• 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.

Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.
One can make many novel arguments. The law remains what it is:

"The Fourth Amendment guarantees are not implicated in such an encounter unless the police officer has by either physical force or show of authority restrained the person's liberty so that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter."

What nobody seems to appreciate is that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the officers from being annoying. As long as they do not palpably restrict your freedom of movement or your opportunity for egress, there is no detention, and they can ask as many questions as they want. Whether or not you answer those questions is up to you.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations...
"Linear distance subject"? "Predicate all other separations"?

I appreciate your answer, since I've had the same question - further, farther? But... is there an English version of your reply?
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Maybe the owner should put signs announcing that his private property is a lawful carry zone.

I'm a bit puzzled. If it is private property and (presumably) the two carriers were inside, what gives the officers permission to go inside? I realize that anyone can walk into a laundromat, but the went in 'under color of authority'.

I would -assume- that unless the owner called the police, they had no right to go inside the laundromat and 'investigate'. Yes, I know they could just 'wander in' and ask 'consensual questions', as any person could who was curious.

I guess my question is: is this legal? Do cops actually go into a business on an anonymous 'complaint' (of a legal activity, no less).

If the owner had such signs up, would that have been capable of dissuading the cops from entering and questioning clients. (Would have have said 'oh we didn't even notice'?).

At any rate, I don't think owner-installed signs would have stopped this fishing-expedition. Further, I find it not credible that LEOs are routinely asking (expecting) felons to self-identify.

If I was their Sergeant, they'd be up for remedial training. I'd be calling them in the office and it would go:

* 'What was your cause for going in there like a tactical squad and harassing citizens with a baby, doing their laundry? This kind of thing is UNprofessional'.
* 'They were OC-ing which is LEGAL, and they were on Private Property engaged in legal and ordinary activity, and you had no complaint by the owner'
* 'Do you guys ask people on the street if they're felons, and then believe them? Are you living in a fantasy world?'
* 'If you fail to meet your quota next month because you're wandering around in laundromats asking people about the age of their babies instead of DOING YOUR JOB, you're gonna get suspended for a week without pay'.

...something like that. :)
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
Could we FURTHER our goals of acceptance and education about lawful open carry of firearms? I don't hink we can get any FARTHER off topic! ;-)

(I know, I started it, but sheesh! lol)

I WOULD like some feedback on an officer approaching someone on private property for a non-crime...
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/predicate

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/further#Usage_notesHistorically they have not been distinguished, but in formal logic distinction is essential.
OMG!!!!

I like this better (and thanks to notalawyer): "The quick and dirty tip is to use “farther” for physical distance and “further” for metaphorical, or figurative, distance."


But, to answer BriKuz (who should have used "further" both times) ;):

...I WOULD like some feedback on an officer approaching someone on private property for a non-crime...
Hey, the police were called, and they checked things out. IMHO, until and unless one finds out the nature of the call and the manner in which the dispatcher handled it, one shouldn't start faulting the officers. What they did was legal, even though annoying.
 
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Going onto private property on an anonymous complaint and not contacting the owner?

Cite, please?

You've already answered your own question:

...Yes, I know they could just 'wander in' and ask 'consensual questions', as any person could who was curious...
What "color of authority"? Did they detain or force the OP to stay? NO! Was their presence intimidating? Of course!

By your logic, if I'm in a mall and I see what I consider to be unlawful or suspicious activity, you expect the police to call management/the owner before coming on-scene? LOL
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
BB, though I agree with you... what unlawful/suspicious activity were my wife and I partaking in? (Granted, I don't know the contents of the caller's conversation with dispatch)
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
BB, though I agree with you... what unlawful/suspicious activity were my wife and I partaking in? (Granted, I don't know the contents of the caller's conversation with dispatch)
As JediSkipdogg (who is a dispatcher) will tell you, you call and the dispatcher dispatches. He can tell you how they handle things at his agency, but to my knowledge that's how things go generally.

In general, it's not up to the dispatcher to determine whether what is alleged to be going on is legal or illegal. Though the dispatcher may be trained to get additional information so as to advise or direct the officers, dispatchers don't make the kinds of executive decisions you might think they do. And, when Adam 12 gets the directive to roll, absent need for clarification or further information, they roll.

At this point, in the absence of information which you can, and I believe should, for your own enlightenment, get via an open records request, direct further questions about the dispatching process to Jedi.

Doing a records request is something you should learn how to do - and this is a perfect incident to learn how the process works.
 
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
To add to my previous response: BriKuz - once you know the contents of the call to dispatch, and the directives to the police officers, and the documentation (if any) made by the police officers, if you feel that sending an officer was overkill, then take that up with the chief and/or your local politicians - BUT again, find out what happened first.

This could be how it went down:

Dispatch: What is your emergency?
Caller: There's a man in the laundromat with a gun!!!

Dispatch: What's he doing sir?? Is he threatening anyone??
Caller: He's PUTTING HIS WET CLOTHES IN THE DRYER!!

Dispatch: Anything else sir?
Caller: YES, HIS WIFE IS PUTTING DIRTY CLOTHES IN THE WASHER!!

Dispatch: Anything else sir?
Caller: Yes, HIS WIFE HAS A GUN TOO!!

Dispatch: Is she doing anything with her gun?
Caller: No, but it looks menacing in the holster!

Dispatch: Is there anyone else with them sir?
Caller: Yes, it looks like they have a baby in a BABY SEAT!!

Dispatch: <rolls eyes after mentally consulting the policy manual> Would you like me to send an officer, sir?
Caller: Yes, PLEASE HURRY!

Dispatch: Thank you for calling sir.
 
Last edited:

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
You've already answered your own question:


What "color of authority"? Did they detain or force the OP to stay? NO! Was their presence intimidating? Of course!

By your logic, if I'm in a mall and I see what I consider to be unlawful or suspicious activity, you expect the police to call management/the owner before coming on-scene? LOL

1. As I understand the rules of OCDO you make an assertion (That's legal) and a cite is requested you should provide it.
2. The persons were not doing anything unlawful or suspicious, so that's a big non sequitur, good buddy.

I again request a cite to show your assertion (that's legal) has any basis in fact. A link to a law would be good. Otherwise you're blowing smoke to say that. Why say something is a law, or legal when it's just your opinion?
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
What "color of authority"? Did they detain or force the OP to stay? NO! Was their presence intimidating? Of course!

Two officers came together and entered different doors, that's called a 'flanking maneuver', used to box in detainees. That's detaining by authoritative presence. If the OP had just gathered the baby and his wife and walked out saying nothing (certainly their right), they'd have been arrested for resisting...that is, if they could get by the two armed 'persons' without touching them. After a ride downtown, they'd probably have been released.

If you think otherwise, you're inexperienced in these matters, perhaps.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Think what you want, but I'm not going to do case/ORC cites on something so inane.

You're free to violate the agreement you checked when you became a member.

By saying the above, I'll take that as an 'I dunno, I jess figgered it wuz true'. Thanks. :)
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Two officers came together and entered different doors, that's called a 'flanking maneuver', used to box in detainees. That's detaining by authoritative presence. If the OP had just gathered the baby and his wife and walked out saying nothing (certainly their right), they'd have been arrested for resisting...that is, if they could get by the two armed 'persons' without touching them. After a ride downtown, they'd probably have been released.

If you think otherwise, you're inexperienced in these matters, perhaps.
(my bold) ROFL!!

Whatever, good buddy.

Try that on your local police department, but make sure to PM me so I can pick up my half of the in or out of court settlement you're paid.
 
Last edited:

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
To add to my previous response: BriKuz - once you know the contents of the call to dispatch, and the directives to the police officers, and the documentation (if any) made by the police officers, if you feel that sending an officer was overkill, then take that up with the chief and/or your local politicians - BUT again, find out what happened first.

This could be how it went down:

Dispatch: What is your emergency?
Caller: There's a man in the laundromat with a gun!!!

Dispatch: What's he doing sir?? Is he threatening anyone??
Caller: He's PUTTING HIS WET CLOTHES IN THE DRYER!!

Dispatch: Anything else sir?
Caller: YES, HIS WIFE IS PUTTING DIRTY CLOTHES IN THE WASHER!!

Dispatch: Anything else sir?
Caller: Yes, HIS WIFE HAS A GUN TOO!!

Dispatch: Is she doing anything with her gun?
Caller: No, but it looks menacing in the holster!

Dispatch: Is there anyone else with them sir?
Caller: Yes, it looks like they have a baby in a BABY SEAT!!

Dispatch: <rolls eyes after mentally consulting the policy manual> Would you like me to send an officer, sir?
Caller: Yes, PLEASE HURRY!

Dispatch: Thank you for calling sir.

I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud when i read that... RIGHT as my boss walked by... you ALMOST got me in trouble at work, BB62!

I'd have to hazard a guess that these lines were included:

Dispatch: Is there anyone else with them sir?
Caller: Yes, it looks like they have a baby BREASTFEEDING with a gun!! And there is a 2 year old sitting down with them, too! Oh, my GOD, think of the CHILDREN!!! These CHILDREN may be in danger, as those guns could JUMP out of their holsters and hurt the CHILDREN! Plus, the woman's breasts are too large, she has TOO much MILK!!! she obviously isn't feeding that baby enough, because her BARE BREASTS are too large! Oh my Gosh, WHY won't she put a heavy wool blanket over herself so we don't have to look at her breasts OR her EVIL black assault large capacity clipped AUTOMATIC handgun?!? We need common sense legislation to make sure this never happens again! :banghead:
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud when i read that... RIGHT as my boss walked by... you ALMOST got me in trouble at work, BB62!...
Glad you enjoyed it. :lol:

PLEASE do a records request, and let us know the results. It will be instructive for you, and possibly useful for other incidents or matters.
 
Last edited:
Top