JSlack7851 said:
I have seen in a few cases where LEO won't take no for a answer, to the point of taking your ID out of your handcuffed, face down on the ground, body.
OK, what recourse does one have after that?
...
how is anyone going to hold LEO accountable so it doesn't happen again? It's not like putting you in handcuffs and taking your wallet is going to light up a lawyers eyes and see a payday. What damages would you have?
See below, about the federal civil rights laws. One of those is a felony for the officers involved, the others have you ending up with money from the officers, the department, the city.
MWAG call, LEO respond, refusal to offer ID, cited. ORC - 2921.31 Obstructing official business.
Merely having a pistol is not grounds for suspicion of any sort of crime. [See quotes below.]
Having it in hand, yes. Waving it at people, yes.
Having someone lie & saying you did one of those, maybe.
But "guy with a pistol walking down the street" /= MWAG
The calltakers & dispatchers need to be trained to ask better questions. The first of those is perfectly legal & the caller should be told not to waste police resources & tie up emergency lines.
*****
Have a look at a couple of my blog pages.
federal civil rights laws for 2A advocates Has links to the federal Code.
42USC1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights
42USC1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
18USC241 Conspiracy against rights
The first 2 are civil remedies - you sue the officers, the department, the city.
The last is a felony, which a federal prosecutor would have to handle.
And
here's a blog post with lots of useful legal references.
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley (here's an
article which has the PDF of the decision)
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000)
the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers “that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.”
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer (Ct. App. 1997)
"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse (1979).
[
This is why officers now have to make up something about your taillight being out - they can't stop your car just to check your license.]
“Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution."
County of Kenosha [WI] v. C. & S. Management, Inc. (1999).
"Resemblance to a “drug courier profile” was an insufficient basis for seizure."
Reid v. Georgia (1980).