Unlawfully arrested?

color of law said:

As to discovery, State v. Brown is moot. I suggest you read the 2010 amendment to Criminal Rule 16.

Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with both the current and former Crim.R. 16. There is absolutely nothing in the new rule which changes the tolling of the statutory speedy trial time under R.C. 2945.71 pursuant to State v. Brown, supra. And in cases where discovery was demanded under the new Crim.R. 16, several appellate courts seem to agree. See State v. Simmons, 2011-Ohio-6074 (8th Dist.), ¶ 19; State v. Vrapi, 2012-Ohio-1018 (10th Dist.), ¶ 7; State v. O'Malia, 2012-Ohio-2051, (7th Dist.), ¶ 19.

color of law said:

Relying on a syllabus will get you in trouble most of the time. Understanding a syllabus requires reading the entire case. Nowhere in O'Brien does it say you waive your statutory speedy trial rights, the specific number of days assigned by statute. And your attempt to put words in my mouth seems to be your stock and trade. I did not use the term “simple” revocation. As well, I did not go into detail as to how such a notice should be worded. Your legal prowess has left a lot to be desired. And yes we are all entitled to our opinions.

Click to expand...

The syllabus merely restates what is written in the text: "We hold that, following an express written waiver of unlimited duration by an accused of his speedy trial rights the accused is not entitled to a discharge for delay in bringing him to trial unless the accused files a formal written objection to any further continuances and makes a demand for trial, following which the state must bring him to trial within a reasonable time. State v. O'Brien (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 7, 9. The "reasonable time" standard is the one applicable under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, as opposed to a specific number of days under R.C. 2945.71, minus any specific periods of extension under R.C. 2945.72.

It would appear that you are not accustomed to someone calling your bluff. Get used to it.

Werz said:

...The syllabus merely restates what is written in the text: "We hold that, following an express written waiver of unlimited duration by an accused of his speedy trial rights the accused is not entitled to a discharge for delay in bringing him to trial unless the accused files a formal written objection to any further continuances and makes a demand for trial, following which the state must bring him to trial within a reasonable time. State v. O'Brien (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 7, 9. The "reasonable time" standard is the one applicable under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, as opposed to a specific number of days under R.C. 2945.71, minus any specific periods of extension under R.C. 2945.72...

Click to expand...

Are you saying that once an individual waives their right to a speedy trial, the best they can get back, if they formally object, is a trial within a "reasonable time" - and further that "reasonable time" has little to no meaning?

BB62 said:

Are you saying that once an individual waives their right to a speedy trial, the best they can get back, if they formally object, is a trial within a "reasonable time" - and further that "reasonable time" has little to no meaning?

Click to expand...

It has a meaning as defined by the case law under the United States and Ohio Constitutions. But there is no specific time limit.

Here's the rationale:

The defendant is set for trial a week from speedy trial expiration, and three days before, the defendant claims to have a witness who will exonerate the defendant but cannot be found, and the defendant requests a continuance. The judge will grant a continuance only if the defendant waives speedy trial, so the defendant does. Two weeks later, the defendant withdraws the waiver, and adds (in essence), "Haha! Now you only have ten days to bring me to trial!" That creates an unreasonable burden on the court in terms of scheduling a trial date into a full court docket, and it creates an unreasonable burden on the prosecution in terms of serving subpoenas on witnesses, not to mention the scheduling problems it may create for witnesses.

In practice, the judge will usually reschedule the trial as early as the docket will allow. Why? Because the judge wants it done and off the docket. That's why requests to "revoke" unlimited speedy trial waivers are very rare. Of course, if they wanted to, the appellate courts could promulgate the same rule applicable to statutory speedy trial provisions when a defendant fails to appear for a hearing and a capias is issued: the speedy trial clock resets to zero, commencing on the date of the defendant's re-arrest.

If we can get Color of Law and Werz together for lunch, I think we could charge admission!

Not to crash the party...

I can't help but noticing the slightly tangential nature of the past few days' worth of posts. while this may be no more than a mildly interesting story for most to track as the months wear on, for me this is a very serious and potentially life-changing event. I could go to jail for something i had every right to do. Towards that end, and please accept my apologies if i seem overly stern, could we return to the matter at hand? Specifically, is there no one willing to PM me with a request for a phone number, or chat with me online to further my induction into this circle?

Michael Porschien said:

I can't help but noticing the slightly tangential nature of the past few days' worth of posts. while this may be no more than a mildly interesting story for most to track as the months wear on, for me this is a very serious and potentially life-changing event. I could go to jail for something i had every right to do. Towards that end, and please accept my apologies if i seem overly stern, could we return to the matter at hand? Specifically, is there no one willing to PM me with a request for a phone number, or chat with me online to further my induction into this circle?

Click to expand...

Somebody step forward please.

This is everybody's fight. We stand together or we swing alone. This could be you or I.

Sending PM now.

http://kingsknight.org/ocpacket.zip

The Open Carry Packet has been updated to include the new document from Cincinnati Police Dept.. There are a handful of documents in here that state that OC is legal and therefore does not constitute RAS/PC.
I hope it helps.

BTW - the pointy object I carry in my pocket is a tool, not a weapon. I used it today to open a fresh tomato.

Spoke with the OP this morning.

It sounds like a LEO got scared of the big, bad gun on an open carrier's hip an initiated a stop and called for backup.

Then another LEO decided that the OP was committing some kind of crime by recording the incident and confiscated his phone prior to making an arrest.

I'm not sure of the timeline, and we probably shouldn't discuss it in too much detail here, but we definitely have open carry harassment going on in Youngstown.

Youngstown Anti Open Carry Cop (Video included!)

The long-awaited link to the Youtube video of the initial 4 minutes of my stop. The video starts seconds after the officer gets out of his vehicle. No important dialogue was missed. The stop ends with the officer taking my phone and shutting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOSocHUR2IE&feature=youtu.be

The officer says he has a right to ask you about your open carry. He is right. Every person, including LEOs have the right to ask you a question.

Absent RAS, he does not have the authority to require an answer. Frankly, he was being reasonable (considering how ignorant he was) until he confiscated your phone. That he did not have the right nor the authority to do. That is the point in time when he went from being a LEO to being a thug, from enforcing the law to breaking it.

He should be arrested and held to account for robbery, possibly even armed robbery!

I think you should swear out a criminal complaint.

Ah! But the citizen's phone is vital evidence, seized in the course of a lawful-ish "investigation", and for the LEO's safety, in the commission of a heinous crime.....contempt of cop, by the citizen, for being lawfully and visibly armed.....AND, recording the consensual contact without the consent of the LEO.

A sternly worded Post-it note, affixed to the front of his personnel record, I see in that LEOs future.

If the citizen doesn't swear out a criminal complaint, the post-it is more than he can expect.

He should swear out the criminal complaint. I witnessed a robbery on the tape. The robber was armed. I don't know Ohio law that well yet, but in some States, the mere visible presence of a weapon during a forcible robbery constitutes armed robbery.

I can't stress this enough: I would swear out a criminal complaint against the officer. It may go nowhere fast, but folks in power will be forced to look into the matter.

eye95 said:

If the citizen doesn't swear out a criminal complaint, the post-it is more than he can expect.

He should swear out the criminal complaint. I witnessed a robbery on the tape. The robber was armed. I don't know Ohio law that well yet, but in some States, the mere visible presence of a weapon during a forcible robbery constitutes armed robbery.

I can't stress this enough: I would swear out a criminal complaint against the officer. It may go nowhere fast, but folks in power will be forced to look into the matter.

Click to expand...

And who do you swear out that criminal complaint to? Swearing it out to me will do no good. The prosecutors office won't talk to Joe Smoe as that's not their job. The police department with the problem probably won't care if they support this type of behavior. So again, who does one swear a criminal complaint against an officer too? I've asked this numerous times on different forums for various topics and have never gotten a real answer. It's because, well, unless you find one of those willing to pick up the case and start it, you've got nothing.

Armed Robbery doesn't even have to have the weapon shown. You can have a 100% concealed handgun on you, never pull it out or show, steal some skittles from the 7-11, and you didn't commit theft, you committed armed robbery. Yes, it happened about two years ago in Ohio somewhere.

JediSkipdogg said:

And who do you swear out that criminal complaint to? Swearing it out to me will do no good. The prosecutors office won't talk to Joe Smoe as that's not their job. The police department with the problem probably won't care if they support this type of behavior. So again, who does one swear a criminal complaint against an officer too? I've asked this numerous times on different forums for various topics and have never gotten a real answer. It's because, well, unless you find one of those willing to pick up the case and start it, you've got nothing.

Armed Robbery doesn't even have to have the weapon shown. You can have a 100% concealed handgun on you, never pull it out or show, steal some skittles from the 7-11, and you didn't commit theft, you committed armed robbery. Yes, it happened about two years ago in Ohio somewhere.

Click to expand...

You swear out the complaint with whomever you would if it were a non-LEO. They cannot refuse to accept the complaint. If they do, take their lack of response to IAB or the equivalent. Press the issue.

The point is that if we do nothing, nothing will happen. If we do something, there is a chance of correction.

It's the age-old externalization vs. internalization. If you would be a slave, externalize. If you would have a modicum of control over your destiny, internalize.

What can they do to me? NO!! What can I now do for myself?

OC for ME said:

A sternly worded Post-it note, affixed to the front of his personnel record, I see in that LEOs future.

Click to expand...

But that post-it-note will not be releasable to the GenPop. Yep, that's the ticket!

The cop that took his phone is not the same, reasonable cop that's on video.

Do we know the name of the cop that stole the phone?

The bad cop said he was confiscating the phone, but did not erase the recording.

Why did they give back his phone and not his gun?

eye95 said:

The officer says he has a right to ask you about your open carry. He is right. Every person, including LEOs have the right to ask you a question.

Absent RAS, he does not have the authority to require an answer. Frankly, he was being reasonable (considering how ignorant he was) until he confiscated your phone. That he did not have the right nor the authority to do. That is the point in time when he went from being a LEO to being a thug, from enforcing the law to breaking it.

He should be arrested and held to account for robbery, possibly even armed robbery!

I think you should swear out a criminal complaint.

Click to expand...

Title 18 USC 242, go to closest FBI or US Attorney's office.

F350 said:

Title 18 USC 242, go to closest FBI or US Attorney's office.

Click to expand...

That deals with civil rights violations, right?

I am saying charge the officer with armed robbery. That is a State offense, not federal.

Also, nothing says that you cannot pursue both courses. However, the advantage of filing the criminal complaint is that it communicates directly to the department from which the thuggish behavior emanates. The stark realization that errant behavior could qualify as criminal just might jog the department into adjusting its training and the mindset that it fosters.

eye95 said:

That deals with civil rights violations, right?

I am saying charge the officer with armed robbery. That is a State offense, not federal.

Also, nothing says that you cannot pursue both courses. However, the advantage of filing the criminal complaint is that it communicates directly to the department from which the thuggish behavior emanates. The stark realization that errant behavior could qualify as criminal just might jog the department into adjusting its training and the mindset that it fosters.

Click to expand...

Yea but, the statute states penalty is......

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Click to expand...

If the OP can't get anyone locally to do anything this is another route and since it was an uniformed ARMED officer the threat of a dangerous weapon was there and he is likely to get more federal time than state. I think the threat of 10 years federal time will send the message that thuggish behavior will not be tolerated. And federal time is harsher than state time most of the time.

And if the OP really wants to send a message he can also go 18 USC 241 the criminal conspiracy statute, every officer on site and right on up the chain to at least the shift commander, imagine the message having a half dozen officers facing 10 years federal time will send through a department.

If it were me we would be going 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 as well.