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

[101]

Sir; with all due respect to you, and me being an X resident and current property owner in the state of Ohio, open carrying by a felon or someone on probation is AGAINST YHE LAW. The cops had no idea whether Mr. Call was LEGAL or NOT LEGAL for carrying a handgun until he GAVE THEM HIS NAME!  What is so hard about that?
 
Carrying a handgun in the state of Tennessee is ok if you have a HCP. What would you do if a cop ask you for a HCP when you was carrying? Tell him/her NOYB? Yeah right...
 
Dave S

In Tennessee you have to by law show your HCP to authorities when requested because open carry or concealed carry in Tennessee is illegal. The permit is simply a defense.

Next?

[DaveS]

Let's say that person had committed any number of crimes then yes, check to see if he is a felon.

May I have your name Sir? Just because a guy is carrying tells me very little!
 
Dave S Edited May 16, 2013 by DaveS

[RobertNashville]

Do people still wear jackboots anymore?

I'm suspecting that there is at least one poster in this thread that would find jackboots very comfortable and would also find using the phrase "papers please" quite natural.

Edited May 16, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

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.

 

I call it Voldemort Roulette

[101]

May I have your name Sir? Just because a guy is carrying tells me very little! Dave S

I believe Sir, that you are missing the big picture. It appears that you are willing to violate the rights of many to catch the one stupid felon that would actually be stupid enough to open carry a gun.

That is unacceptable to me on any level.

[DaveS]

It's also against the law in Ohio for a person wih a suspended license to drive. That doesn't mean the officers can stop a driver who has broken no traffic laws to see their license to see if it was suspended.

That's not the issue. The issue is the man was seen carrying a handgun. The cops asked him his name and he refused. It has nothing to do with driving.... Sir.....

Dave S

[101]

That's not the issue. The issue is the man was seen carrying a handgun. The cops asked him his name and he refused. It has nothing to do with driving.... Sir.....Dave S

1. Who cares what he was carrying!! If it is not against the law (which it is not in Ohio) then he should not have been detained. The cop asked for his name and once the guy refused (which he has a right to do) the cop should have walked away and went about his business. If he was a felon then he got damn lucky and he will get caught at some other point in time. Plus, if he was a felon the charge could get thrown out with a good lawyer because the cop did an illegal stop.

2. Breaking the law is breaking the law so the driving analogy is very prudent. If it is OK so stop and detain a person against his will when he has COMMITTIED NO CRIME just for and solely to see if he might be a felon or a suspended license then it is very much the same principle.

[DaveS]

For your reading pleasrure...The relevant Supreme Court cases are Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In Terry, the court said that law enforcement can stop a person and conduct a frisk if the officer has a reasonable suspicion (which is less than probable cause) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” This may extend to asking you to identify yourself as it is a kind of investigation. I don't understand.....

As LEO, how would I know if he is legal or not unless I ask him? All these cops did (as all cops do) is ask him his name. He got hard azz, then LEO struck back. Cut and dry. But to sue is outragious!

Dave S Edited May 16, 2013 by DaveS

[101]

For your reading pleasrure...The relevant Supreme Court cases are Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In Terry, the court said that law enforcement can stop a person and conduct a frisk if the officer has a reasonable suspicion (which is less than probable cause) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” This may extend to asking you to identify yourself as it is a kind of investigation. I don't understand.....As LEO, how would I know if he is legal or not unless I ask him? All these cops did (as all cops do) is ask him his name. He got hard azz, then LEO struck back. Cut and dry. But to sue is outragious!Dave S

The cops had no right to strike back. No matter how hard headed the guy got.

Plus the the terry stop crap says armed and dangerous, not armed or dangerous. That equals two qualifying conditions.

Simply being armed does not mean the cops have the right to assume I'm a felon and need to verify otherwise.

[c.a.willard]

Dave S with all due respect to you and other LE you are still missing the point.  Under Ohio law open carrying of a firearm is not crime.  So the police did not have any reason to suspect that the individual had committed, was committing or about to commit a crime.  They key part of the supreme court ruling on Terry V Ohio is the and.  They require reasonable suspicion not just that he was armed but that he was committing or about to commit a crime. Their was no articulable reason for them to believe that he was unlawfully carrying.  Even had they officer been acting in good faith believing he was within his legal authority the supreme court has ruled good fait is not enough.

 

 

" â€œ... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.”  from Terry v Ohio

 

The only articulable fact that the police had was that he was openly carrying a firearm, which under Ohio law is not a crime.   They had no other reasons for detaining him.

 

 The presence of the gun when open carried is not in and of itself enough reason to detain someone under Ohio law.  They can ask him for his ID all they want all and he can refuse to answer (again affirmed by Ohio law) but the moment he was detained against his will they overstepped their legal authority.     A citizen does not have to prove to the police that they were not doing anything illegal.

 

In regards to the law suit I think its dumb to sue a city especially for egregious amounts when no significant damage was done.  However these officers were wrong and likely would have gotten away with violating his rights had he not chosen this course of action.  At the very least the law suit will cause the city to have to consider additional and or remedial training for their officers in how to respond to incidents like this.

[101]

Dave S with all due respect to you and other LE you are still missing the point.  Under Ohio law open carrying of a firearm is not crime.  So the police did not have any reason to suspect that the individual had committed, was committing or about to commit a crime.  They key part of the supreme court ruling on Terry V Ohio is the and.  They require reasonable suspicion not just that he was armed but that he was committing or about to commit a crime. Their was no articulable reason for them to believe that he was unlawfully carrying.  Even had they officer been acting in good faith believing he was within his legal authority the supreme court has ruled good fait is not enough.
 
 
" â€œ... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.”  from Terry v Ohio
 
The only articulable fact that the police had was that he was openly carrying a firearm, which under Ohio law is not a crime.   They had no other reasons for detaining him.
 
 The presence of the gun when open carried is not in and of itself enough reason to detain someone under Ohio law.  They can ask him for his ID all they want all and he can refuse to answer (again affirmed by Ohio law) but the moment he was detained against his will they overstepped their legal authority.     A citizen does not have to prove to the police that they were not doing anything illegal.
 
In regards to the law suit I think its dumb to sue a city especially for egregious amounts when no significant damage was done.  However these officers were wrong and likely would have gotten away with violating his rights had he not chosen this course of action.  At the very least the law suit will cause the city to have to consider additional and or remedial training for their officers in how to respond to incidents like this.

Very, very well stated. Thank you.

[DaveS]

This whole deal is about a complaint filed by a citizen, in which the police HAD to act upon. Part of acting upon that complaint was asking the guy his name. He refused as which was his right. Cops went wrong...he fessed up his name and also produced a CCW in which he was quickly released with all charges dropped (except one I would have put on him). All of this could have been avoided by telling his name from the get go which was against his rights and would make him feel like a little wuss for telling his name. As a Ohio tax payer, it is BS that this guy is suing over something that HE HIMSELF could have prevented and cost me my tax dollars. Get the cops fired later if you have to.

I'm going outside for a bit...

Later

Dave S

[101]

This whole deal is about a complaint filed by a citizen, in which the police HAD to act upon. Part of acting upon that complaint was asking the guy his name. He refused as which was his right. Cops went wrong...he fessed up his name and also produced a CCW in which he was quickly released with all charges dropped (except one I would have put on him). All of this could have been avoided by telling his name from the get go which was against his rights and would make him feel like a little wuss for telling his name. As a Ohio tax payer, it is BS that this guy is suing over something that HE HIMSELF could have prevented and cost me my tax dollars. Get the cops fired later if you have to.I'm going outside for a bit...LaterDave S

So, this is the perfect example of why cops can't be trusted. Wow. This mentality is very worrisome. Edited May 16, 2013 by 101

[DaveS]

As per Ohio Law....No never ever trust a cop!!!

Per the State of Ohio...

Document last updated 3/28/2013.
What are my rights and responsibilities . . .
• If the police approach me and ask me questions?
Suppose you are outside your home or in a public place when the police arrive and begin asking questions. Law enforcement officers have a duty to protect the community they serve, its citizens and their property. The law gives police certain powers to help them perform that duty.

Police have the power to approach persons and ask them questions. Simply because you are approached and questioned by the police does not mean you are suspected of having committed a crime. All citizens are encouraged to cooperate with the police so those who break the law can be brought to justice, but, with one exception, discussed below, you have no legal duty to answer any question, and you may refuse to answer. This is called the right of silence. You should never lie to a law enforcement officer, however. If you do, you can get into trouble for “obstructing official business.”

• If the police “stop” me and ask me questions?

You have the right, if you are stopped, to refuse to answer any questions for any reason or no reason. You can invoke your right to silence by saying, "I refuse to answer any questions" or "I want to speak to a lawyer" or "I wish to remain silent." If you do not clearly invoke your right to silence with such a statement, you may subject yourself to continued questioning by police.
There is one exception to your right to silence: According to Ohio law since April 2006, if you are in a public place and under certain circumstances, you must give your name, address and date of birth to an officer. If you fail to provide this information under such circumstances, you will be committing a fourth-degree misdemeanor and may be arrested.

I find that law quite interesting....

Dave S

[mikegideon]

So, this is the perfect example of why cops can't be trusted. Wow. This mentality is very worrisome.

 

:popcorn:

[c.a.willard]

I don't want the guy to cost tax payers money, but that may be the only way to get the city to take notice.  I don't even want to see the police officers fired.  I have known many people in the LE community and by far the vast majority are trying to do the best they can in the situations in which they find themselves in. These officers made a mistake, but no lasting damages were done. I see this not only as a violation of his rights but as a LE training issue.  what I would love to see come of this is improved training for that department on how to handle these types of calls.  Unfortunately a large portion of LE at the senior levels is politics and increasing training in this area is more likely to happen under pressure from city officials.  It is sad that it may cost additional taxpayer dollars to force that to happen.  I'm not sure a complaint alone would have been enough to effect change or even a departmental revue to see if there was any wrongdoing by the officers involved.  I am also aware that training is a delicate balancing act between what you want to train on, what you have to train on and what you need to train on. And that there is a very finite amount of time and money that can me devoted to training.  So frequently things like this as long as they happen infrequently enough not to cause major problems are placed on the back burner for training identified as more important.  If one good thing does come of this is that there is now likely be a greater understanding of this issue inside that department.

 

 

 

Dave I agree that I find the wording there interesting.   Here is the text of the ORC.

 

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

 

 

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

 

 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

[DaveS]

Dave I agree that I find the wording there interesting.   Here is the text of the ORC.
 
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
 
 
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
( B) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or ( B) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or ( B) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
 
 
( B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth.

Later

Dave S Edited May 16, 2013 by DaveS

[Chucktshoes]

:lol:

[monkeylizard]

Later

Dave S

 

Later, as in "I'm busy right now but will respond when I can"

or

Later, as in, "The law doesn't say what I want it to say so good bye" ?

[Chucktshoes]

My money is on #2.

[RobertNashville]

This whole deal is about a complaint filed by a citizen, in which the police HAD to act upon. Part of acting upon that complaint was asking the guy his name. He refused as which was his right. Cops went wrong...he fessed up his name and also produced a CCW in which he was quickly released with all charges dropped (except one I would have put on him). All of this could have been avoided by telling his name from the get go which was against his rights and would make him feel like a little wuss for telling his name. As a Ohio tax payer, it is BS that this guy is suing over something that HE HIMSELF could have prevented and cost me my tax dollars. Get the cops fired later if you have to.

I'm going outside for a bit...

Later

Dave S

All if it could have been avoided if the cops acted within the law in Ohio which they did not.

 

What part of of what this man did being absolutely legal in Ohio isn't getting through?

 

Dose the protection in our Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure not mean anything to you? And yes, stopping a citizen who is doing absolutely nothing illegal IS unreasonable.

 

What this really amounts to is one "citizen" being afraid of seeing a MWAG and a couple of cops being suspicious of a man simply because he is openly carrying a firearm even though the man was no more breaking the law than if, instead of a firearm, he had a tire iron or a baseball bat under his arm.

 

Yes, I would normally not be openly carrying...yes, I typically would have answered the stupid cop's questions even though I understand that I have no obligation to do so which is why I said in my initial post, the guy was an idiot. However, I also said that the cops were idiots too because it's idiotic to detain a man when they have absolutely ZERO justification to do so.

Edited May 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[jtmaze]

I don't think a lawsuit is necessary in this case but a formal apology by the police chief and officers involved are definitely warranted. My FIL in Michigan was arrested for brandishing while OCing and all charges were dropped and the PD printed a formal apology in the paper. I HACC (owb untucked shirt)most of the time and I notice that when I go in Walmart on my way home from work usually(2of3) I have a police car sitting in the fire lane when I leave. I always wonder who put the MWG call out or if they did. I have never been approached just observed. Kinda weird that police are always shopping when I am there usually late at night.

[npgunner]

What this really amounts to is one "citizen" being afraid of seeing a MWAG and a couple of cops being suspicious of a man simply because he is openly carrying a firearm even though the man was no more breaking the law than if, instead of a firearm, he had a tire iron or a baseball bat under his arm.

This. Exactly.
If the guy wins some money I'm fine with it.

Is he kind of a d-bag for suing over this? Yea, probably, but as discussed previously, nothing will be learned by the .gov if he doesn't.

Is he kind of a d-bag for acting the way he did? Maybe.

Are the officers out of line (and violating the mans rights) for doing what they did? According to my interpretation of OH law, absolutely.

Was he within his rights being the d-bag he was? Yes.

The real question is why the officers didn't come to the supermarket and slap the living shiz-nit out of the likely libtard, gun-fearing, pansy @$$-hat that called them in the first place.

[Oh Shoot]

I don't think a lawsuit is necessary in this case but a formal apology by the police chief and officers involved are definitely warranted. My FIL in Michigan was arrested for brandishing while OCing and all charges were dropped and the PD printed a formal apology in the paper. ..

 

Probably on advice of counsel, so he hopefully wouldn't, you know, sue them.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

Probably on advice of counsel, so he hopefully wouldn't, you know, sue them.

 

- OS

 

Well, he won't get his 3 million bucks. I hope he breaks even. I  figure the judge will decide that.