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

[Chucktshoes]

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

Good Bye...

Dave S

O'rly?
http://youtu.be/v7UMdniHWkI

http://youtu.be/RyJFD6BhQFY

[DaveS]

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.

I agree absolutley with you 100 %. I, however, have all the legal authority in the world to ask your name if a complaint has been made about you and I'm the investigating officer. Go all the way back in this thread, and you will see that is my whole issue! The officers were wrong, Call was wrong. Period! Call carrying a handgun is no exemption from investigation and being asked his name. I'm no stranger to Ohio law in the least little bit. I don't know if I'm making my self clear here or not. If I have to investigate something, I'm going to ask you your name I don't care what state someone lives in. Refuse to answer and a person opens a whole different can of worms on themselves. 

 

Thanks to everyone who calls me a "Jackboot". I do wear Cavalry/Artillery boots (jack boots by the way) when I'm giving  living history programs and/or civil war reenactment. A compliment of the highest honor!

 

Lunch is on me by the way....

 

Dave S

Edited May 20, 2013 by DaveS

[RobertNashville]

I agree absolutley with you 100 %. I, however, have all the legal authority in the world to ask your name if a complaint has been made about you and I'm the investigating officer. Go all the way back in this thread, and you will see that is my whole issue! The officers were wrong, Call was wrong. Period! Call carrying a handgun is no exemption from investigation and being asked his name. I'm no stranger to Ohio law in the least little bit. I don't know if I'm making my self clear here or not. If I have to investigate something, I'm going to ask you your name I don't care what state someone lives in. Refuse to answer and a person opens a whole different can of worms on themselves. 

 

Thanks to everyone who calls me a "Jackboot". I do wear Cavalry/Artillery boots (jack boots by the way) when I'm giving  living history programs and/or civil war reenactment. A compliment of the highest honor!

 

Lunch is on me by the way....

 

Dave S

No one has said you can't ask...what YOU refuse to understand (your references to not being a stranger to Ohio law notwithstanding), is that the citizen has ZERO OBLIGATION to answer you question or provide his name at which point, the investigating officer has ZERO AUTHORITY to keep investigating without reasonable suspicion of a crime.

 

Your "can of worms" comment is exactly the kind of attitude that has no place in the mind of someone who wears a badge.

Edited May 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

No one has said you can't ask...what YOU refuse to understand (your assertions about your knowledge of Ohio law notwithstanding), is that the citizen has ZERO OBLIGATION to answer you question or provide his name at which point, the investigating officer has ZERO AUTHORITY to keep investigating without reasonable suspicion of a crime.

 

Your "can of worms" comment is exactly the kind of attitude that has no place in the mind of someone who wears a badge.

Thank you for your concerns. I'm out of this thread.

Back to arresting squirrels for harassing tourist in the park.

It's been an awesome conversation, you win, I lose and collect my 79,000  for the year.

Good day and the beers are on me!

 

Dave

[DaveTN]

Thank you for your concerns. I'm out of this thread.

Back to arresting squirrels for harassing tourist in the park.

It's been an awesome conversation, you win, I lose and collect my 79,000  for the year.

Good day and the beers are on me!

 

Dave

I’d be more than happy to have a beer and some good conversation with you someday.

[RobertNashville]

Thank you for your concerns. I'm out of this thread.
Back to arresting squirrels for harassing tourist in the park.
It's been an awesome conversation, you win, I lose and collect my 79,000  for the year.
Good day and the beers are on me! 
 
Dave

:blah: Yeah...well you claimed about 3 pages ago and a couple of times in the intervening pages between then and this post that it was your last post and you were leaving the thread.

 

But yeah...leaving is best when you don't have the facts or the law on your side. :hat: 

     

Edited May 20, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

I agree absolutley with you 100 %. I, however, have all the legal authority in the world to ask your name if a complaint has been made about you and I'm the investigating officer. Go all the way back in this thread, and you will see that is my whole issue! The officers were wrong, Call was wrong. Period! Call carrying a handgun is no exemption from investigation and being asked his name. I'm no stranger to Ohio law in the least little bit. I don't know if I'm making my self clear here or not. If I have to investigate something, I'm going to ask you your name I don't care what state someone lives in. Refuse to answer and a person opens a whole different can of worms on themselves.

Thanks to everyone who calls me a "Jackboot". I do wear Cavalry/Artillery boots (jack boots by the way) when I'm giving living history programs and/or civil war reenactment. A compliment of the highest honor!

Lunch is on me by the way....

Dave S

Agreed to an extent, however once the "suspect" (for lack of a better term) declined to give his name & refused to answer any questions (which was his right) the officers should have parted company & went on about their merry way, seeing as how they had no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed.

But instead they got a bug up their butt & decieded to teach this guy a lesson, filing false charges and such.

Anyway how does Mexican sound? I know a great mexican restaurant in Covington that we could hit where everything on the menu is simply outstanding.

[DaveS]

I’d be more than happy to have a beer and some good conversation with you someday.

Name it!

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

Agreed to an extent, however once the "suspect" (for lack of a better term) declined to give his name & refused to answer any questions (which was his right) the officers should have parted company & went on about their merry way, seeing as how they had no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed.

But instead they got a bug up their butt & decieded to teach this guy a lesson, filing false charges and such.

Anyway how does Mexican sound? I know a great mexican restaurant in Covington that we could hit where everything on the menu is simply outstanding.

I don't know where Covington is, but I love's me some Mexican food. Oh yeah, and donuts with coffee!

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

:blah:   :hat: 

     

:blah:  :surrender:

 

Dave S

[RichardR]

I don't know where Covington is, but I love's me some Mexican food. Oh yeah, and donuts with coffee!

Dave S

Covington is about 30 minutes north of Memphis, so the next time you find yourself on this side of the state gimme a hollar & we'll do some fishing &/or grab a bite to eat.

[Guest Cazador]

The underlying part of this really is the suck part. The officers are well within the law to lie or mislead you when they question you. If you lie to them you have broken the law and liable to be arrested. If the Mr.Call had told him his name was Barn E. Rubble off to jail for giving false info. If he had told him he was invoking his constitutional rights it should have ended. I refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. Am I being detained? Am I free to go ? the officer should have said "Have a good day". Period end of story. If he was unsure he should have asked Call if he minded waiting till he consulted a superior. There is a study on the effects of uniforms and authority affecting normal rational behavior. One study done by Cal Berkley(I am not exactly sure of school) that was to run for 2 weeks had to be shut down because the abusive behavior of the officers, who were just college student with no traning, became so severe they were worried about the mental health of the detainees. I believe some officers should undergo more psychological testing before given a badge. Hell, look at what happened at Abugraub Afg. These were normal weekend warriors till SHTF and they got sent over there. Women that were working as school teachers or secretariesor whatever were acting as thugs. Not saying that I would not have done the same thing when brother Marines or Soldiers were giving their lives and I had to watch over the pow's. We had a pretty extesive psych exam before being aproved for Drill Instructor duty. Not everyone that passes the course at a local junior college and 5 weeks of ride along should be given a gun and a badge. 

[DaveS]

Covington is about 30 minutes north of Memphis, so the next time you find yourself on this side of the state gimme a hollar & we'll do some fishing &/or grab a bite to eat.

Sounds good to me...I'll buy!

 

Dave S

[TMF]

I love lamp.

[JGunner]

I love lamp.

Do you really love the lamp or are you just saying that?

[Guest Charis]

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

 

Apparently, it's my day to find all the good arguments on TGO.

 

DaveS, I have a SERIOUS problem with your arguments, because applied to any other person for any other crime, LEOs do not have to have any reason at all to do anything they want and all they have to do is come up with a MIGHT statement.

 

Let's say you are going down the street... you have done NOTHING wrong... but some person who has no clue who you are calls the cops...

 

At 4:30 am, are you a male of any race between the ages of 18 and 55 (or at least look it)... you MIGHT be a rapist... 

 

At 4:30 am, are you a male of any race in your late teens or early twenties (or at least look it)... you MIGHT be a burglar... 

 

At 4:30 am, are you a female of any race or age (or at least look it)... you MIGHT be a prostitute... 

 

At 4:30 am, are you driving a car of any type... you MIGHT be a carjacker...

 

At 4:30 am, are you riding in a car of any type... you MIGHT be a drug dealer...

 

So of course the cops have the right to stop you, question you, demand answers, threaten you when you do not give them, arrest you, and then drop the charges later... when they finally have to admit that you just work late hours and were only trying to get home and to your bed after a long night and they can not find some way to pin SOMETHING on you to excuse their behavior.

 

Under no circumstances is that acceptable, and I do not believe that you can make the argument that some citizen complained so the cops HAVE to go harass this guy. And what they did was out and out harassment.

 

The cops have the obligation to check out the situation, yes... but that should include knowing the OC law AND the questioned by a cop laws, and asking the citizen that complained if the MWG had actually DONE anything, or was it JUST because he had a gun. At that point they should have explained the law if need be, went over and observed the "suspect" for anything that might actually be SUSPECT behavior, and THEN proceeded with that information.

 

Charging in like a bull in a china shop and throwing around their authority caused an antagonistic situation with the type of person that 1. knows their rights, and 2. is up for such a battle at least to a point. 

 

I hope he wins, wins HUGE, and the LEOs learn their lesson. I'm sorry that ultimately it is the tax payers that end up paying for this, but maybe the lawyers have the good sense to include the individual officers in the lawsuit, as well as an offer to settle for a much smaller amount, VERY public apologies all the way up to the chain of command, and a couple of badges, benefits, and pensions being lost without any way to reinstate them.

[DaveS]

Apparently, it's my day to find all the good arguments on TGO.

 

DaveS, I have a SERIOUS problem with your arguments, because applied to any other person for any other crime, LEOs do not have to have any reason at all to do anything they want and all they have to do is come up with a MIGHT statement.

 

Let's say you are going down the street... you have done NOTHING wrong... but some person who has no clue who you are calls the cops...

 

At 4:30 am, are you a male of any race between the ages of 18 and 55 (or at least look it)... you MIGHT be a rapist... 

 

At 4:30 am, are you a male of any race in your late teens or early twenties (or at least look it)... you MIGHT be a burglar... 

 

At 4:30 am, are you a female of any race or age (or at least look it)... you MIGHT be a prostitute... 

 

At 4:30 am, are you driving a car of any type... you MIGHT be a carjacker...

 

At 4:30 am, are you riding in a car of any type... you MIGHT be a drug dealer...

 

So of course the cops have the right to stop you, question you, demand answers, threaten you when you do not give them, arrest you, and then drop the charges later... when they finally have to admit that you just work late hours and were only trying to get home and to your bed after a long night and they can not find some way to pin SOMETHING on you to excuse their behavior.

 

Under no circumstances is that acceptable, and I do not believe that you can make the argument that some citizen complained so the cops HAVE to go harass this guy. And what they did was out and out harassment.

 

The cops have the obligation to check out the situation, yes... but that should include knowing the OC law AND the questioned by a cop laws, and asking the citizen that complained if the MWG had actually DONE anything, or was it JUST because he had a gun. At that point they should have explained the law if need be, went over and observed the "suspect" for anything that might actually be SUSPECT behavior, and THEN proceeded with that information.

 

Charging in like a bull in a china shop and throwing around their authority caused an antagonistic situation with the type of person that 1. knows their rights, and 2. is up for such a battle at least to a point. 

 

I hope he wins, wins HUGE, and the LEOs learn their lesson. I'm sorry that ultimately it is the tax payers that end up paying for this, but maybe the lawyers have the good sense to include the individual officers in the lawsuit, as well as an offer to settle for a much smaller amount, VERY public apologies all the way up to the chain of command, and a couple of badges, benefits, and pensions being lost without any way to reinstate them.

Your 4:30am statements doesn't jive with the situation at hand. This thread died several days...thanks for bringing it back. Use the search function. I'm sure you'll find some more arguments to participate in.

 

Later. As in # 5

 

Dave S

[Guest TankerHC]

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

 

Yes, it happens all the time, definitely every weekend around the Country. "DUI Checkpoints "Can I see your DL and registration please?"

[JayC]

Yes, it happens all the time, definitely every weekend around the Country. "DUI Checkpoints "Can I see your DL and registration please?"

 

 

And survey says you're incorrect...  You are not required to provide your registration at a DUI checkpoint.  You have to stop when they ask you to stop, you don't have to answer any questions or provide any documentation other than your DL (and they can only check to see if it's valid) under current SCOTUS (read up on MI State Police vs Sitz)- rulings unless they have probable cause that you've committed a crime or traffic violation.

 

Checkpoints must be set up in a way that drivers are notified of the checkpoint and have a legal way to avoid the checkpoint if they so wish.  You can't be pulled over for avoid a checkpoint unless you commit a traffic violation or they have probable cause you're driving while intoxicated.  

 

Don't believe me? Go down to your local sheriff's office and ask to review a copy of their DUI checkpoint policy (they have to allow you to review it for free of charge), and see exactly what is says about how the checkpoint must be set up and what the officer can and cannot do.

Edited May 30, 2013 by JayC

[Guest TankerHC]

Well that would be where you are wrong.

 

Only 11 States find that DUI Checkpoints, asking for Licenses are any kind of infringement on 4th and 5th Amendmend Right. The rest of the States do not. CT is the only State that outright bans DUI Checkpoints.

 

The Supreme Court "found that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on a driver’s constitutional rights. Therefore, the Court
has found that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional if they meet certain requirements."

 

The "certain requirements are that the Checkpoints be known and that they be random (Every 5th or 7th car). In Illinois vs Cabella, the Scotus ruled that Police can use dogs at those checkpoints (No warrant required) and that does not infringe on 4th and 5th Amendment Rights.

 

The SCOTUS also ruled that if stopped, it is within your rights to do nothing, but the law is you must comply, therefore, if you are willing to go to jail rather than just show a DL and move on, more power to anyone who wants to do that.

 

I do believe the "Law of the Land" is the Constitution, and is interpreted ultimately by the SCOTUS. Sherrifs, no.

Edited May 30, 2013 by TankerHC

[DaveTN]

And survey says you're incorrect...  You are not required to provide your registration at a DUI checkpoint.  You have to stop when they ask you to stop, you don't have to answer any questions or provide any documentation other than your DL (and they can only check to see if it's valid) under current SCOTUS (read up on MI State Police vs Sitz)- rulings unless they have probable cause that you've committed a crime or traffic violation.
 
Checkpoints must be set up in a way that drivers are notified of the checkpoint and have a legal way to avoid the checkpoint if they so wish.  You can't be pulled over for avoid a checkpoint unless you commit a traffic violation or they have probable cause you're driving while intoxicated.  
 
Don't believe me? Go down to your local sheriff's office and ask to review a copy of their DUI checkpoint policy (they have to allow you to review it for free of charge), and see exactly what is says about how the checkpoint must be set up and what the officer can and cannot do.

You are quoting a case where the SCOTUS held in a 6-3 vote that the DUI checkpoints in question met the 4th amendment standard of reasonable search and seizure.

It is not unlawful for you to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if a chase car is free they will be on you like a fat kid on cake. How far do you think you can drive before committing a violation of the vehicle code?

Don't drink and drive. The only people that will help you or be on your side is the ones you pay.

[Worriedman]

 they will be on you like a fat kid on cake.

 

There you go profiling again...

[TMF]

Who doesn't like cake?

[Chucktshoes]

It is not unlawful for you to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if a chase car is free they will be on you like a fat kid on cake. How far do you think you can drive before committing a violation of the vehicle code?

I think you just gave me a new idea for a fun game to play when I am bored on weekend nights.

:lol: Edited May 31, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[JayC]

Dave, 

 

I never said they were illegal...  They must be conducted in a highly restrictive manner to be legal.  And I also agree if they send a chase car after you, it will probably take them less than a mile to "find" some reason to pull you over...  Which is a bigger problem than the checkpoints themselves.

 

You are quoting a case where the SCOTUS held in a 6-3 vote that the DUI checkpoints in question met the 4th amendment standard of reasonable search and seizure.

It is not unlawful for you to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if a chase car is free they will be on you like a fat kid on cake. How far do you think you can drive before committing a violation of the vehicle code?

Don't drink and drive. The only people that will help you or be on your side is the ones you pay.