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

[Chucktshoes]

DaveTN,

After re-reading through the thread, it appears that I unfairly conflated your position with DaveS. I apologize for that.

As to the question of whether or not there were other unmentioned factors that would have provided PC/RAS for his detainment by the officers that night I would venture to guess that would be unlikely for one seemingly obvious, but overlooked reason. Mr. Call seems to be an OC activist and is active on a large OC oriented forum where there is even a thread devoted to this incident. While activists of this nature are seldom persons of high regard amongst most folks here due to their provocative nature and activities, they almost universally conduct those activities in strict adherence to the letter of the law.

Odds are high Mr. Call was trolling for contact and found a couple of fish more that willing to take the bait and in doing so they seem to have stepped across the line of proper behavior.




As an aside- with the rise of provocative, confrontational, OC activist types across the country, it would seem prudent to me that LE agencies devote at least some training hours to ensure their officers are fully informed on how to deal with these folks so as to avoid costly lawsuits and possible court awarded payouts. Edited May 19, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

DaveTN,
After re-reading through the thread, it appears that I unfairly conflated your position with DaveS. I apologize for that.

Apology accepted I have plenty of beliefs that are not popular here; I speak them freely and am more than willing to take responsibility for them. Your beliefs and mine are opposing enough that you shouldn’t need to put words in my mouth or claim things I didn’t say.     I enjoy a good legal discussion like this and thank you for keeping it civil.
 

As to the question of whether or not there were other unmentioned factors that would have provided PC/RAS for his detainment by the officers that night I would venture to guess that would be unlikely for one seemingly obvious, but overlooked reason. Mr. Call seems to be an OC activist and is active on a large OC oriented forum where there is even a thread devoted to this incident.

Odds are high Mr. Call was trolling for contact and found a couple of fish more that willing to take the bait and in doing so they seem to have stepped across the line of proper behavior.

I suspected this but have no knowledge of it so I didn’t say it. Let me assume from your statements you know more about him that I do and make an observation. A civil trial is not like a criminal trial. If this guy was seeking out a confrontation they will not pay him for “emotional trauma”. He could have given his name and this probably would have ended very differently. That’s why I said they could find that the Officers violated this guy’s right and him still not give him anything.
 
I deal in facts. I can’t make many arguments one way or the other because I don’t know the facts. I don’t know Ohio law, their SOP, or how they apply these “ID” laws. I could understand this guy punking a rookie cop into making a mistake. But unless I understand these stories wrong the Officer that was approached by the citizen was a Command Officer, so I assume he has many years on the job. He could still makes mistakes but seasoned Officers don’t generally get all tied up in the emotional BS of someone questioning their authority; although it could happen.
 

While activists of this nature are seldom persons of high regard amongst most folks here due to their provocative nature and activities, they almost universally conduct those activities in strict adherence to the letter of the law.

 
I will say this. These “activist types” as you call them have the potential to do more harm than good. Is it legal to strap an AK across your chest dress up in military garb and go for a stroll in Radnor Park while families are enjoying the park? Yes, as I understand it is. However, its stupidity beyond belief and is something most of us would never do. Luckily, the state did not overreact and change the laws; they just pulled the permit of the guy that did it.

In our state all this BS could end with our legislators recognizing the 2nd amendment as an individual right and changing the laws.

[Chucktshoes]

[1]I will say this. These “activist types” as you call them have the potential to do more harm than good. [2]Is it legal to strap an AK across your chest dress up in military garb and go for a stroll in Radnor Park while families are enjoying the park? Yes, as I understand it is. However, its stupidity beyond belief and is something most of us would never do. [3]Luckily, the state did not overreact and change the laws; they just pulled the permit of the guy that did it.

[4]In our state all this BS could end with our legislators recognizing the 2nd amendment as an individual right and changing the laws.

[1] I'd agree with you that the potential for more harm than good is there, but I would say not always the likelihood as that depends on a multitude of factors like manner and personality of activist and quality of legal representation.

[2]Agreed, 100%.

[3] Yes and no. Luckily they didn't change the laws, but the pulling of the permit did set a bad precedent that may have far reaching, negative consequences for permit holders.

[4] Agreed, 100%. Edited May 19, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest Phizzle99GST]

The guy knew his rights and I applaud him for doing what he did and not breaking any laws in the process. Its up to the cop to observe the situation and determine if any laws are being broken, which there weren't any. Its that simple. Just because the cop asks a question and its lawfully answered does NOT give him the right to take any action that indicate that laws were broken when clearly none were.

The whole situation could have been handled easier by both parties. But in the end there were no laws broken.

That said Im not a fan of the law suit either.

 

[Guest Cazador]

We do not know the details of the interaction ie. the attitudes or demeanor of all the parties involved. If you want to make a stand for your civil rights make sure you do it politely. Usually you will be treated exactly how you treat them. If stopped and questioned it may be your time to educate an ignorant officer. You start by telling him that you have broken no laws that you are aware of. Question them " Am I suspected of a crime ?". " Am I being detained ?". If they answer yes to either then your next question should be " What crime have I committed and being charged with ?". This is the time the officers will have to make a decision to escalate or not. You may have to educate them or inform them of your civil rights. " If I have committed no crime or not being detained am I free to go ?" The officer will have to make a decision on what to do. If they tell you you have committed no crime but will not let you leave you should ask them to have a supervisor come to the scene. What you do depends on how much time you are willing to spend for your rights.

[JayC]

Yes, because of that pesky jerk exception to the bill of rights :)  If a police officer can't handle law abiding citizens being annoyed or rude during situations where no laws are being broken, if they can't be professional enough to walk away from those situations...  who is really at fault in these situations, the 'rude' citizen? No.

 

If a police officer can't remain professional at name calling, colorful language, or just people being rude and legally refusing to answer questions, then maybe that person isn't professional enough to be a police officer.

 

We do not know the details of the interaction ie. the attitudes or demeanor of all the parties involved. If you want to make a stand for your civil rights make sure you do it politely. Usually you will be treated exactly how you treat them. If stopped and questioned it may be your time to educate an ignorant officer. You start by telling him that you have broken no laws that you are aware of. Question them " Am I suspected of a crime ?". " Am I being detained ?". If they answer yes to either then your next question should be " What crime have I committed and being charged with ?". This is the time the officers will have to make a decision to escalate or not. You may have to educate them or inform them of your civil rights. " If I have committed no crime or not being detained am I free to go ?" The officer will have to make a decision on what to do. If they tell you you have committed no crime but will not let you leave you should ask them to have a supervisor come to the scene. What you do depends on how much time you are willing to spend for your rights.

 

[Chucktshoes]

Yes, because of that pesky jerk exception to the bill of rights :) If a police officer can't handle law abiding citizens being annoyed or rude during situations where no laws are being broken, if they can't be professional enough to walk away from those situations... who is really at fault in these situations, the 'rude' citizen? No.

If a police officer can't remain professional at name calling, colorful language, or just people being rude and legally refusing to answer questions, then maybe that person isn't professional enough to be a police officer.

We do not know the details of the interaction ie. the attitudes or demeanor of all the parties involved. If you want to make a stand for your civil rights make sure you do it politely. Usually you will be treated exactly how you treat them. If stopped and questioned it may be your time to educate an ignorant officer. You start by telling him that you have broken no laws that you are aware of. Question them " Am I suspected of a crime ?". " Am I being detained ?". If they answer yes to either then your next question should be " What crime have I committed and being charged with ?". This is the time the officers will have to make a decision to escalate or not. You may have to educate them or inform them of your civil rights. " If I have committed no crime or not being detained am I free to go ?" The officer will have to make a decision on what to do. If they tell you you have committed no crime but will not let you leave you should ask them to have a supervisor come to the scene. What you do depends on how much time you are willing to spend for your rights.

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=95836

[RobertNashville]

DaveTN,

After re-reading through the thread, it appears that I unfairly conflated your position with DaveS. I apologize for that.

As to the question of whether or not there were other unmentioned factors that would have provided PC/RAS for his detainment by the officers that night I would venture to guess that would be unlikely for one seemingly obvious, but overlooked reason. Mr. Call seems to be an OC activist and is active on a large OC oriented forum where there is even a thread devoted to this incident. While activists of this nature are seldom persons of high regard amongst most folks here due to their provocative nature and activities, they almost universally conduct those activities in strict adherence to the letter of the law.

Odds are high Mr. Call was trolling for contact and found a couple of fish more that willing to take the bait and in doing so they seem to have stepped across the line of proper behavior.




As an aside- with the rise of provocative, confrontational, OC activist types across the country, it would seem prudent to me that LE agencies devote at least some training hours to ensure their officers are fully informed on how to deal with these folks so as to avoid costly lawsuits and possible court awarded payouts.

Thanks for taking the time to confirm what I think many of us suspected; that being that the "citizen" in this story is an open carry activist and, apparently, was out trolling for an encounter.

 

I strongly dislike and disapprove of the way the police handled this situation but I have no real sympathy for Mr. Call either...as I said very early on, both he and the cops were idiots (in my always humble opinion).

 

More troublesome, I think, is the train of thought, espoused in this thread by at least one individual, that the mere presence of a firearm meant that the police had an obligation to "check him out" to make sure he wasn't someone precluded by law from possessing a firearm...from that to "papers please" is a very, very short trip and that destination seems to be getting closer every day.

[DaveS]

More troublesome, I think, is the train of thought, espoused in this thread by at least one individual, that the mere presence of a firearm meant that the police had an obligation to "check him ou

 

There was a COMPLAINT FILED by a citizen. The responding Officers were OBLIGATED to INVESTIGATE this COMPLAINT. As a part of that investigation the officers had to ask the man his name. If ya'll don't like that I'm sorry.

 

We as gun owners take on a great deal of responsibility every day we step out of the house with our handguns. A small part of that responsilbility as a LAW ABIDING citizen is to cooperate with the authorities if they are investigating a complaint of MWAG. If this cannot happen with some of ya'll, leave your handguns at home you don't need them!

 

By the way; I fought and bled for this country, I put my life on the line as a FF/EMT every single day until I retired and got back into some more work "protecting the rights" of people. I do not take kindly being refered to, or called a "STORM TROOPER". If you don't want to be questioned  by the nazi's, LEAVE YOUR GUN AT HOME!!!

 

If I'm given a job to do, I'm going to do everything within my limits and power to do that job. Even if it means asking you for "your papers".

 

At the end of the day, I can look my boss in the eyes and say "I did my job today". How many of you people look your boss (no matter what job you have) in the eyes at the end of the day and say; "I didn't do my job today because I didn't think I had to, because there was no reason too."

 

Good day, have fun, be safe!

 

Dave S

Edited May 20, 2013 by DaveS

[Chucktshoes]

More troublesome, I think, is the train of thought, espoused in this thread by at least one individual, that the mere presence of a firearm meant that the police had an obligation to "check him out"

This is my last post on this subject.

There was a COMPLAINT FILED by a citizen. The responding Officers were OBLIGATED to INVESTIGATE this COMPLAINT. As a part of that investigation the officers had to ask the man his name. If ya'll don't like that I'm sorry.

We as gun owners take on a great deal of responsibility every day we step out of the house with our handguns. A small part of that responsilbility as a LAW ABIDING citizen is to cooperate with the authorities if they are investigating a complaint of MWAG. If this cannot happen with some of ya'll, leave your handguns at home you don't need them!

By the way; I fought and bled for this country, I put my life on the line as a FF/EMT every single day until I retired and got back into some more work "protecting the rights" of people. I do not take kindly being refered to, or called a "STORM TROOPER". If you don't want to be questioned by the nazi's, LEAVE YOUR GUN AT HOME!!!

If I'm given a job to do, I'm going to do everything within my limits and power to do that job. Even if it means asking you for "your papers".

At the end of the day, I can look my boss in the eyes and say "I did my job today". How many of you people look your boss (no matter what job you have) in the eyes at the end of the day and say; "I didn't do my job today because I didn't think I had to, because there was no reason too."

Good day, have fun, be safe!

Dave S

Thank you for confirming every concern and suspicion voiced in this thread. I won't speak for anyone else, but to paraphrase something you said, "if you don't want to be called a nazi, leave your (mental) jackboots at home."

I don't think anyone really had an issue with the police initiating contact with the citizen. The issue arose when the officers used illegitimate force to improperly detain him and the threat of bogus charges to compel him to answer questions he was under no legal obligation to answer!

You can ask for my papers all you want, but sometimes you have to accept that the answer is "no". Edited May 20, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[monkeylizard]

I don't have a problem with the officer investigating a complaint from a citizen. He should have done that. I don't have a problem with the officer asking for his name. That's a pretty normal thing to do, but that doesn't make him entitled to an answer. Once it was evident that there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is, or is about to be commited, what was there to investigate?  In an ideal world, this whole thing should have gone something like this: 

 

Clerk: "Officer, there's a guy with a gun in my store."

Officer: "That guy over there by himself getting a Gatorade?"

Clerk: "Yeah, that's him"

Officer: "Did he threaten anyone"

Clerk: "no...but he has a gun on his side!"

Officer: "OK, sir. I'll check him out."

<<walks over to Mr. Call while saying whatever it is that officers say on their radio>>

Officer: "Sir, do you you have a permit for that firearm?"

Call: "Sir, in Ohio I don't need a permit to openly carry a handgun."

Officer: "What's your name, sir?"

Call: "I don't want to give you my name and by Ohio code 2921.29  I am not required to do so unless you have reasonable suspicion that I have, am, or will commit a crime. Do you have that suspicion, and if so, what crime?"

Officer: <<realizing he's being baited by a class-A douche, whose body language doesn't suggest a person who is about to knock off the Stop-N-Rob>> "No sir. Your gun made the clerk nervous. Seeing as how this is a convenience store at 4:30 am, surely you can see how that might make a clerk nervous. If you don't have a CCW permit, you may want to look into it for times and places like this. It will mean less hassle for you and we'll get less calls about stuff like this. Have a nice day."

Officer to Clerk: "Sir, that gentleman is breaking no laws because openly carrying a firearm is legal in Ohio. I'll hang around here until he finishes his shopping. By the way, how fresh is that coffee?"

 

If the officer did indeed feel he had reasonable suspicion due to location and time of day, He should have said so to Call and said: "Sir, I do have reasonable suspicion that a person with a gun at this time of day in a convenience store may be planning to commit armed robbery. 2921.29 requires that you give me your name so I can run it. Now, what's your name, sir?"

 

After that, if Call's still being a giant douche, cuff him and stuff him.

 

 

What actually happened was that we had a pissing match in the parking lot between a baiting douche who stayed within the letter of the law and an officer who got all butt-hurt because there wasn't immediate acquiesence to his authora-tay. I hope Call wins the case so there are grounds for refresher training for the officers when dealing with OC in Ohio (and more case law to support his position) but that the jury awards him $1 to show their disdain for his trolling.

Edited May 20, 2013 by monkeylizard

[RobertNashville]

This is my last post on this subject.

 

There was a COMPLAINT FILED by a citizen. The responding Officers were OBLIGATED to INVESTIGATE this COMPLAINT. As a part of that investigation the officers had to ask the man his name. If ya'll don't like that I'm sorry.

 

We as gun owners take on a great deal of responsibility every day we step out of the house with our handguns. A small part of that responsilbility as a LAW ABIDING citizen is to cooperate with the authorities if they are investigating a complaint of MWAG. If this cannot happen with some of ya'll, leave your handguns at home you don't need them!

 

By the way; I fought and bled for this country, I put my life on the line as a FF/EMT every single day until I retired and got back into some more work "protecting the rights" of people. I do not take kindly being refered to, or called a "STORM TROOPER". If you don't want to be questioned  by the nazi's, LEAVE YOUR GUN AT HOME!!!

 

If I'm given a job to do, I'm going to do everything within my limits and power to do that job. Even if it means asking you for "your papers".

 

At the end of the day, I can look my boss in the eyes and say "I did my job today". How many of you people look your boss (no matter what job you have) in the eyes at the end of the day and say; "I didn't do my job today because I didn't think I had to, because there was no reason too."

 

Good day, have fun, be safe!

 

Dave S

The police went WAY to far here...most here can see that and agree; including some former LEOs; the fact that you don't seem to understand that is the troubling part I was referring to.

 

Demanding a person ID himself when he had absolutely ZERO obligation to do so then threatening to charge him with totally bogus charges and then actually charging him with a totally bogus charge is EXACTLY the kind of heavy-handed, unconstitutional acts that case people here to have negative feelings toward police. We have a constitution for a reason, one of which is to protect citizens from actions like the ones that came from these police officers.

 

A lot of people here have served in the uniform of our country, including me (I actually still do so in a minor way); a lot of people here have worked for FD/EMT, including me (except I always did so as a volunteer)...however, that service doesn't give me or you or anyone else the right to violate a citizen's fundamental rights just because a person is now wearing a LEO's badge.

 

I do my job well....and I get paid well for it but my job doesn't give me the awesome power to totally screw with a person's life by threatening him with bogus charges, jail time and possible legal fees to defend himself against such charges nor can I detain someone just because he "might" have done something wrong...those with that power have a HUGE responsibility to act within the law they are sworn to protect.

 

The only proper thing that happened here is that the matter will be settled in court which is as it should be and I think these officers and the city they work for are going to find out just how WRONG they were. The sad part of this is that the need to go to court was totally avoidable had these officers followed the rules.

Edited May 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

Go back and reread my posts. I said the police acted like azzhats as well as Call. I also said, they had all legal right to ask him his name while investigating a complaint. I also said he was not committing a crime by carrying a gun if was legally able too.

 

More words get put into peoples mouths than a ventiliquist!

 

Charging him with obstruction would have been cool with me!

 

And by the way, I don't appreciate the personal attacks by the "know-it-alls" here for what should have been a decent adult discussion. Know body ask to be called a "bootjack", Stormtrooper or anything else!

 

Later (as in # 3)

 

Have a nice one!

 

Dave S

Edited May 20, 2013 by DaveS

[RobertNashville]

Go back and reread my posts. I said the police acted like azzhats as well as Call. I also said, they had all legal right to ask him his name while investigating a complaint. I also said he was not committing a crime by carrying a gun if was legally able too.

 

More words get put into peoples mouths than a ventiliquist!

 

Charging him with obstruction would have been cool with me!

 

And by the way, I don't appreciate the personal attacks by the "know-it-alls" here for what should have been a decent adult discussion. Know body ask to be called a "bootjack", Stormtrooper or anything else!

 

Later (as in # 3)

 

Have a nice one!

 

Dave S

Obstruction?  I don't see how NOT answering a question you have absolutely zero obligation to answer can ever constitute obstruction.

 

Yeah...they had a right to ask him his name and he had a right to absolutely refuse and that's precisely where things should have stopped because under Ohio law, unless there was a (truly, not made up) reasonable suspicion of a crime having been, being or about to be committed they had absolutely no legal authority to go forward and that's where it should have stopped and the officer(s) walk away.

 

But that's not where the police stopped and that's why there is now a lawsuit and a wonderful opportunity for us to talk about it all.

[DaveS]

Obstruction?  I don't see how NOT answering a question you have absolutely zero obligation to answer can ever constitute obstruction.

 

Yeah...they had a right to ask him his name and he had a right to absolutely refuse and that's precisely where things should have stopped because under Ohio law, unless there was a (truly, not made up) reasonable suspicion of a crime having been, being or about to be committed they had absolutely no legal authority to go forward and that's where it should have stopped and the officer(s) walk away.

 

But that's not where the police stopped and that's why there is now a lawsuit and a wonderful opportunity for us to talk about it all.

Actually Robertnashville, I never said the police was right in what they did other than ask him his name. He could have, let me repeat, COULD HAVE CLEARED THIS WHOLE MATTER WITHIN A MINUTE OR TWO BY GIVING THEM HIS NAME!!!! HE REFUSED!! In my OPINION...he has NO right to sue!! Sorry...just my OPINION!!!

 

Dave S

[monkeylizard]

I understand that's your opinion (and I for one have not resorted to name calling). It just happens that your opinion and the law are not the same in this case.

 

Yes, Call had the ability to end this quickly by giving his name. What you don't seem to get is that that was not the only option here to end it quickly. The officer could have ended it quickly by stopping when Call refused to give his name, or by informing Call he had reasonable suspicion (and saying why) to have Call comply with the request for his name. Still no compliance? Stuff and cuff and let the court decide if the suspicion was "reasonable" or not. Instead, the officer chose to threaten a citizen with trumped up charges to get compliance.

[DaveS]

I understand that's your opinion (and I for one have not resorted to name calling). It just happens that your opinion and the law are not the same in this case.

 

Yes, Call had the ability to end this quickly by giving his name. What you don't seem to get is that that was not the only option here to end it quickly. The officer could have ended it quickly by stopping when Call refused to give his name, or by informing Call he had reasonable suspicion (and saying why) to have Call comply with the request for his name. Still no compliance? Stuff and cuff and let the court decide if the suspicion was "reasonable" or not. Instead, the officer chose to threaten a citizen with trumped up charges to get compliance.

So if I respond to a call for MWAG, I just drop my investigation of the complaint because the guy refuses to give me his name so I can clarify this whole matter, or forget it ever happened? Not likely Bro! And I get it just fine! I don't beleive in trumped up charges, and never have. I have said it over and over.

 

You have said a hundred times (maybe more, maybe less) that you carry a hundgun. How do "I" know you are legal in doing so, if "I" don't ask? What do you want me to do, if you refuse to answer me? Forget about it? Not likely to happen!

 

Dave S

 

 

 

Dave S

[Chucktshoes]

I understand that's your opinion (and I for one have not resorted to name calling). It just happens that your opinion and the law are not the same in this case.

Yes, Call had the ability to end this quickly by giving his name. What you don't seem to get is that that was not the only option here to end it quickly. The officer could have ended it quickly by stopping when Call refused to give his name, or by informing Call he had reasonable suspicion (and saying why) to have Call comply with the request for his name. Still no compliance? Stuff and cuff and let the court decide if the suspicion was "reasonable" or not. Instead, the officer chose to threaten a citizen with trumped up charges to get compliance.

So if I respond to a call for MWAG, I just drop my investigation of the complaint because the guy refuses to give me his name so I can clarify this whole matter, or forget it ever happened? Not likely Bro! And I get it just fine! I don't beleive in trumped up charges, and never have. I have said it over and over.

You have said a hundred times (maybe more, maybe less) that you carry a hundgun. How do "I" know you are legal in doing so, if "I" don't ask? What do you want me to do, if you refuse to answer me? Forget about it? Not likely to happen!

Dave S



Dave S

So what you're saying is that you are willing to break the law to make sure that I'm not breaking the law?

[RobertNashville]

So if I respond to a call for MWAG, I just drop my investigation of the complaint because the guy refuses to give me his name...

Yes...that's right...dropping your "investigation" is EXACTLY what you are supposed to do because without reasonable suspicion of a crime you shouldn't be investigating; that's per Ohio law and Ohio State Supreme Court decisions. Of course, if you don't give a rip about the law and just want to be, as you called the police in this case, asshats then you ignore the law and just do as you please...that's why lawsuits get filed and that's why THIS lawsuit got filed.

 

Do you believe that you have the right to stop any car you want just to "make sure" the driver has a DL? I certainly hope you don't because you don't!  A MWAG in these circumstances in Ohio is NO DIFFERENT than seeing someone drive a car down the street; without reasonable suspicion you don't have the right to stop the person's car and "investigate" just to see if the person has a license.

 

 

You have said a hundred times (maybe more, maybe less) that you carry a hundgun. How do "I" know you are legal in doing so...

You don't nor do you have any business inquiring...the Ohio Revised Code, and the Ohio State Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court says it's none of a LEO's business.

Edited May 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

 

 

Apparently in your world, you have the right to stop any car you want just to "make sure" the driver has a DL or isn't DWI.
 

 

Show me where I said that? You can't Robert! This is about asking a man his name, to determine if he is legaly able to carry a gun. I have said that over and over!!!

 

Dave S

Edited May 20, 2013 by DaveS

[monkeylizard]

So if I respond to a call for MWAG, I just drop my investigation of the complaint because the guy refuses to give me his name so I can clarify this whole matter, or forget it ever happened? Not likely Bro! And I get it just fine! I don't beleive in trumped up charges, and never have. I have said it over and over.

 

You have said a hundred times (maybe more, maybe less) that you carry a hundgun. How do "I" know you are legal in doing so, if "I" don't ask? What do you want me to do, if you refuse to answer me? Forget about it? Not likely to happen!

 

Dave S

 

 

 

Dave S

 

No, you drop your investigation of an MWAG call when you have no reasonable suspicion that a crime has/is/will be committed. In Ohio, being armed openly is not a crime. Period. There is no amount of suspicion of someone being openly armed (it's right there in the open...it's not really "suspicion") to warrant any forcing of compliance because there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, because it's not a crime.

 

Does the LEO have reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has, is, or will occur? It's that simple.

 

It's reasonable to think that an actual crime (armed robbery in this case) may be about to occur given the time and location. That would not be true at say 2:00 in the afternoon when the "suspect" is seen pushing his kid down a residential street in a stroller. Either the officer on scene suspected armed robbery based on the facts at hand or he didn't. The Chief making that up as a "morning after" idea is just bull. If the LEO on scene had said as much to Mr. Call then Ohio 2912.29 clearly says that Call has to give his name, address, and DOB. I suspect Call would have complied then but I don't know that. If he would have, great it's all over. If he wouldn't have, cuff and stuff and charge him with violating Ohio 2912.29 

 

 

 

You keep bringing up "how do I know you're not a criminal" and don't seem to understand that in Ohio, a person OC'ing is exactly the same as a person with a green shirt. You don't look at a person with a green shirt and wonder if he's legally allowed to wear that green shirt. Ridiculous, right? Opinions aside, the law in Ohio says a green shirt and an OC gun are the exact same thing. Don't like it? Tough. That's the way the law works in Ohio. Period. End of story. Chucktshoes showed case law back on post #110 that "he might be a criminal" is not enough reason to force compliance from a person who is carrying in a legal manner in a state where such carrying is legal. To force compliance in that case has been upheld to be a violation of the person's 4th ammendment rights.

 

In TN, it's not the same. We don't have carry laws like Ohio's OC law. I am breaking the law in TN when I carry a gun. A LEO has reasonable suspicion to think I'm breaking the law if he/she sees my gun because I am, in fact, breaking the law in TN. Our HCP system provides a defense to the crime of carrying. That means a stop to verify ID when a gun is seen is all perfectly legal here. It is not the same in Ohio for OC.

 

In the end, yes...in Ohio or any other place with 'Constitutional Carry' type laws, if the LEO has no reasonable suspicion of an actual crime being committed by a person who is carrying within the provisions of the law of that state and the "suspect" chooses not to provide requested information (whether done on a nice way or by telling the officer to FOAD), I expect the LEO to be a professional, forget about it, and go on about his day. He does so because his investigation is finished. It's finished, not becaause the suspect didn't comply, but because there's no reasonable suspicion of a crime to investigate. Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment. I have a strong suspicion that the court will agree in this case, and if not, then the appellate court probably will.

Edited May 20, 2013 by monkeylizard

[RobertNashville]

Show me where I said that? You can't Robert! This is about asking a man his name, to determine if he is legaly able to carry a gun. I have said that over and over!!!

 

Dave S

I never said "you said it"; I was extrapolating based on your statements about "how do I know he is legal to carry a gun"..you have no more reason to investigate if he is legal to carry a gun than you do to stop a car just to see if the driver has a license.

 

And yes, I know you've said it over and over; it doesn't matter...a LEO can ask and a citizen has NO OBLIGATION to answer and that, per Ohio law, is where the "investigation" should end.  

Edited May 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

I never said "you said it"; I was extrapolating based on your statements about "how do I know he is legal to carry a gun"..you have no more reason to investigate it he is legal to carry a gun than you do to stop a car just to see if the driver has a license.

 

And yes, I know you've said it over and over; it doesn't matter...a LEO can ask and a citizen has NO OBLIGATION to answer and that, per Ohio law, is where the "investigation" should end.  

Investigations end when you refuse to give your name? Not likely. In Ohio or anywhere else for that matter.

 

Good Bye...

 

Dave S

[RobertNashville]

Investigations end when you refuse to give your name? Not likely. In Ohio or anywhere else for that matter.

 

Good Bye...

 

Dave S

Others here have been kind enough to specifically cite Ohio law, Ohio State Supreme Court decisions and Federal Appeals court decisions to support what I and others are saying and absolutely disagree with your opinion.

 

As such, it seems pretty obvious that you put your opinion not just above the law but above the constitution...that's troubling enough when a citizen does it but at least an individual citizen has little power to screw with other people's lives.

 

It's beyond disturbing when someone who, if memory serves, has claimed to be a LEO does so; it reflects an attitude, in fact a very dangerous attitude, that has no place in a law enforcement officer.

Edited May 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

There was a COMPLAINT FILED by a citizen. The responding Officers were OBLIGATED to INVESTIGATE this COMPLAINT. As a part of that investigation the officers had to ask the man his name. If ya'll don't like that I'm sorry.

We as gun owners take on a great deal of responsibility every day we step out of the house with our handguns. A small part of that responsilbility as a LAW ABIDING citizen is to cooperate with the authorities if they are investigating a complaint of MWAG. If this cannot happen with some of ya'll, leave your handguns at home you don't need them!

By the way; I fought and bled for this country, I put my life on the line as a FF/EMT every single day until I retired and got back into some more work "protecting the rights" of people. I do not take kindly being refered to, or called a "STORM TROOPER". If you don't want to be questioned by the nazi's, LEAVE YOUR GUN AT HOME!!!

If I'm given a job to do, I'm going to do everything within my limits and power to do that job. Even if it means asking you for "your papers".

At the end of the day, I can look my boss in the eyes and say "I did my job today". How many of you people look your boss (no matter what job you have) in the eyes at the end of the day and say; "I didn't do my job today because I didn't think I had to, because there was no reason too."

Good day, have fun, be safe!

Dave S

DaveS,

Although we've never met in person I've become rather fond of you from our interactions on this forum.

I think that you are one heck of a good guy & I'd be honored to share a meal or some beers with you some time.

That said ...

You are absolutely wrong about this, under no circumstance were the officers in this story "right" about any thing they did from the first moment that they first recieved the MWAG complaint, to the moment where they filed false charges against the guy.

Listen man I appreciate what our law enforcement officers have to deal with day-in-day-out, I got a little taste of it myself as both a reserve deputy (MCSD) & as a metro officer (IUPD) while I was working my way through college.

We all want the bad guys to be caught, but we also want our Constitutional protections to be upheld, the balancing point has got to be at the individual officer level, too many officers have the attitude "let the courts figure it out" and are simply to quick to detain &/or arrest.

This is especially true if any "attitude" is given to them, regardless if any violations of any ordinances or statutes have occured or not.

Which this incident appears to be a great example of.