Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: 6th Circuit ruling on illegal detention of OCer

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    6th Circuit ruling on illegal detention of OCer

    Yes, it happened in Ohio, but my thoughts are that the theory behind the decision applicable to the rest of the country as well.


    http://www.aele.org/law/2015all07/LR2015JUL.html

    The man carried a cell phone, holstered on his hip, next to a semiautomatic handgun. a motorcyclist passing by stopped to complain about the visible weapon, and after a heated argument, called 911. The dispatcher stated that the weapon was legal in Ohio with a concealed carry weapon permit. An officer was dispatched, and took possession of the man's weapon. The officer threatened to arrest the man for inducing panic and placed him in handcuffs. .... While the trial court rejected First and Second Amendment charges against the officer on summary judgment, it permitted Fourth Amendment and state law claims to go forward.

    A federal appeals court upheld this result. It noted that the officer had the right to approach the plaintiff and ask him questions, but that Ohio law permitted the man, with his permit, to do exactly what he was doing, openly carry his firearm. The officer had no basis for uncertainty abut the law, and had no evidence that the man was dangerous. All that he saw was that the man was armed, and legally so. There was no basis for reasonable suspicion of inducing panic or that the man needed to be disarmed, and allowing stops in these circumstances would effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protection for legally armed persons. The court noted that "Not only has the State made open carry of a firearm legal, but it also does not require gun owners to produce or even carry their licenses for inquiring officers." While the officer also claimed that the man made a "furtive motion" towards his weapon before being disarmed, that was disputed and was an issue of fact for a jury. .... Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep't., #14-4050, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7868, 2015 Fed. App. 0092P (6th Cir.).
    http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...5a0092p-06.pdf

    Dispatcher tells 911 caller that OC is legal in Ohio with a CCW. But then decides to send a cop anyhow: "I'm not an officer" - suggesting that even though she knows the behavior reported is legal she's going to send a cop to check things out.

    Note is the behavior of the guy's wife. "Helpful as a rubber crutch" does not even begin to describe her and the way she acts, starting with the guy who called 911 and continuing on to the cop who showed up.

    The cop also displayed a lack of mental brilliance when he threatened to arrest the guy for inducing a panic when the wife told him to go look up [via the in-car computer?] the guy's carry permit.

    Look at the last sentence on page 4 of the opinion. Read it carefully. Stop laughing and figure out what you can do to make that actually happen.

    Read the first full paragraph of page 6. [I'm thinking of having it printed out and laminated for a card in my wallet.]

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes, it happened in Ohio, but my thoughts are that the theory behind the decision applicable to the rest of the country as well.


    http://www.aele.org/law/2015all07/LR2015JUL.html



    http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...5a0092p-06.pdf

    Dispatcher tells 911 caller that OC is legal in Ohio with a CCW. But then decides to send a cop anyhow: "I'm not an officer" - suggesting that even though she knows the behavior reported is legal she's going to send a cop to check things out.

    Note is the behavior of the guy's wife. "Helpful as a rubber crutch" does not even begin to describe her and the way she acts, starting with the guy who called 911 and continuing on to the cop who showed up.

    The cop also displayed a lack of mental brilliance when he threatened to arrest the guy for inducing a panic when the wife told him to go look up [via the in-car computer?] the guy's carry permit.

    Look at the last sentence on page 4 of the opinion. Read it carefully. Stop laughing and figure out what you can do to make that actually happen.

    Read the first full paragraph of page 6. [I'm thinking of having it printed out and laminated for a card in my wallet.]

    stay safe.
    if endorsements are tied to an ID like they are in MO, they can look up a copy of it on their in car computer which will show the endorsement when pulled up. kind of making the requirement to carry it redundant, but it's about money ( $35 fine in this case) and as such is corporatized law, or law for profit.
    Last edited by Ezek; 07-01-2015 at 01:21 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    There was/is a very similar case here in Michigan, the Deffert case, where the federal judge ruled in favor of the PD. We are in the 6ths jurisdiction, and yet it came down totally opposite. Granted, it hasnt hit that level, but shouldnt lower courts take things like this into consideration?
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •