Riverside OH, OC dash-cam

JediSkipdogg said:

Here's the police report. Grab a coke and some popcorn...it's a good read full of jokes. I love how multiple times he feels the need to explain that a criminal would do XXXXX as if justifying his arrest then at the end he adds the subject did nothing illegal with his firearm but he was arrested because a bystander that was talking to the police at the time in the parking lot became scared.

https://www.facebook.com/download/266837743435057/roycallredacted.pdf

Click to expand...

OMG! Now OFCC is posting news of this import on Facebook, for God's sake! :uhoh::uhoh:

In reading the report I'm of the opinion that 1) it's just too perfect, and 2) it just doesn't add up.

Evidently the officer forgot to include the part where Mr. Call was moving stealthily toward the door while dressed head-to-toe in ninja/camouflage garb.

Makarov said:

They souldn't have the power to turn off any recording! It doesnt matter anyway because this cop is about to be spanked for his behavior. LOL My neighbor is a retired Riverside CoP. He says this Sgt Jones is a real loser. He was fired from Randolph Township before working for Riverside years ago for incompetance. He must of did a lot of boot licking to become Sargeant. Sue them where it hurts. I think an open carry march might be in order!

Click to expand...

JONES !!!! OM gosh this guy is the biggest Cowboy Cop the world has ever know ...can't believe he's still a policeman. He was at Randolph Twp as you have said and he caused the biggest controversy in the Twp. in some years. Public meetings had to be moved to a larger room to handle all the people and the news media that showed up and the Twp was sued and had to pay out some $25,000.00 to the citizen that was harassed by Jones. He quit the job.......

Any links to more info about the issues in Randolph Twp?

It would be nice to have more history about this awful-cer.

color of law said:

Of course I know of no case that OFCC was involved in defending an individual that ended in a win. And plea bargains are not wins.

Click to expand...

Beachwood Failure to Notify case had a not guilty verdict.

grasspa1 said:

JONES !!!! OM gosh this guy is the biggest Cowboy Cop the world has ever know ...can't believe he's still a policeman. He was at Randolph Twp as you have said and he caused the biggest controversy in the Twp. in some years. Public meetings had to be moved to a larger room to handle all the people and the news media that showed up and the Twp was sued and had to pay out some $25,000.00 to the citizen that was harassed by Jones. He quit the job.......

Click to expand...

When did this happen? How about giving us some more detail?

color of law said:

I'm not going to burn up a lot of time trying to figure out what OFCC is trying to accomplish. Of course I know of no case that OFCC was involved in defending an individual that ended in a win. And plea bargains are not wins.

RT48 said:

Beachwood Failure to Notify case had a not guilty verdict.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, one case. I remember this case.

If my memory serves me correctly the attorney started arguing speedy trial when in fact he waved speedy trial.

http://www.shakerheightscourt.org/s...iminal_CaseSummary.asp?CaseId=698500&PageId=1

Date..........Docket Entry
3/18/2009 Case Filed on 03/18/2009
3/18/2009 ARRAIGNMENT set for 04/07/2009 at 08:30 AM in room 1
3/19/2009 10% Bond Set for $4000.00
3/19/2009 Bond processing fee of $40.00 assessed
3/19/2009 Bond Posted Fee of $10.00 assessed
3/19/2009 Posted bond, paid $424.00 receipt#2009044707
4/3/2009 TIMOTHY E BELLEW filed notice of appearance
4/7/2009 TIMOTHY BELLEW ENTERS AS COUNSEL FOR DEF AND ENTERS A NOT GUILTY
4/7/2009 Right to speedy trial waived by defendant on 04/07/2009
4/8/2009 Plea of NOT GUILTY entered on 04/07/2009
4/8/2009 PRE-TRIAL set for 04/21/2009 at 09:00 AM in room 1
4/8/2009 Pre-Trial notice sent
4/10/2009 Written Request for Bill of Particulars filed by Defendant's
4/17/2009 MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE FILED BY ATTY.
4/21/2009 PRE-TRIAL HELD, TRIAL SET FOR JUNE 16, 2009
4/24/2009 TRIAL set for 06/16/2009 at 11:00 AM in room 1
4/24/2009 Trial notice sent
6/3/2009 Written Jury Demand filed by Defendant's Attorney on 06/03/2
6/16/2009 ORIGINALLY DEF WAS SET FOR BENCH TRIAL TODAY. THIS DATE WOUL
6/16/2009 TR/CR Free Format notice sent
6/16/2009 JURY TRIAL set for 07/09/2009 at 08:30 AM in room 1
6/16/2009 Jury Trial notice sent
7/2/2009 Written Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant's Attorney on 0
7/2/2009 Paid $20.00 receipt# 2009010897
7/7/2009 DEFENDANT'S JURY PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS FILED BY ATTY.
7/8/2009 PLAINTIFF, CITY OF BEACHWOOD'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS FI
7/10/2009 Finding of NOT GUILTY entered for 2923.16 - IMPROP HANDL FIR
7/10/2009 Transferred $10.00 from Bond Post (Held:10.00, Balance:0.00)
7/13/2009 TOTAL OWED notice sent
7/13/2009 10% Bond# disbursed ($0.00 applied,$424.00 returned, $0.00
7/10/2009 TRIAL HELD ON 7/09/09 & 7/10/09. JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF
8/5/2009 Sentence was edited for IMPROP HANDL FIREARM on 08/05/2009
10/5/2009 Paid $939.00 receipt# 2009016355

color of law said:

OK, one case. I remember this case.

If my memory serves me correctly the attorney started arguing speedy trial when in fact he waved speedy trial...

Click to expand...

I think he actually waived speedy trial :uhoh:, but regardless, with all the money changing hands - did the guy get back all his money?


On the matter at hand, I'd love to read what people think of the cop's write-up of the stop/arrest. I'm naturally cynical, so I'm just wondering what other people think.

My opinion on the officer's report is that it's a work of fiction with enough detail to link it to this specific incident. The report spins it so that the officer's actions may seem 'justified' and then admits that the victim did nothing illegal. The officer tells his tale in a very black and white manner; casting himself in the role of hero or innocent bystander.

It's disturbing that the officer actually asked if the victim belonged to any "groups" and if the NRA "told him to open carry." The officers actions and his report seem to indicate to me that this isn't all ignorance on the officers part. It really seems like harassment while hiding behind a badge.

Since he was already conversing with the woman (IIRC), I wonder how their conversation actually went. If she said something like, "OMG, that guy has a gun!" then he could've used that as a moment to educate and let her know that OCing, of itself, is nothing illegal. Then again, he wouldn't have a reason to bully and harass the victim if he would've done the right thing.

Was he showing off for the woman? I keep wondering about that. Even if she did actually leave far enough to not be able to observe, he would've had a macho story to tell her later.

"Sovereign Citizen"... really officer? *roll eyes*

That's my $0.02 so far.

Even if I put my natural cynicism aside, I still think Sergeant Jones is a corrupt, arrogant, power-abusing sack of excrement with utter contempt of the law he is sworn to uphold.

If this weren't a family friendly forum, I would tell you how I really feel.



For those that have not yet seen the motion to dismiss, the lawyer points out that Sgt. Jones signed the part of the ticket that must be notarized when he was not in front of the notary. Further, the notary went ahead and notarized the signature. The cop is corrupt. The notary is corrupt. I wonder who else in that town is corrupt?!

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Even if I put my natural cynicism aside, I still think Sergeant Jones is a corrupt, arrogant, power-abusing sack of excrement with utter contempt of the law he is sworn to uphold...

Click to expand...

I love it when you show your sensitive side! :uhoh:

If I may ask, what specific parts of the report (Jones or the other officer) give you that sense? (I'm serious!)

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Even if I put my natural cynicism aside, I still think Sergeant Jones is a corrupt, arrogant, power-abusing sack of excrement with utter contempt of the law he is sworn to uphold.

If this weren't a family friendly forum, I would tell you how I really feel.



For those that have not yet seen the motion to dismiss, the lawyer points out that Sgt. Jones signed the part of the ticket that must be notarized when he was not in front of the notary. Further, the notary went ahead and notarized the signature. The cop is corrupt. The notary is corrupt. I wonder who else in that town is corrupt?!

Click to expand...

Somebody mentioned that the person that notarized the ticket was a M. Brown. Riverside's Deputy Police Chief is Michael Brown. If it is the one and the same then the corruption in Riverside goes pretty deep.

What is funny is that one of Riverside's 2010 police department's goals was to "Provide equal and uniform application of laws and protection for individual constitutional rights to all citizens." I think they have fallen well short of that goal.

BB62 said:

I love it when you show your sensitive side! :uhoh:

If I may ask, what specific parts of the report (Jones or the other officer) give you that sense? (I'm serious!)

Click to expand...

Well, first, I watched the video.

Second, I read the report about the incident IN the video.

Third, I read the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Fourth, I'm using a definition of "corrupt" as found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt

cor·rupt [kuh-ruhpt]
adjective
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.

So, by double-signing his summons and submitting it to be notarized later, the sergeant and notaary are both GUILTY OF DISHONEST PRACTICES.

Typing up a report that says the defendant was NOT doing anything illegal, but choosing to charge him anyway, shows the sergeant to be LACKING INTEGRITY.

By the reports I have heard that the sergeant may have been trying to cover his butt by attempting to erase a voice recorder, I believe the sergeant to be EVIL.

A simple comparison of the sergeants report, compared with the dashboard video from the second officer's car and various audio sources, shows the sergeant is MADE INFERIOR BY ERRORS OR ALTERATIONS.

Finally, the story (which I have not confirmed) that this officer had "issues" at his previous law enforcement job in Randolph Township which resulted in a lawsuit, a $25,000 settlement or award to a citizen he harrassed, and his termination from that job, shows that he is TAINTED.

Call him "dirty harry" or "daniel harless junior" or even "the riverside ruff rider", but don't call him an officer of the law. This guy needs fired, as does M A Brown, the person who notarized the summons.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

For those that have not yet seen the motion to dismiss ...

Click to expand...

And where is that document posted?

Werz said:

And where is that document posted?

Click to expand...

It can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6gtW6DYSo1RVy05SU1NZy1IMjg

Towards the end of the document are the Defendant's copy of the summons and the Court Record copy (Exhibits A & B).

MyWifeSaidYes said:

It can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6gtW6DYSo1RVy05SU1NZy1IMjg

Towards the end of the document are the Defendant's copy of the summons and the Court Record copy (Exhibits A & B).

Click to expand...

Thank you. Very informative.

The first basis looks like a good one. The issue might be remedied by the filing a of a new complaint and obtaining service on Call, but now that the prosecutor has had a chance to review the report, that may not happen. If the case is being handled by a prosecutor who is smart enough to see how bad this case really is, the dismissal of a faulty complaint, and declining to file a new one, might provide an easy "out."

The second basis is worthless, and the initial statement of the law is inaccurate, if not outright false. A criminal complaint need only state the essential elements of the offense, which is usually done in the form of the statute violated. No recitation of the facts is necessary. In fact, the very case cited by the attorney states: "While all the specific facts relied upon to sustain the charge need not be recited, the material elements of the crime must be stated. * * * A complaint is legally sufficient when it states all of the essential elements of the offense[.]" State v. Ghaster, 2009-Ohio-2117 (8th Dist.), at ¶23. That's the type of misstatement of the law that can get the attorney's butt chewed by a judge.

FYI-

There IS a statement from the female!

The incident occurred on August 28th.

According to Sgt. Jones, on September 6th, the female witness who was "scared" by a holstered handgun, was "eventually located" and a statement was taken.

Please note that the first open records requests in this case were made on September 4th and 5th, possibly earlier.

The statement given by the woman reads:

On August 28th I was at Speedway around 4:30am. I saw a white man walk in the store with a gun on his hip. It scared me and I left. I saw the police who was out front by my car approaching him as I left.

Click to expand...

Nine days later and only after the records requests started coming in. He already knew her address because he had just finished a call at her address.

Definitely a CYA move.

Werz said:

...The second basis is worthless, and the initial statement of the law is inaccurate, if not outright false. A criminal complaint need only state the essential elements of the offense, which is usually done in the form of the statute violated. No recitation of the facts is necessary. In fact, the very case cited by the attorney states: "While all the specific facts relied upon to sustain the charge need not be recited, the material elements of the crime must be stated. * * * A complaint is legally sufficient when it states all of the essential elements of the offense[.]" State v. Ghaster, 2009-Ohio-2117 (8th Dist.), at ¶23. That's the type of misstatement of the law that can get the attorney's butt chewed by a judge.

Click to expand...

Hmm, the defense attorney's premise, as I see it, is that the case he cited regarding ORC 2921.31 requires more than just refusing to answer questions.

The only element listed in the complaint is that Roy refused to answer questions (about his identity, his CHL and why he had a gun in the store).

Since I am not a lawyer, I couldn't speak to how the argument is formed nor how the case is cited, but the premise seemed sound.

And yeah, I hope the prosecutor drops this like a hot potato. The mayor, city manager and police chief have all decided to let the court decide.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Hmm, the defense attorney's premise, as I see it, is that the case he cited regarding ORC 2921.31 requires more than just refusing to answer questions.

The only element listed in the complaint is that Roy refused to answer questions (about his identity, his CHL and why he had a gun in the store).

Click to expand...

No. The elements of a crime and the facts of a crime are not the same thing. The elements of the crime are the same, regardless of who violated the law or how he/she did it. You can determine the elements of the crime simply by looking at the statute.

A competent attorney knows the difference. It amuses me how people in these forums will scream bloody murder when a cop doesn't know the law or intentionally misstates it, but they tend to mumble and shuffle their feet when a defense attorney is guilty of the same.

Now, if the attorney, instead of coming up with that specious argument, had actually looked at what the officer wrote on the complaint and compared it to the statute, he might have noticed one element missing. Let's see if you can find it.

Obstructing official business is established where there is both an illegal act that quickens the duty of the police officer to enforce the law, and interference with intent to impede that enforcement. Garfield Hts. v. Simpson, 82 Ohio App.3d 286, 291, 611 N.E.2d 892 (8th Dist.1992), citing Warrensville Hts. v. Watson, 50 Ohio App.2d 21, 361 N.E.2d 546 (8th Dist.1976).

R.C. 2921.31(A) exempts acts of obstruction when a subject is privileged by law to engage in the conduct involved. As a general proposition, a person is privileged to ignore a police officer’s order to stop where the officer fails to have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. See State v. Richards, 2002-Ohio-2162.

One cannot be guilty of obstructing official business by doing nothing, because the test of the statute specifically requires the offender to act. Mere refusal to answer questions does not amount to obstructing official business. See State v. Harris, 2005-Ohio-4553.


State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880

{¶ 13} The complaint filed in this case was valid under Crim.R. 3. The complaint stated that Mbodji “on or about the 16th day of April, 2009, in Hamilton County, State of Ohio, did knowingly cause physical harm to Katrina McCall, a family member,” thus setting forth the essential facts of the crime charged. The complaint also specified that those facts showed that Mbodji acted “in violation of Section 2919.25 of the Revised Code of Ohio,” thus stating the numerical designation of the applicable statute. The complaint was sworn to and signed by the victim, Katrina McCall, and was sworn to before a peace officer authorized to administer oaths. In short, the jurisdiction of the trial court was properly invoked.

Click to expand...

It is clear that the complaint fails to state an act that would rise to the level of obstruction of official business.