I totally disagree with the lawsuit filed. In conclusion; If you don't ever want questioned by LE, DON'T carry a weapon. All it's gonna take is some little old lady to see, call 911 and you will be confronted.

 

Later

 

Dave S

[monkeylizard]

The cops had full right to detain him until he could be identified, as until he could be identified he was committing a crime by carrying a handgun.

 

 

You're making a mistake in your logic there. He was not commiting a crime in Ohio by OC'ing. They have legal OC without a permit in Ohio, as peejman said. Mr. Call believes that the police had no right to detain him and is suing because of it.

 

No doubt the cops will respond to an MWAG call. They should. But upon arrivng on the scene and seeing Mr. Call doing nothing more than being a normal customer, should have done nothing more than kept an eye on him until he left the store and went on his way.

Edited May 16, 2013 by monkeylizard

[Smith]

Come on guys. If they had just walked up on him and the following ensued, sure he has a case. They were called there by a report of a MWG and are compelled to clear the situation before they leave. Mr. Call's ire should be directed at the caller not the police.

 

Let's say they responded to the call by stating there is no law against OC and never investigated and it turns out Mr. Call had nefarious plan? I have a feeling at lot of the same voices here would be decrying the ineptitude of the PD and calling for resignations and disciplinary action.

 

PD was in a no win with this guy and did what they should have and what was necessary given the circumstances. Mr. Call could have mitigated the circumstances and been on his way. 

Edited May 16, 2013 by Smith

[Daniel]

They can respond sure.They did not need to detain or question him. They could have merely observed his actions and been ready to react.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Daniel

[monkeylizard]

You're right Smith. He could have made things easy in himself. But he didn't have to and chose not to. I'm not sure if I hope he wins or not, but if this played out the way it's described in the OP, he has every right to be upset, especially when the cops started threatening trumped up charges to get a law abiding citizen to consent to be treated like a criminal while being detained against his will for having commited no crime.

Bad spot for everyone involved. At the very least I'd like to see the officers in that dept receive better training on how to handle this kind of call.

[JGunner]

They can respond sure.They did not need to detain or question him. They could have merely observed his actions and been ready to react.

This.

[101]

Come on guys. If they had just walked up on him and the following ensued, sure he has a case. They were called there by a report of a MWG and are compelled to clear the situation before they leave. Mr. Call's ire should be directed at the caller not the police.

Let's say they responded to the call by stating there is no law against OC and never investigated and it turns out Mr. Call had nefarious plan? I have a feeling at lot of the same voices here would be decrying the ineptitude of the PD and calling for resignations and disciplinary action.

PD was in a no win with this guy and did what they should have and what was necessary given the circumstances. Mr. Call could have mitigated the circumstances and been on his way.

The internet is rife with instances of dispatchers ascertaining the situation from the caller informing the caller that a man has the right to open carry.

They inform the caller that unless the man is actually committing a crime other than carrying a gun he is well within his legal rights. Edited May 16, 2013 by 101

[DaveS]

I agree with all concerned, myself included. How many people with a felony conviction can legaly OC/CC a handgun? How many people on Ohio's wanted list walk around OC'ing because it's legal and LEO isn't allowed to question him? How many movie shootings can be averted because two LEO's persued a complaint and attempted to clear up a matter? How many  Charles Mansons, Ralph Holmes, Wayne Williams, Jeffery Dalmer's and hundreds of thousands more that get caught because a cop ID'd them? Maybe the cops in this situation went a tad too far. However, had they not acted, and the guy with a gun went astray, people would be asking for their jobs. Being in LEO is a no win situation because of people's rights and little feelings get hurt. Give the cop your name and move on. But no...too easy.

 

Dave S

[Chucktshoes]

I agree with all concerned, myself included. How many people with a felony conviction can legaly OC/CC a handgun? How many people on Ohio's wanted list walk around OC'ing because it's legal and LEO isn't allowed to question him? How many movie shootings can be averted because two LEO's persued a complaint and attempted to clear up a matter? How many Charles Mansons, Ralph Holmes, Wayne Williams, Jeffery Dalmer's and hundreds of thousands more that get caught because a cop ID'd them? Maybe the cops in this situation went a tad too far. However, had they not acted, and the guy with a gun went astray, people would be asking for their jobs. Being in LEO is a no win situation because of people's rights and little feelings get hurt. Give the cop your name and move on. But no...too easy.

Dave S

So your answer is to treat the average citizen as if they are a criminal because somebody might do something bad with a gun? This is the same argument that Bloomberg and his ilk use in their fight to disarm us.

[DaveS]

The problem with this statement is, Ohio is not like TN. It is NOT a crime to carry a gun openly. Therefore he was not in commission of any crimes at all. Thus, no need to ID himself or be detained in any fashion because Ohio has ruled repeatedly that carry a gun is not a reason for stopping someone.

What's his back ground? Is he wanted by the police? Is he a felon? How else was the police to know, if they did not ask his name? How many of you posters ever work or do work in LE?

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

So your answer is to treat the average citizen as if they are a criminal because somebody might do something bad with a gun? This is the same argument that Bloomberg and his ilk use in their fight to disarm us.

Who is he? What's his background? Can he legaly have that gun on him?  Questions I would want answers to if I was the responding officer. And it has nothing to do with a "Police State". It has everything to do with what is expected of me and what the tax payers pay me to do. Put yourselves in those cops shoes. What would you have done?

 

Dave S

[peejman]

Police are required to respond to MWG calls. Period. And if determining whether a crime has been commited, will be committed and/or for public safety in general, cops must ask you your name at times. Your answer or lack thereof, tells the LEO alot about you. I don't agree with the situation either, but I totally disagree with the lawsuit filed. In conclusion; If you don't ever want questioned by LE, DON'T carry a weapon. All it's gonna take is some little old lady to see, call 911 and you will be confronted.

 

Later

 

Dave S

 

 

He could/should have taken the officers' names and badge numbers and filed a formal complaint and waited to see if anything happened.  He may well have done that, the article doesn't say.  But recent history tells us that the most effective way to get such things addressed is to sue.  Sad but true.

 

 

You're making a mistake in your logic there. He was not commiting a crime in Ohio by OC'ing. They have legal OC without a permit in Ohio, as peejman said. Mr. Call believes that the police had no right to detain him and is suing because of it.

 

No doubt the cops will respond to an MWAG call. They should. But upon arrivng on the scene and seeing Mr. Call doing nothing more than being a normal customer, should have done nothing more than kept an eye on him until he left the store and went on his way.

 

Exactly.  Rather than taking someone else's word for it ([sarcasm]... because people who call 911 never see things that didn't happen...[[/sarcasm]  ), why not observe and verify for yourself whether there's any illegal activity or not.  If there's no illegal activity, then find the caller and inform them as such.