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

[DaveTN]

I don’t know anything about Ohio laws, so my questions for those that claim they do would be…

 

A store clerk sees a suspicious person in the store at 4:30 am. He notices the guy is carrying a gun.  He calls 911.

 

Has the store had robberies, have there been recent robberies in the area? If so, don't you think reasonable articulable suspicious exists?

 

Does Ohio law require the guy to ID himself to Police?

 

If it does not; does Ohio recognize qualified immunity for Police Officers? Were the actions of the Officers willful or wanton?

 

Is there case law in Ohio about cops stopping suspicious people carrying guns? Is there anything in the Ohio guns laws that address being stopped by Police?

 

 

[Dennis1209]

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

 

Unfortunately, the wrong doers (PD) will be out nothing financially. Neither will all the floating renters. It will be the back bone of society, the property owners, who will dig much deeper to continue necessary services.

 

Is it fair for the "collective hive" to be fined and punished for the mistakes, abuse, jobs of individual(s)? That said, cover / concealment is the best part of discretion...

[DaveS]

I don’t know anything about Ohio laws, so my questions for those that claim they do would be…
 
A store clerk sees a suspicious person in the store at 4:30 am. He notices the guy is carrying a gun.  He calls 911.
 
Has the store had robberies, have there been recent robberies in the area? If so, don't you think reasonable articulable suspicious exists?
 
Does Ohio law require the guy to ID himself to Police?
 
If it does not; does Ohio recognize qualified immunity for Police Officers? Were the actions of the Officers willful or wanton?
 
Is there case law in Ohio about cops stopping suspicious people carrying guns? Is there anything in the Ohio guns laws that address being stopped by Police?

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.

Effective Date: 04-14-2006

Again; The police was anwsering a complaint file by a citizen. Unfortunately, part of that investigation required the police to ask the man his NAME in order to determine that he was legaly carrying a sidearm. If he was on probation and/or a convicted felon, He could not LEGALY carry a firearm. And, in order to determine that...again; they had to ask his name.

Agreed, the cops acted like little jerks, but Mr. Call could have quickly ended this by simply stating his name. I think alot of ya'll are missunderstanding the Ohio law on this matter. The cops have that right as part of their investigating.

I AM DONE TRYING TO GET THIS POINT ACROSS!!!!

BRB

Dave S Edited May 17, 2013 by DaveS

[monkeylizard]

Dave, what am I missing then? You and I are obviously able to read, and we're reading the same Ohio law. How are we coming to different conclusions about what it says? Here's where my logic is taking me:

• Ohio law allows open carry without a permit.
• Ohio law requires disclosure of name, address and DOB to a LEO when the LEO reasonably suspects the citizen is either committing, commited, or about to commit a crime or witnessed the same.
• Since open carry is legal without a permit, no crime is being, been, or about to be commited by Mr. Call.
• Therefore, Mr. Call has no legal duty to give the LEO his identifying information.

Quite simply, where do you and I disagree on this? Is it #3? Do you see the carrying of a firearm by Mr. Call in a manner that violates no Ohio laws whatsoever as a reasonable suspicion that he is, has, or will commit a criminal act?

[101]

OK. Let us recap.

1. Most posters on this topic agreed, at some point, the man did not break any laws. He was well within his legal rights to OC without harassment and he also has a legal right to be a pain in the rear and exercise his right to not cooperate because he did nothing wrong.

2. Most also agreed that the cops were wrong in the way they handled the situation.

Those are the two main points at hand here.

That being said. We still have opinions (mainly from LE, including my own 20 year retired LE friend I ran this by) that he should have just bent over and kissed boot to make the whole thing go away. Also, it has been said that someone would still have charged him with SOMETHING just for being a pain.

Am I the only one that finds this attitude really disheartening?

This topic is really bringing my outlook about LE being here for us, on our side, down. I'm done with this one.....too depressing.

[DaveS]

More...

 

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6235201-Ohio-man-sues-town-police-in-open-carry-case/

 

BRB

 

Dave S

[monkeylizard]

From DaveS' linked article:

 

 

 

"Given the time of the day, the location, and the fact that convenience store/gas stations are typical targets for robberies in the middle of the night," Reiss said. "It would seem reasonable in the eyes of a police officer to ask someone who was carrying a gun if it was legally permissible for them to do so."

 

I maintain that Ohio law says Mr. Call did not have to provide his information unless the LEO had reasonable belief that a crime was, is, or is about to be commited or one was witnessed by the questionee. The question then is does the legal act of openly carrying a firearm, under the circumstances of this call (time and location) warrant a reasonable suspicion that a crime is/was/going to be commited? Chief Reiss (as did the LEO on site) seems to think so. I disagree, but can understand it. This would seem to be the sticky point that I suppose we'll get cleared up by a judge.

 

 

 

Chief Reiss added: "With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there's a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way."

 

First, there's no reason for Chief Reiss to not-so-subtly insult Mr. Call by suggesting he is irresponsible, especially with pending litigation.

 

Second, his final thought recorded in the article bothers me. It smacks of "do what I tell you or we're going for a ride." It could be argued that a responsible person is one who is knowledgabe of their rights, knows their Constitutional, federal, and state laws, and won't roll over for anyone trying to take that from them. That a responsible person is one who recognizes that a lot of good men and women have died to establish and maintain those rights and that being coerced into giving those up to make things easier on themselves is wrong.

 

To be clear, this was not a run-in with the Gestapo as some people would seem to think it is. However, the attitude expressed by Chief Reiss in his last paragraph, when it becomes pervasive in a law enforcement community, can be seen as a step in that direction. It's a direction I'd like to think that none of want to travel down.

 

I'm not saying what Mr. Call did was the right choice. This could have played out several different ways and this ended up being one of the worst outcomes for all parties short of someone getting shot. Mr. Call was being a first rate asshat. But I believe that it's his right to be a first rate asshat in this case. I guess we'll see what a judge thinks.

Edited May 17, 2013 by monkeylizard

[DaveS]

Well put. There are 3 azzhats in the article, we'll let the judge and jury sort it out.

 

Dave S

[monkeylizard]

Dave, I'd like to know your opinion on the "reasonable suspicion" part. Do you think that the responding LEO had reasonable suspicion to think that Mr. Call had, is, or will commit a crime and Mr. Call was therefore unjustified in refusing to povide his identity? If so, what factors create that reasonable suspicion given the fact that open carry in Ohio is not a crime?

[DaveTN]

Unfortunately, the wrong doers (PD) will be out nothing financially. Neither will all the floating renters. It will be the back bone of society, the property owners, who will dig much deeper to continue necessary services.
 
Is it fair for the "collective hive" to be fined and punished for the mistakes, abuse, jobs of individual(s)? That said, cover / concealment is the best part of discretion...

In states I am aware of; the city or state would pay actual damages and the Officers would be responsible for punitive damages. Is that not the case in Ohio?

If this case was won the majority of damages would be punitive. If a jury thinks he was trying to prove a point; there won’t be much in actual damages; as he caused it.

In a civil case the big question will be did he violate Ohio law leading to his arrest. Just because the DA chose to drop those charges; doesn’t mean the arrest wasn’t legit. Edited May 17, 2013 by DaveTN

[Krull]

_{I would pissed if the officers arrested me for no reason-- with that said I see someone stirring the pot when the stew was already cooked.} 

Edited May 17, 2013 by Krull

[DaveS]

Based upon the information the responding officer's had, they had a "duty to act", and investigate a complaint received via 911 "man with a gun". Since they did not know Roy Call and know whether or not he could legaly possess a handgun, they had full right to ask his name. Ohio law says you don't have to tell a cop your name "EXCEPT, if you are in a public area and you may be committing a crime". It's a crime in Ohio to openly carry a handgun (or even possess one) if you have been convicted of certain crimes, on probation, out on bail ect ect. The cops had no way of knowing any of this until they ran his name in which he refused to give them.

 

Most departments have a policy that their officers seperate a suspect from his/her weapon for the safety of all those concerned. He was cuffed and placed in the back of the car out of protocal until his idenity could be established and determine if he was in legal possession of his fire arm.

 

All parties acted like buttheads, but he will likely not get his 3 mil.

 

Dave S

Edited May 17, 2013 by DaveS

[DaveS]

_{I would pissed if the officers arrested me for no reason-- with that said I see someone stirring the pot when the stew was already cooked.} 

As far as I know the guy wasn't arrested.

 

Dave S

[Daniel]

Video states that they wrote arrested where he was supposed to sign the form.

[DaveS]

Video states that they wrote arrested where he was supposed to sign the form.

Ohio CCW said that. When and where in the video does LEO say he was arrested? I missed that part and the Police Chief didn't even mention it. He was detained yes. An arrest would have been followed by his miranda rights, in which he continued to half way answer questions. So was his rights read to him?

 

Dave S

Edited May 17, 2013 by DaveS

[monkeylizard]

Ohio law says you don't have to tell a cop your name "EXCEPT, if you are in a public area and you may be committing a crime".

 

No, Ohio law says you don't have to give your name except when in public and there is reasonable suspicion you have/are/will be commiting a crime. I ask again, where is the reasonable suspicion for this case, in your opinion?

 

Going by the logic you laid out, it would be OK to force anyone within X yards of a school to provide their ID. A LEO doesn't know all of the people within X yards of said school, and doesn't know they aren't sex offenders and not allowed to be there. Or why not stop every couple and demand ID? One person may have an OP or RO against the other that's being violated.

Edited May 17, 2013 by monkeylizard

[DaveS]

Carrying a gun and a complaint is filed is "REASONABLE SUSPICION" until it can be verified that you in fact are LEGALY able to carry.

Question? Have you ever or do you currently work in LE? It sure don't sound like you've ever had to deal with an armed person before. Are you a Lawyer?

 

I'm turning blue from lack of oxygen explaining all this again to you armchair lawyers.

 

Later..."As in #1"

 

Dave S

[101]

Question? Have you ever or do you currently work in LE? It sure don't sound like you've ever had to deal with an armed person before.

There it is again.

The defacto response from some, not all, LEO that just can't seem to grasp the concept of the laws they are charged with upholding. They want us to relent and just pat them on the head and say how tough a job they have and relinquish our freedom just so they can have less paperwork to do or so they can sleep at night after stomping on our rights all day long.

I know I said I was done in this thread but I lack self control.

Reading a good portion of the comments on the story at the police site and half the cops on there are saying this guy was right and those cops violated his rights. So that gives me hope!!

[npgunner]

Carrying a gun and a complaint is filed is "REASONABLE SUSPICION" until it can be verified that you in fact are LEGALY able to carry.

So anytime some idiot citizen gets his panties in a wad is reasonable suspicion to you? God I sure hope not. I mean ... with your logic, police done even need a brain; just the watchful eye of any citizen who sees something he doesn't like.

[monkeylizard]

No, I'm not LE. No I'm not a lawyer. No, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

I do however know there's a difference between what the law says and what it doesn't say. LEOs are exactly that: "law enforcement officers." If it's not in the law, they don't get to make it up to make their jobs easier. Yes, I think the wording of many of these laws make it harder than it needs to be, but that's the job.

 

I suppose i could take the same tact and say I'm turning blue from explaining again that in Ohio, the default stance is that it is in fact legal to open carry. Mr. Call doesn't have to prove anything, under Ohio law. Unless some other factors are in play to give the LEO reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is, or will be commited, being armed openly in and of itself in Ohio is not enough.

 

If a call + legal activity = reasonable suspicion, then we're all screwed. Otherwise someone can call 911 and say "monkeylizard is walking on a sidewalk. Don't you think you ought to do something about that?!?!?!?"  Carrying openly or walking on a sidewalk are exactly the same in the eyes of Ohio state law. Some other factor needs to come into play to create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act by Mr. Carr. I can understand Chief Reiss' opinion that being armed in a convenience store at an early morning hour creates reasonable suspicion. The time and location are those needed additional factors in his mind. I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand it and I can see how a judge might side with him on that. However, given the perspective he displayed in his last quote, I think he'd make up something for "reasonable suspicion" if this happened at 2:00 in the afternoon at Kroger on Aisle 7 when the "suspect" was reading the nutrition label on a box of Wheaties.

Edited May 17, 2013 by monkeylizard

[RichardR]

This appears to be a case of a couple LEO's harrassing a law-abiding citizen because they didn't like the fact that he had chosen to open carry his handgun.

Nothing "reasonable" about it IMHO.

[Mechanic_X]

 Otherwise someone can call 911 and say "monkeylizard is walking on a sidewalk. Don't you think you ought to do something about that?!?!?!?"

If anyone sees a 'monkeylizard'--please call for help. :rofl:

 

This is a specific case but the general question is ,"should an agent of the government be able to stop you and get your papers?" NO!

[DaveTN]

Ohio CCW said that. When and where in the video does LEO say he was arrested? I missed that part and the Police Chief didn't even mention it. He was detained yes. An arrest would have been followed by his miranda rights, in which he continued to half way answer questions. So was his rights read to him?

 

Dave S

The story that you posted the link to said he was arrested. They said the charges were dropped almost two months later. You don’t have to go to jail to be arrested; I assume since they let him leave he was given a field notice to appear. Reading of Miranda rights are never required, unless you are questioning a suspect and want to use what he says in court.

[monkeylizard]

This is a specific case but the general question is ,"should an agent of the government be able to stop you and get your papers?" NO!

Well, yes, but only with reasonable suspicion.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

Was the Guy being a dick, probably. But like it or not the only crime that was committed was on the part of the officers.