• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Vandalia LEO Encounter

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Did the city manager have all that stuff he stated to you, given to you in writing and signed by he, the mayor and the chief of police?

Did you record the conversation?

....adjusting my tinfoil hat....it IS government ya know. Don't trust them one iota.
By the way, training records can be falsified, easily so.
 

Ironbar

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
385
Location
Tigard, Oregon, USA
What I found interesting about that video was that the cop's radio was blaring in the background so that the conversation could barely be heard. Nice to way to cover their a$$es in case they say something out of line.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
By the way, training records can be falsified, easily so.
But to what end?

If they falsify that somebody attended and that cop violates somebody's rights, they pierce their own officer's qualified immunity.

If they falsify that somebody didn't attend, they open themselves up to suit for failing to properly train and supervise.

Heads you win, tails they lose.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
What I found interesting about that video was that the cop's radio was blaring in the background so that the conversation could barely be heard. Nice to way to cover their a$$es in case they say something out of line.

That's a policy that needs enacted and enforced: No recreational radio playing during a stop.
 

RCall

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
113
Location
Miami County Ohio
What I found interesting about that video was that the cop's radio was blaring in the background so that the conversation could barely be heard. Nice to way to cover their a$$es in case they say something out of line.

I have found that the audio from the car mic plays through the right channel and the audio from the mic on the officer plays through the left channel. If you go into your sound settings and move the slide bar to left channel only it cuts out all of the radio traffic from the FM radio and the police radio. At one point sooner or later on a rainy day I will fix that on the video and edit out the cars mic.

Did the city manager have all that stuff he stated to you, given to you in writing and signed by he, the mayor and the chief of police?

Did you record the conversation?

....adjusting my tinfoil hat....it IS government ya know. Don't trust them one iota.

No he did not, but as long as the training records indicate he was telling me the truth we are happy. (Unless it happens again, to anybody.)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This weekend I'm suppose to be spending time in the Dayton/Vandalia area with friends. Because of what has transpired I thought I would take a moment and call Vandalia's Police department to find out their stance relating to open carry. I was surprised that the police chief, Douglas Knight, answered the phone. I informed him of my plans and asked if I should be concerned with open carry.

Due to the incident he assured me that the officers have been brought up to date on the Ohio gun laws. He also wanted to point out that they also briefed the dispatchers. If they get a call from a concerned resident they would investigate. But, it is to be handled in the politest manner possible. He also ensured me that if anyone felt they were not dealt with fairly they should contact him directly to resolve this matter.

It should be noted that the chief was very polite and did not demonstrate any hostility towards open carry. However, he also did not convey or interject his personal biases if any.

As someone told me once, when open carrying it is better to kill them with kindness. But, that does not require you to forfeit your rights.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
This weekend I'm suppose to be spending time in the Dayton/Vandalia area with friends. Because of what has transpired I thought I would take a moment and call Vandalia's Police department to find out their stance relating to open carry. I was surprised that the police chief, Douglas Knight, answered the phone. I informed him of my plans and asked if I should be concerned with open carry.

Due to the incident he assured me that the officers have been brought up to date on the Ohio gun laws. He also wanted to point out that they also briefed the dispatchers. If they get a call from a concerned resident they would investigate. But, it is to be handled in the politest manner possible. He also ensured me that if anyone felt they were not dealt with fairly they should contact him directly to resolve this matter.

It should be noted that the chief was very polite and did not demonstrate any hostility towards open carry. However, he also did not convey or interject his personal biases if any.

As someone told me once, when open carrying it is better to kill them with kindness. But, that does not require you to forfeit your rights.

Well done.

That is the way that all Chiefs should respond. They effect the tone and tenor of the entire department.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
I agree, but Federal court is unfortunately not that place.

AND WHY NOT?

My philosophy in life is "You hit me with a switsh and I'll beat you with a baseball bat; I rarely get switched twice"!

OK; just finished reading the entire thread, sound like things have been handled satisfactory; even I would not continue legal action.
 
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...No he did not, but as long as the training records indicate he was telling me the truth we are happy. (Unless it happens again, to anybody.)
Agreed.

PM me when you get the records - I know another department that needs to get their act together.
 

Tosta Dojen

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
183
Location
Roanoke, Virginia, USA
I have found that the audio from the car mic plays through the right channel and the audio from the mic on the officer plays through the left channel. If you go into your sound settings and move the slide bar to left channel only it cuts out all of the radio traffic from the FM radio and the police radio. At one point sooner or later on a rainy day I will fix that on the video and edit out the cars mic.

I had to do the exact same thing with another police audio recording -- running two mics into the left/right audio channels seems to be the common convention for in-car equipment. Fortunately, it's easy to fix. I took your recording, stripped out the right channel and copied the left one over to make a cleaned-up stereo file: Vandalia20120328.mp3.

As for the "resolution," I wouldn't agree that training is going to solve this problem. Training is the appropriate remedy for ignorance. The officer already knew, by his own admission, that open carry is a constitutionally-protected right, and that it's a relatively common practice. He knew you were doing nothing illegal, but decided to forcibly impose his own opinions upon you, simply because he figured he could get away with it. The proper way to address a willful violation of the law is through punishment, not training.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
As for the "resolution," I wouldn't agree that training is going to solve this problem. Training is the appropriate remedy for ignorance. The officer already knew, by his own admission, that open carry is a constitutionally-protected right, and that it's a relatively common practice. He knew you were doing nothing illegal, but decided to forcibly impose his own opinions upon you, simply because he figured he could get away with it. The proper way to address a willful violation of the law is through punishment, not training.
Let me just say that I don't believe this officer will be pulling this stunt again.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...As for the "resolution," I wouldn't agree that training is going to solve this problem. Training is the appropriate remedy for ignorance. The officer already knew, by his own admission, that open carry is a constitutionally-protected right, and that it's a relatively common practice. He knew you were doing nothing illegal, but decided to forcibly impose his own opinions upon you, simply because he figured he could get away with it. The proper way to address a willful violation of the law is through punishment, not training.
Thanks for posting the audio. I have to admit that I didn't listen to the single-channel audio before now.

Not only is the content VERY disturbing, but even with the music/radio stripped out the microphone doesn't pick things up as well as I figure it should.

Certainly not because I distrust the OP, but we all need the entire tape so as to confirm the OP's timeline/description. One thing is clear, though - the handcuffs are already on when the officer "requests" to see his ID (uh-huh).

I'm of two minds - use the tape to "educate" other departments or use a legal settlement to do the same thing. Along those lines, maybe it would be worth seeing if this kind of behavior is par for the course for this department, or is the exception.

There is no excuse for the commercial radio to be on in the officer's car at the time of the stop. This needs to be addressed in addition to whatever other procedures are developed.

Thanks again for posting the tape. It was eye-opening.
 
Last edited:

JSlack7851

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
291
Location
, Ohio, USA
That worked out well. It didn't cost $20K, to get started.. (Where did that figure come from COL?) I have yet to inquire price with the lawyer, but similar incidents I've read about, 5K will start you out. If you can find a lawyer.

I would also like to compliment the OP for chasing this like he did. You are hereby awarded the right to Host a M&G picnic at a place of your choosing.. Carry On!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
That worked out well. It didn't cost $20K, to get started.. (Where did that figure come from COL?) I have yet to inquire price with the lawyer, but similar incidents I've read about, 5K will start you out. If you can find a lawyer.

I would also like to compliment the OP for chasing this like he did. You are hereby awarded the right to Host a M&G picnic at a place of your choosing.. Carry On!
You said it yourself, 5K will start you out.

I was involved in a typical contract dispute lawsuit in 1982 which cost me $10,000. Now, adjust that for inflation and today that would be $24,000. I'm plaintiff in a 1983 suit right now. After a year of a lot of legal wrangling the defendants just now answered the complaint. And the cost to date is $8,000. We just now set a calendar for discovery. So $20,000 is not a lot.
 

Skunk

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Vandalia, Ohio
We will see... I had this same conversation with Vandalia about 5 years ago... it didn't stick I guess.

I have contacted them three times over the last couple of years on this issue. My emails have not been answered. I really doubt they care. I OC in Vandalia quite a bit, and have not had any issues. Perhaps I am either invisible, lucky, or they aren't really paying that much attention.

@ COL, The next time you come up here drop me a line. My handle on BFA is DEFCON1. Perhaps we could get together with Lthrnck and have dinner. We know a good spot in Englewood.

Chris
 

RCall

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
113
Location
Miami County Ohio
Today I Met with Chief Knight of the Vandalia P.D.

Together, we reviewed the two new training procedures the city has implemented in light of recent events.

Firstly, I wish to state as previously mentioned on a different occasion by another poster, during the course of the entire meeting, the chief did not portray any bias towards or against the act of openly carrying a firearm. The only message conveyed to me was that his best interest was to uphold the law, serve the city, and investigate any possible wrong-doing on his departments part.

With that said, we reviewed two memos released to all department personnel, sworn and civilian.(The civilian including the dispatchers.)

The first one, with a posing date of 4-10-2012 was numbered 12-06. It was mainly an inquire from the police chief to the city law director asking for an opinion of the legality of open carry. The city's law director researched case law and O.R.C. in question to open carry. The following court cases were covered or mentioned:

Terry v. Ohio (39 U.S. 1, 88 St. Ct. 1968)
Butcher v. Cuyahoga Falls (2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 136315)
Matthey A. St. John v. McColley et al. (653 F. Supp. 2d 1155)
United States v. Ubiles (224 F.3d 213 2000)
United States v. King (990 F.2d 1552 10th cir. 1993)
State v. Boykins (1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5048)
State v. Mills, Medina (2002 Ohio 7323)
State v. Pickett (2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3484)
O.R.C. 9.68 was also covered.

The law director does state in the correspondence that he found no case from Ohio which specificity stated that there must be more than merely displaying a firearm to justify a stop, and cited that several cases mentioned were from other jurisdictions that have open carry laws similar to Ohio.

The final two points I would like to make from the first set of documents are the following quotes:

"Based on my research and as explained more fully below, a peace officer in Ohio may not stop and temporarily handcuff a person for the officers safety when the sole basis for the stop is because the person is carrying a firearm."

"Based on the above it is my opinion that in Ohio a peace officer may not stop and temporarily handcuff a person when the sole basis for the stop is because the person is carrying a firearm openly in the public."

Although I didn't initially notice, after typing this im thinking this opinion should have used the word "or" instead of "and" in the last two quotes regarding, "Stop and temporarily handcuff." But I believe the next memo straightens that out somewhat.

The second memo dated 5-1-2012 numbered 12-08 covered sections of O.R.C. 2923 in regards to both OC and CC. It also gives the law directors opinion on a small section of that chapter of the code. Furthermore it gives specific instructions to dispatchers and LEOs on how to handle this type of occurrence.

The instructions including the following:

Dispatcher Responsibility​

  • Do not communicate any bias, express personal opinion, or offer advise to citizens regarding concealed or open carry of firearms.
  • Do not attempt to explain Ohio law regarding concealed or open carry of firearms.
  • Gather and communicate to the responding officer(s) as much descriptive information as possible from the caller about the person and circumstances that prompted the call to police.
  • Ask whether the individual is on public or private property.
  • Dispatch one officer and, whenever possible, the sergeant/AWS The responding officer may request a back-up officer if the sergeant/AWS is unavailable.

Responding Officer Responsibility​

  • As always, be professional. Common sense, disgression, and good judgement must prevail.
  • Approach all calls for service with safety in mind.
  • Open carry of a firearm is legal absent a specific ORC prohibition.
  • Consensual conversation with a person engaged in open carry of a firearm is permitted.
  • A non-consensual conversation, or Terry stop, is not justified unless an officer reasonably believes (and can articulate) from the totality of the circumstances that a crime has or is about tho occur. Document all factors that provide the basis for a Terry stop.
  • Activate the patrol cars video/audio recorder during the contact with an armed citizen. Turn the patrol cars AM/FM radio off. Failure to do so may inadvertently diminish the quality and value of the audio recording.
  • Be aware that an officer's words and actions are frequently recorded by others.
  • As with every other call for service, add descriptive comments to the CFS record in the absence of an offensive report

This training bulletin also covers OFCC v. City of Clyde (120 Ohio St. 3d 96) and states that a city cannot prohibit open carry of firearms on public property.

Some of the language from the latter of the two protocols reviewed does seem eerily similar to me of a previous posting on this thread. At this point I will assume it is an honest attempt of the department to uphold the law, not to make me happy and get me off their backs. I do not like it when the assumption of guilt is passed onto me without some evidence, so I try not to pass that judgment to others. Only time will tell if the department sticks true to its word.
 
Last edited:

Hareuhal

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
209
Location
somewhere
Today I Met with Chief Knight of the Vandalia P.D.

Together, we reviewed the two new training procedures the city has implemented in light of recent events.

Firstly, I wish to state as previously mentioned on a different occasion by another poster, during the course of the entire meeting, the chief did not portray any bias towards or against the act of openly carrying a firearm. The only message conveyed to me was that his best interest was to uphold the law, serve the city, and investigate any possible wrong-doing on his departments part.

With that said, we reviewed two memos released to all department personnel, sworn and civilian.(The civilian including the dispatchers.)

The first one, with a posing date of 4-10-2012 was numbered 12-06. It was mainly an inquire from the police chief to the city law director asking for an opinion of the legality of open carry. The city's law director researched case law and O.R.C. in question to open carry. The following court cases were covered or mentioned:

Terry v. Ohio (39 U.S. 1, 88 St. Ct. 1968)
Butcher v. Cuyahoga Falls (2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 136315)
Matthey A. St. John v. McColley et al. (653 F. Supp. 2d 1155)
United States v. Ubiles (224 F.3d 213 2000)
United States v. King (990 F.2d 1552 10th cir. 1993)
State v. Boykins (1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5048)
State v. Mills, Medina (2002 Ohio 7323)
State v. Pickett (2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3484)
O.R.C. 9.68 was also covered.

The law director does state in the correspondence that he found no case from Ohio which specificity stated that there must be more than merely displaying a firearm to justify a stop, and cited that several cases mentioned were from other jurisdictions that have open carry laws similar to Ohio.

The final two points I would like to make from the first set of documents are the following quotes:

"Based on my research and as explained more fully below, a peace officer in Ohio may not stop and temporarily handcuff a person for the officers safety when the sole basis for the stop is because the person is carrying a firearm."

"Based on the above it is my opinion that in Ohio a peace officer may not stop and temporarily handcuff a person when the sole basis for the stop is because the person is carrying a firearm openly in the public."

Although I didn't initially notice, after typing this im thinking this opinion should have used the word "or" instead of "and" in the last two quotes regarding, "Stop and temporarily handcuff." But I believe the next memo straightens that out somewhat.

The second memo dated 5-1-2012 numbered 12-08 covered sections of O.R.C. 2923 in regards to both OC and CC. It also gives the law directors opinion on a small section of that chapter of the code. Furthermore it gives specific instructions to dispatchers and LEOs on how to handle this type of occurrence.

The instructions including the following:

Dispatcher Responsibility​

  • Do not communicate any bias, express personal opinion, or offer advise to citizens regarding concealed or open carry of firearms.
  • Do not attempt to explain Ohio law regarding concealed or open carry of firearms.
  • Gather and communicate to the responding officer(s) as much descriptive information as possible from the caller about the person and circumstances that prompted the call to police.
  • Ask whether the individual is on public or private property.
  • Dispatch one officer and, whenever possible, the sergeant/AWS The responding officer may request a back-up officer if the sergeant/AWS is unavailable.

Responding Officer Responsibility​

  • As always, be professional. Common sense, disgression, and good judgement must prevail.
  • Approach all calls for service with safety in mind.
  • Open carry of a firearm is legal absent a specific ORC prohibition.
  • Consensual conversation with a person engaged in open carry of a firearm is permitted.
  • A non-consensual conversation, or Terry stop, is not justified unless an officer reasonably believes (and can articulate) from the totality of the circumstances that a crime has or is about tho occur. Document all factors that provide the basis for a Terry stop.
  • Activate the patrol cars video/audio recorder during the contact with an armed citizen. Turn the patrol cars AM/FM radio off. Failure to do so may inadvertently diminish the quality and value of the audio recording.
  • Be aware that an officer's words and actions are frequently recorded by others.
  • As with every other call for service, add descriptive comments to the CFS record in the absence of an offensive report

This training bulletin also covers OFCC v. City of Clyde (120 Ohio St. 3d 96) and states that a city cannot prohibit open carry of firearms on public property.

Some of the language from the latter of the two protocols reviewed does seem eerily similar to me of a previous posting on this thread. At this point I will assume it is an honest attempt of the department to uphold the law. I do not like it when the assumption of guilt is passed onto me so I do not pass that judgment to others. Only time will tell if the department sticks true to its word.

That really is refreshingly nice to see.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
What you posted sounds pretty good, and the memos are impressive. Nice work!

I do have a couple of concerns though, one is the "and/or" portion you mentioned, and the second is a question: what about mention of the inapplicability of disorderly conduct/inducing panic threats/charges?

If what you've posted is complete, glaringly absent (and seemingly consciously so) is mention of LE favorite tool - using the "concerned citizen" angle as a justification for a non-consensual stop, and/or the threat or actually levelling of inducing panic or disorderly conduct charges without a predicate offense. As pleased as I am with to see what has been achieved, I wouldn't get too wound up unless those issues are addressed, correctly.

Call me untrusting, but that comes from experience.
 
Top