Riverside OH, OC dash-cam

BB62 said:

Elements of a crime, facts of a crime...? It seems like what you're saying is that a complaint need contain nothing more than a recitation of the law section allegedly violated.

But, what about paragraph 20 in the case you cited? It says "Crim.R. 3 states: "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged..." (my emphasis) Roy Call's attorney's motion mentions "Crim.R. 3" in point #2, so it would seem that facts are required in a complaint, not just the language of the code section.

Click to expand...

How it may seem and how it is are two different things. The "essential facts" are the elements of the crime. Nothing more is required for the complaint. That's why the requirements of Criminal Rule 3 are further explained in the following paragraphs. If the defendant claims that an official statement of the facts in evidence is needed to adequately defend the case, that is the purpose of a Request for a Bill of Particulars. Crim.R. 7(E). To determine all the evidence in support of the charge in the complaint, there is Request for Discovery. Crim.R. 16.

I realize that it may make perfect sense to many people here. By the same token, lots of people see no difference between a "clip" and a "magazine," or between a "bullet" and a "cartridge." My point is that a competent attorney knows better, or at least he should know better.

BB62 said:

In other words, what "crime" is the officer alleging that Mr. Call, without privilege, and "with a purpose to" was preventing, obstructing, or delaying the investigation of? Whatever it was was not stated in the complaint - although the report now claims it was "disorderly conduct".

Click to expand...

At least you found the missing element.

color of law said:

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

Click to expand...

Read what you quoted again. Did the complaint state the actions of the defendant which caused physical harm to the victim? Did the complaint state the nature of the physical harm caused to the victim? No. It reiterated the elements of the Domestic Violence statute and contained nothing else, other than the name of the victim, "thus setting forth the essential facts of the crime charged." State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880, at ¶13. And the Ohio Supreme Court determined that was adequate.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I may be Monday morning quarterbacking here (on Sunday afternoon), but I would have said "without privilege" was the missing element if I hadn't gone to bed.

Really, I would have! Honest!

The statute is short and doesn't have too many elements.


Far be it from me to defend a defense attorney, or ANY attorney, for that matter. They should be able to defend themselves.

I think it is a bad tendency of pro-gun forum dwellers to be "anti" cops, judges and prosecuting attorneys. It is also a bad tendancy for them to automatically be "pro" defense attorneys.

All attorneys are officers of the court, regardless of the table at which they sit. We need to be suspicious of them all and take their advice in as small a dose as possible. We get second opinions from doctors for the "important" medical issues. How many of us would do this for "important" legal issues?

I don't mean having your lawyer bring in another lawyer as co-counsel. I mean find an attorney that isn't friends with your attorney. As an example, in central Ohio I have heard that gun attorneys Ken Hanson and Derek DeBrosse do not see eye to eye. If one were my lawyer, I would pay to ask the other for a second opinion.

Federal rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 3. The Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer.

“This criminal complaint is based on these facts:”
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO091.pdf


Ohio rules of criminal procedures
RULE 3. Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall also state the numerical designation of the applicable statute or ordinance. It shall be made upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.

“state the essential facts”
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf
See page 120

Without any facts there is NO valid complaint, period.

End of discussion............

color of law said:

Federal rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 3. The Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer.

“This criminal complaint is based on these facts:”
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO091.pdf


Ohio rules of criminal procedures
RULE 3. Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall also state the numerical designation of the applicable statute or ordinance. It shall be made upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.

“state the essential facts”
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf
See page 120

Without any facts there is NO valid complaint, period.

End of discussion............

Click to expand...

Has anyone seen a copy of the complaint in this case? I would say 99% of the complaints that I notarize (and I notarize alot) are word for word copies of the ORC. In Hamilton County the clerk's office sends every PD a CD yearly with all the complaints for Ohio on them. All the officers have to do is add the defendants name and the date, sign and have it notarized, and it's good to go.

JediSkipdogg said:

Has anyone seen a copy of the complaint in this case? I would say 99% of the complaints that I notarize (and I notarize alot) are word for word copies of the ORC. In Hamilton County the clerk's office sends every PD a CD yearly with all the complaints for Ohio on them. All the officers have to do is add the defendants name and the date, sign and have it notarized, and it's good to go.

Click to expand...

The last page of the document here is a ticket-style complaint:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6gtW6DYSo1RVy05SU1NZy1IMjg/edit?pli=1

Jedi, do you notarize tickets that officers have signed when NOT in your presence?

JediSkipdogg said:

Has anyone seen a copy of the complaint in this case? I would say 99% of the complaints that I notarize (and I notarize alot) are word for word copies of the ORC. In Hamilton County the clerk's office sends every PD a CD yearly with all the complaints for Ohio on them. All the officers have to do is add the defendants name and the date, sign and have it notarized, and it's good to go.

Click to expand...

I'm still scratching my head over the "elements of a crime"/"facts of a crime" assertions.

I did have a thought though, since I still think that the two are different things... maybe a) the point has never been challenged, or b) brace yourself - courts ignore the law <gasp> so as to advance their objectives.

For a more detailed analysis, I'll have to get back to CoL and Werz... when my mind is clearer.

So......a fact is not a element and a element is not a fact.

I don't know how the courts break dow a statute into it's key elements, but this is MY attempt with ORC 2921.31

No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties

Click to expand...

Element 1
Offender must be a person (let's leave corporations out of this for now)

Element 2
Offender must NOT have privilege.

Element 3
Offender must intend to prevent, obstruct or delay

Element 4
Public official must be performing an authorized act

Element 5
Authorized act must be within the public official’s official capacity

Element 6
Offender must do an act that hampers or impedes the public official


IF that's accurate, and the complaint only lists Roy's refusal to answer questions, some elements are missing.

Element 1 - check. Roy is (I'm guessing here) a person.

Element 2 - missing. He had privilege to NOT answer the questions listed, IMHO.

Element 3 - ?. How do you prove intent?

Element 4 - check. A LEO can ask any questions they want.

Element 5 - check. Asking questions is probably the biggest part of a LEO's job.

Element 6 - ?. Is 'not answering questions' an 'act'? State v. Harris said no. Specifically, the court said:

One cannot be guilty of obstructing official business by doing nothing, because the test of the statute specifically requires the offender to act.

Click to expand...

If you tried to flee from the LEO, or lied during questioning, that could lead to Obstruction.

When they were spouting ordinances/statues I would have said...I have not memorized all the statues but I recall 42 USC 1983 , you know that one?


The motion to dismiss should win the day ...

color of law said:

End of discussion............

Click to expand...

In any Ohio trial court, the judge would quickly end the discussion with "motion denied."

But feel free to delude yourself.

JediSkipdogg said:

Has anyone seen a copy of the complaint in this case? I would say 99% of the complaints that I notarize (and I notarize alot) are word for word copies of the ORC. In Hamilton County the clerk's office sends every PD a CD yearly with all the complaints for Ohio on them. All the officers have to do is add the defendants name and the date, sign and have it notarized, and it's good to go.

Click to expand...

That's enough for complaints. That's enough for indictments, including Aggravated Murder with Death Penalty Specifications. And it always has been.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

I don't know how the courts break dow a statute into it's key elements, but this is MY attempt with ORC 2921.31


Element 1
Offender must be a person (let's leave corporations out of this for now)

Element 2
Offender must NOT have privilege.

Element 3
Offender must intend to prevent, obstruct or delay

Element 4
Public official must be performing an authorized act

Element 5
Authorized act must be within the public official’s official capacity

Element 6
Offender must do an act that hampers or impedes the public official

Click to expand...

I'm impressed! That was pretty good. The only remaining elements are the date and the venue statement. And as to Element 1, it would be more correctly stated that the offender is the person charged, in other words, the element of identification. The classic rookie trial mistakes for a prosecutor are (a) forgetting to have someone identify the defendant in open court as the person who did the misdeed, and (b) forgetting to establish that the crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Some statutes contain the "essential facts." Some statutes do not contain the "essential facts." And some statutes require additional facts because the "essential facts" listed (based on its own wording) requires more.

Then you have complaints that go beyond writing the "essential facts" that actually nullifies the complaint. Then you have complaints that leave out some of the "essential facts" that actually nullifies the complaint. Then you can have a combination of both.

This particular complaint fails on many levels. And the worse part is this jack booted thug tried to write a story to justify his big mistake. The coverup is what will burn him in the end......

Anyone know if it is Randolph County in Montgomery or Portage County? I am guessing Montgomery. I will be doing a public records request for Officer Jones' disciplinary record and such.

"OMG! Now OFCC is posting news of this import on Facebook, for God's sake!"
Well, I posted it on OFCC facebook first. Responses exploded. I also have monetize enabled on youtube and my guess is OFCC wanted a piece of the pie. They cite lack of censorship for the reason it was removed, which is reasonable as I did not edit the video at all and it contained some personal information.

John Williamson said:

...Well, I posted it on OFCC facebook first. Responses exploded...

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're an individual - not an organization that claims to want to "to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio". (my emphasis) Want easy money without saying anything about the incident? Post it on Facebook/YouTube and nowhere else.

John Williamson said:

...I also have monetize enabled on youtube and my guess is OFCC wanted a piece of the pie...

Click to expand...

My suspicions exactly. History has shown that OFCC treats open carriers like red-headed step children, except when they want a group of OCers to show up to make a public display.

color of law said:

...And the worse part is this jack booted thug tried to write a story to justify his big mistake. The coverup is what will burn him in the end.

Click to expand...

I think any fair-minded, intelligent person can see that this officer is engaged in a robust effort of creative story writing. The trouble is that this kind of stuff is going to keep happening until a) a large, public settlement ($$) is made in such a circumstance, or b) the RKBA organizations undertake continuing efforts to change laws, pressure the AG, etc. towards getting LEOs to cease and desist. Unfortunately, I don't think "b" will ever happen given what appears to be a level of coziness with elected (or to be elected) officials.

Now, if there was another gun rights organization in Ohio...

John Williamson said:

Anyone know if it is Randolph County in Montgomery or Portage County? I am guessing Montgomery. I will be doing a public records request for Officer Jones' disciplinary record and such.

"OMG! Now OFCC is posting news of this import on Facebook, for God's sake!"
Well, I posted it on OFCC facebook first. Responses exploded. I also have monetize enabled on youtube and my guess is OFCC wanted a piece of the pie. They cite lack of censorship for the reason it was removed, which is reasonable as I did not edit the video at all and it contained some personal information.

Click to expand...

TITLE 5 USC Section 552a (See Foot Notes)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/pdf/USCODE-2011-title5.pdf

DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
Section 7 of Pub. L. 93–579 provided that:
‘‘(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.
‘‘(2) the [The] provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to—
‘‘(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
‘‘(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
‘‘(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual
whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.’’

Click to expand...

Lets see, cop demands SS number without informing Call that the disclosure was mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.

And the SS was not bleeped from the DVD by the city before releasing it to the public.

Ohio requires a SS number to obtain a driver license because it was asked for before 1975. And for nothing else in Ohio prior to 1975.

JmE said:

I'm only part of the way through that report as it's difficult to choke down. That cop appears to be living in some fantasy world. Good Lord!

I think the female witness should've been named as she, supposedly, was frightened and this triggered the chain of events. If she even exists. She was the 'reason' that the officer was investigating; i.e. she was the reason for the 'official business' that was allegedly obstructed.

The report reads like a load of BS to me...

Click to expand...

As a former law enforcement officer this Riverside supervisor may be in some trouble. The report is crap and he knows it. Especially if he didn't get a statement from the witness. From what I understand Riverside police is pretty Busch League anyhow.

usamarshal said:

As a former law enforcement officer this Riverside supervisor may be in some trouble. The report is crap and he knows it. Especially if he didn't get a statement from the witness. From what I understand Riverside police is pretty Busch League anyhow.

Click to expand...

Since my post, I've seen her statement somewhere. So, she does exist. IIRC, her statement was brief and, although I'd have to read it again, didn't seem like enough to warrant the officer's (over)reaction. Basically, it was something like; 'I saw the man with a gun, it scared me, the officer went to talk to him, and I left.' She didn't state that she complained to the officer or anything. For all we know, the officer could have said to her 'Are you scared? If you are, I can go check him out. Just say that you are and I can check this bozo out.' (Of course, there's no proof that the officer said any of that... just that it's possible and wouldn't be contradicted by the woman's statement at the time.)

ETA: She was located later for a statement. The incident allegedly happened on 8-28 and they tracked her down for a statement on 9-6.