• 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.

Lawsuit filed for illegal open carry stop of forum member RCall

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,939
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A Facebook page called Miami County, Ohio Concealed/Open Carry includes a link to a YouTube video of a man allegedly stopped in Vandalia for open carrying a gun with a shared link from a “Roy Call.”

Here, let me fix this statement.

A Facebook page called Miami County, Ohio Concealed/Open Carry includes a link to a YouTube POLICE DASH-CAM video of a man allegedly stopped in Vandalia for open carrying a gun with a shared link from a “Roy Call.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWoVrkSpE58
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
As posted by "Makarov" on another thread:

RCalls Lawsuit Makes The News


This article is from the Dayton Daily News:

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/ne...apr2013_daytondailystubtomydaytondaily_launch

"While openly carrying his Springfield XDM .40-caliber handgun, Tipp City resident Roy Call walked into a Riverside Speedway store at 4:30 a.m. Aug. 12, 2012 to buy a sports drink.
That’s when — as claimed in a lawsuit against the city of Riverside, its mayor and two police officers — Call said he was illegally detained and briefly had his gun confiscated. Call is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $3.6 million in a lawsuit field in the United States District Court/Southern District of Ohio in Dayton.

But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate...."



Other OCDO thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?114312-RCalls-Lawsuit-Makes-The-News
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
so by saying that his officers are correct and that Call should have cooperated the chief is essentially endorsing their conduct. his view is that you need to cooperate or his department will make things very difficult for you. well, i hope this case makes things very difficult for this rogue cop and his band of highwaymen.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
A certain retired officer who sells guns was echoing the chief's words. He thought the officers' thug actions were justified because Roy did not identify himself. It does not matter to him (or to the chief) that the LAW requires that the officers have RAS of a CRIME before they demand ID (or search a car to find it).

Some LEOs need to learn that they must follow the law, just like everyone else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
That's the same sort of, "If you're getting raped, just lay back and enjoy it" advice given to women.

There is so much wrong in that, it's hard to find a place to start, but try I shall.....

But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate.
  • No. All Call 'had' to do was what was required of him by law in this circumstance, and that is absolutely nothing.


“Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two,” Reiss said.
  • Mr Call was not required by law to present his identification, nor was he required to carry any. Personal experience says that 'showing your papers' does not necessarily shorten any illegal detention if the officer has no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and is trying to find one.


“Given the time of the day, the location, and the fact that convenience store/gas stations are typical targets for robberies in the middle of the night,” Reiss said. “It would seem reasonable in the eyes of a police officer to ask someone who was carrying a gun if it was legally permissible for them to do so.”
  • The Supreme Court would disagree as shown by Terry, the officer would have been reasonable to 'keep an eye on' and develop a reasonable suspicion, but not to accost and detain before there was a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing or intent.


Police reports show a citizen at the Speedway at 3201 Valley Pike was concerned that a man had a gun in the open and told Riverside police Sgt. Harold Jones, who motioned to Call to come outside.
  • A report of a legal activity, the call could have said Call was carrying a cell phone, wallet, or Bible, is insufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity.


Jones’ incident report said Call would not answer questions relating to his identity. “He eventually said he had no identification with him. This was actually a lie as his identification was approximately 50 feet away in his truck along with his CCW card,” Jones’ report said. “This was not found for several minutes. He told me he was exercising his second amendment rights to openly carry a gun.”
  • Mr Call did the right thing as his identity would neither confirm nor deny any criminal activity being afoot. Nor was it a lie to say he had no identification on him. If someone asks 'do you have the time?" and your watch or cellphone is 50 feet away then saying you don't have the time isn't a lie. I strongly suspect that if Mr Call required a license to openly carry and it was 'fifty feet away' the officers would have said he 'didn't have a license with him." By way of saying, 'this was not found for several minutes' I suspect it was only found in a search incident to arrest or an inventory search if the vehicle was going to be towed. Searches incident to arrest are legal if they are to search for evidence related to the crime or to search for weapons readily available to the arrested person (If I've read Arizona v.Gant correctly. I suspect that departments are well aware of Gant and have developed a program of 'providing safe storage' for every car they come across where an arrest takes place. Of course, in order to do that they have to search the car and inventory it so no items gets stolen... and so they get a free peek at anything inside.

Chief Reiss added: “With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there’s a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way.”
  • The Chief seems to have defined a reasonable person as 'someone who cooperates with the police even when not required to nor is it in their best interests to do so."
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
WOW!!!!

Page four on the cop's report says:


The cop actually admits that Call did NOT do anything illegal and still charged him with a crime, Obstructing official business.

What a piece of work. And they wonder why people hate cops. Even back in the fifties my parents said don't trust a cop, they are not your friend.

And he did not "scare" the lady .... that's an emotional response ... only the lady can get the lady scared
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
As posted by "Makarov" on another thread:

RCalls Lawsuit Makes The News


This article is from the Dayton Daily News:

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/ne...apr2013_daytondailystubtomydaytondaily_launch

"While openly carrying his Springfield XDM .40-caliber handgun, Tipp City resident Roy Call walked into a Riverside Speedway store at 4:30 a.m. Aug. 12, 2012 to buy a sports drink.
That’s when — as claimed in a lawsuit against the city of Riverside, its mayor and two police officers — Call said he was illegally detained and briefly had his gun confiscated. Call is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $3.6 million in a lawsuit field in the United States District Court/Southern District of Ohio in Dayton.

But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate...."



Other OCDO thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?114312-RCalls-Lawsuit-Makes-The-News

should have asked for more $$$$ -- the $$$ is to prevent further occurances -- so a zillion is what I would give the guy
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
So, again, we get out-of-State bluster from one who continually gives "legal" advice, but who has never related having ever done any of this stuff about which he blusters.

$3.6 million is a helluvan incentive to other departments and officers not to repeat this crime. Considering that St. John got only $14,000, I don't see this case reaching into the millions. If Roy wins, I expect the award to be between $10,000 and $30,000, $200,000 tops. Still, common practice seems to be to ask for way more than one expects to get to ensure that he does not get less than he otherwise could have.

Roy's lawyer filed for $3.6 million. I trust his judgment infinitely more than any out-of-State "legal" blusterer.

Roy, continue to listen to your lawyer, not to any wannabes. Best of luck in your case. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...mail&utm_term=0_5f6757bd76-aa633b6829-6775581

SNIP

An Ohio man has slapped local government with a $3.6 million lawsuit after policemen allegedly violated his Constitutional rights. Police detained Ray Call and confiscated his weapon because he openly carried his firearm into a store.

According to reports, Call entered a store late one night with his gun openly on display. The authorities were alerted, and fairly soon two policemen arrived on the scene. The police officers held Call in the back of the police car, took his weapon, and demanded that he identify himself.

Call refused to identify himself. According to Ohio Revised Code, an individual is not obligated to identify himself to a police officer unless the officer reasonably suspects that the individual is involved in a crime.

When police didn't get any answers out of Call, they threatened to charge him with reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics intimidated Call into revealing his name, at which point police discovered that he had a CCW permit. Police returned his weapon and sent him on his way.

They also charged Call with obstruction of justice but later dropped those charges.

. . .

Call then filed a lawsuit asking for $600,000 in compensatory damages for “emotional trauma” and another $3 million in punitive damage for the “willful, callous and malicious conduct” of the police officers.

Call’s lawyer, Charles E. McFarland, said, “I normally do not comment on ongoing cases to the media, but believe that the complaint speaks for itself.”

It appears that Call has a solid case. Police cannot detain citizens and demand identification with no good reason. Call was well within his rights and Ohio laws clearly backed him up. Police could not have taken action against Call unless it appeared that he was about to commit a crime, and the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute suspicion.

. . .
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Now, now, eye95. While davidmcbeth has some way-out posts, I think he's on to something with this one.

I would only suggest an ACTUAL number instead of a zillion.

My personal favorite is a quattuordecillion. That's 10[SUP]45[/SUP] in case you were wondering.
 

Jordysoso

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
58
Location
NE, Ohio
Good luck OC brother! You have a strong case and hopefully will set a precedence for officers who decide to do this to others and reject us our rights!
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Makes me want to put on my Speedos and a .45 and go dance...

in front of the police station in Riverside...

at 4 in the morning.

:banana:
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Now, now, eye95. While davidmcbeth has some way-out posts, I think he's on to something with this one.

I would only suggest an ACTUAL number instead of a zillion.

My personal favorite is a quattuordecillion. That's 10[SUP]45[/SUP] in case you were wondering.

+1 yeah, what he said

I would ask for executions myself ... as an alternative relief ...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Now, now, eye95. While davidmcbeth has some way-out posts, I think he's on to something with this one.

I would only suggest an ACTUAL number instead of a zillion.

My personal favorite is a quattuordecillion. That's 10[SUP]45[/SUP] in case you were wondering.

Once again, his lawyer knows better than any of us what number is more than he can expect and ask for that number.

The fact that you defend that poster one iota gives me pause, but your choice. Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
AFIK, there are only the two threads, this one and one that exists to point out that the lawsuit is getting media coverage.

What's the problem?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
NEOOpenCarry said:
Better be careful with suing for emotional distress, they just might say he is not mentally stable enough to carry the firearm
It's not crazy that someone would be distressed at being threatened by cops, or illegally detained, or having passersby think s/he was a criminal.
Besides, 'mental distress' /= 'mentally incompetent'

JediSkipdogg said:
most Americans don't know that if they aren't committing a crime and the police have no RAS that they are, then they don't have to say anything to the police or ID who they are
Almost right.
Citizens have an absolute right to remain silent. They don't have to say anything at any time. In fact, there's rarely anything to be gained from speaking to officers, unless you're the one who called for help.

Mike said:
When police didn't get any answers out of Call, they threatened to charge him with reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances.
WTF does "reckless inconvenience" mean, is there even an OH law anywhere close to that, and how did they get "noise disturbances" from him walking into the restaurant?

MyWifeSaidYes said:
Makes me want to put on my Speedos and a .45 and go dance...
Mind bleach needed, STAT!
(Though I am curious how you plan to holster the gun.)
 
Top