Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: My Newark Open Carry Meet Ended With Cuffs and Threats Of Arrest

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    As some of you are aware I hosted an OC meet at a private location (my church) on 3/15.

    The meet was fun, there where 12 of us in all which is pretty good for a first time meet.

    As we where finishing up my son & his GF and thier 1 year old baby where the first to leave. They where parked about 30 or 40 ft from the door.

    Police swarm in, put himup against thier vehicle, handcuff himand take his gun & begin a background check. Thier resoning was because he was walking around with a gun in a "known drug area".

    I went out to see what was going on and an officer takes a hold of my arm and guides me to the middle of the road & steals my gun & knife. This is where the short video starts (there is a lot more video, but this makes the point)

    NOTE FROM VIDEO:

    At about 18 seconds: After someone mentions taking my gun, the officers reply is "we got it secured right now until we figure out why he is walking around with a gun"

    around 23 seconds or so: "when we see a guy with a gun we are going to check it out"

    25-30 sec. The guy with his hands behind his back with officers is my son in handcuffs & gun taken (stolen). He had literally walked out with his girlfriend and 1 year old baby when the police stopped and cuffed him.

    1min 15-18 seconds: I say I am being forced to "show" ID & officer Fleming says "yes you are or you are going to jail". There is no Ohio law that says you have to "show" a physical ID. I tried to tell him I would tell him my info, but that was not good enough.

    2min 13 sec I say I was forced to produce ID & Officer say "Officer Fleming forced you " and when I press for what crime they answer for carrying a gun.


    The next day an e-mail is sent out to all sworn officers that a group was looking for a reaction and got it.Not true, it was an indoor private meet.

    Around 8 or 9 LEO's showed up, it was not good.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9uq5mMRG6A

    Lawyer Wanted







  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Cuffs = detained

    Good luck. I pray that you get a well funded endowment from the state.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Were you ever able to talk to Newark PD after the incident?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    I am not even going to try until I have a sit down with an attorney or two.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    rottman I'm glad you're seeing an attorney first. I read about your incident with Newark police of on OhioCCWforums.org and was shocked at the amount of bad advice that people were giving regarding going to chit chat with the police first. You were violated and so was your son. It's time that Ohio cops learn that they will pay for their bad actions against lawful gun carriers.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    WOw, this thread didn't get near the attention it did on ohioccwforums.org. I guess not many people from Ohio get on here?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    matthollycart wrote:
    WOw, this thread didn't get near the attention it did on ohioccwforums.org. I guess not many people from Ohio get on here?
    To be fair, I think many of us have seen the thread on OFCC already.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Thornville, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I am posting this statement in response to the charge that the people who attended the open carry meeting were trying to get a reaction from law enforcement. I attended that particular meeting. It was held inside a Church. We were not parading around chanting slogans or carrying signs, and about half of the attendee's (including myself) were not evenarmed. Theinstigating officer was dealing with a situation in which he observed a young man opening carrying (which is perfectly legal in Ohio)walking to his automobile carrying a baby and accompanied by his wife. By the time we walked outside to see what was happening, there were 9 or 10 police officers and 5 units there. Rottman was rightfully upset that his son was in handcuffs and the police seemed to be completely ignorant of Ohio Revised Code 9.68 whichallows open carry by citizens. He also was relieved of his firearm and put in handcuffs. The Newark police acted rather heavyhandedly in this situation and at times were less than respectful to bystanders. This situation was caused by a lack of education of Ohio laws by the very people charged with enforcing them. These 9 or 10 police officers were busy hassling a law abiding citizen instead of patroling the streets. It was an awful waste of the tax payers money.

  9. #9
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    Just curious on what the outcome was?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rottman43055 View Post
    1min 15-18 seconds: I say I am being forced to "show" ID & officer Fleming says "yes you are or you are going to jail". There is no Ohio law that says you have to "show" a physical ID.
    That is not entitle true.

    2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.



    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

    (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

    (2) The person witnessed any of the following:

    (a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

    (b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

    (c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

    (d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

    (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

    (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

    (D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

    Effective Date: 04-14-2006
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  11. #11
    Regular Member Kloutier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Spanish Fork Utah, Utah, USA
    Posts
    193
    Would also like to know the outcome

  12. #12
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    I tried to find it on the net, but no luck. I emailed Chief about it so I'll let everyone know if he responds.

  13. #13
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    Here is what cheif stated when I asked him about OC:

    Citizens have a right to bear arms and there is no law that prevents a person from openly carrying a firearm as long as they’re not legally prohibited from doing so – such as being a convicted felon, having a Domestic Violence conviction, etc.



    That said, when a police officer sees someone carrying a firearm in plain view, they are taught to look at the totality of the circumstances before making a stop. In other words, what is the person doing at the time? Are they standing in front of a bank looking side to side in a suspicious manner? I can’t remember one time in my 39-year career that I saw someone just walking down the street with a gun in a holster like they did in the old days - people just don’t do that. When they do it raises a suspicion in an officer’s mind and our training teaches us to observe the person to see what their behavior is at the time. If the person is looking over his shoulder or ducking in and out of doorways it rises to the level where an officer might believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. At that point an officer has a right to make a stop and determine what is occurring. If it’s determined the person was just waiting for someone and that’s why he was looking over his shoulder then the person is released from the stop.



    If a person is standing outside our City Building or County Courthouse at 3pm on a workday wearing a gun in a holster an officer would be justified in finding out what the person is doing because attacks on judges have occurred before and this again would rise to the level of mere suspicion. I’m not talking about an officer drawing down on the person and ordering him to his knees but he would be within the law to stop the person and find out what he is doing.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by rottman43055
    There is no Ohio law that says you have to "show" a physical ID.
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991
    That is not entitle[sic] true.
    2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
    (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
    (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
    (2) The person witnessed any of the following:
    <snip>
    The law says, as rottman originally claimed, you don't have to show ID.

    The law says you must disclose some of your personal information IF a LEO has reasonable suspicion of your involvement in, or witnessing of, a crime.

    Being armed in a (known to LE!) high-crime area can't resonably be considered a crime. It's common sense to want to protect yourself (& in this case, his family).

    And since the LEOs didn't have RAS of a crime, they were waaay out of line.
    I'm curious to hear how the case against the department turned out, & whether the stolen property was returned that night or there had to be lawyers involved.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    The law says, as rottman originally claimed, you don't have to show ID.

    The law says you must disclose some of your personal information IF a LEO has reasonable suspicion of your involvement in, or witnessing of, a crime.

    Being armed in a (known to LE!) high-crime area can't resonably be considered a crime. It's common sense to want to protect yourself (& in this case, his family).

    And since the LEOs didn't have RAS of a crime, they were waaay out of line.
    I'm curious to hear how the case against the department turned out, & whether the stolen property was returned that night or there had to be lawyers involved.
    Agreed but so many times the cops claim they have RAS even though they dont and they get away with the stop.
    Last edited by zack991; 01-11-2011 at 04:44 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    When any of us are carrying concealed we understand that we must inform an officer of our conceal carry status and also have identification on our persons and supply that identification if requested.

    When open carrying we are not required to have any type of identification on our persons. Knowing that the Ohio legislature passed ORC 2921.29.

    Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a law enforcement officer has wide leeway during an investigatory stop. But, that wide leeway is not unlimited. A stop under Terry is limited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also limited by Article 1 Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. ORC §2921.29 is unconstitutional as written. ORC §2921.29(A) states in part “No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:...” ORC §2921.29 goes well beyond the holding of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:

    "Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34."

    The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.

    ORC §2921.29 states “no person...shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth.” The term “or” in Websters dictionary is a conjunction introducing an alternative. Thus, in plain English ORC §2921.29 allows a person to give one of the three alternatives. But, what if an arresting officer charges an Accused with not supplying all three because the officer treated the term “or” as if it meant “and.” According to ORC §1.02(F) (“And” may be read “or,” and “or” may be read “and” if the sense requires it.) the officer is permitted to make such interpretation. The officer's interpretation, however, would be in direct violation of ORC §1.42 which states in part “Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.” Accordingly, the application of term “and” in ORC §2921.29(A) would then be in direct violation of Hiibel. Clearly, ORC §2921.29(A), when applied with the term “and” instead of “or”, would be beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed under the Fourth Amendment and therefore, ORC §2921.29 would be unconstitutional.

    If an Accused gave their name, but was arrested and jailed for not giving his address and date of birth, the arrest and jailing would be under the color of law and in violation of the Accused's constitutional right under the U.S. and Ohio Constitution.

    Just my opinion.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    155
    Hi Guys,

    back when this event happened I spoke to a few lawyers, two of which where somewhat interested in the case but shortly after that as some may know who following my posting I hurt my back very badly.

    I didn't need surgerey but I had two slightly buldged discs and a compound fracture of one of my vertabrea. I'm still seeing a Chiropractor.

    Bottom line I couldn't hardly walk for over two months much less work so I couldn't afford the fight. I did scedule a meeting with the Chief of police twice. Once they had to rescedule and the second one I was still hurting so bad I had to cancel.

    Basically after that I dropped it. I have continued to OC and I know a couple young tattooed up fellas who have OCed where we where harrassed.

    Also, I do know the next day a sergent who was on the scene asked for training on the matter. Also a memo went out to all the LEO's in the department saying a group of OCers went out looking for a reaction and got one (which was NOT true), said OC was legal and to approach with caution when approaching someone for OCing because you may be being set up for a civil suit.

    So, thats it. Wish I could have done more.

    EDIT: I would imagine with the recent Cleveland case where the OSC uphelp 9.68 including the part about the right to get lawyer fees back, this may help lawyers to become more willing to take cases on contingency, I hope so.
    Last edited by rottman43055; 01-17-2011 at 01:11 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Agreed but so many times the cops claim they have RAS even though they don't and they get away with the stop.
    It still doesn't say that you have to show physical ID, it says "(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:". Where does it say, show physical ID? I just see, "disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth". I can do that verbally, I do not need an ID to do that.
    Last edited by D_Weezy; 01-18-2011 at 08:19 PM. Reason: missing word

  19. #19
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by usamarshal View Post
    Here is what cheif stated when I asked him about OC:

    Citizens have a right to bear arms and there is no law that prevents a person from openly carrying a firearm as long as they’re not legally prohibited from doing so – such as being a convicted felon, having a Domestic Violence conviction, etc.



    That said, when a police officer sees someone carrying a firearm in plain view, they are taught to look at the totality of the circumstances before making a stop. In other words, what is the person doing at the time? Are they standing in front of a bank looking side to side in a suspicious manner? I can’t remember one time in my 39-year career that I saw someone just walking down the street with a gun in a holster like they did in the old days - people just don’t do that. When they do it raises a suspicion in an officer’s mind and our training teaches us to observe the person to see what their behavior is at the time. If the person is looking over his shoulder or ducking in and out of doorways it rises to the level where an officer might believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. At that point an officer has a right to make a stop and determine what is occurring. If it’s determined the person was just waiting for someone and that’s why he was looking over his shoulder then the person is released from the stop.



    If a person is standing outside our City Building or County Courthouse at 3pm on a workday wearing a gun in a holster an officer would be justified in finding out what the person is doing because attacks on judges have occurred before and this again would rise to the level of mere suspicion. I’m not talking about an officer drawing down on the person and ordering him to his knees but he would be within the law to stop the person and find out what he is doing.
    boy, they're milking the hell out of totality of circumstances these days, but as my signature says: totality of circumstances is a phrase one uses to lie their way out of wrong doing!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    boy, they're milking the hell out of totality of circumstances these days, but as my signature says: totality of circumstances is a phrase one uses to lie their way out of wrong doing!
    I agree. Funny thing is the Wendy's I often eat at sits right to a municipal building and the courthouse (with picnic tables in the yard) sits right across the St.

    I have bought lunch at Wendy's and sat there and ate & fed the squirrels, guess I'm lucky I haven't been stopped there I suppose.

    Mabe a picnic with friends is in order LOL
    Last edited by rottman43055; 01-19-2011 at 07:11 PM.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Weezy View Post
    It still doesn't say that you have to show physical ID, it says "(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:". Where does it say, show physical ID? I just see, "disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth". I can do that verbally, I do not need an ID to do that.
    Correct, it says disclose. How you disclose is your decision. But. please stop promoting the entire section. It's disclose name only. Nothing else.

    Of course CC in Ohio is different. CC license and a picture ID as well, government issued no less, must be proffered if requested by LEO.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Correct, it says disclose. How you disclose is your decision. But. please stop promoting the entire section. It's disclose name only. Nothing else.

    Of course CC in Ohio is different. CC license and a picture ID as well, government issued no less, must be proffered if requested by LEO.
    "It's disclose name only", You might want to read that again. It says "(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:". These are serial comma. They are used to include all items of a list, in a sentence. Therefore, a Law Enforcement Officer may ask for one, any, or all of these items, if they have reasonable suspicion that "(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense." Show me how, this does not include all three items in the list of the sentence and how, it is used just for "the person's name"?
    Last edited by D_Weezy; 01-22-2011 at 04:40 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65
    I forgot, that the "2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information." law, also includes certain crimes that you are a witness to, but I digress.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Weezy View Post
    "It's disclose name only", You might want to read that again. It says "(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:". These are serial comma. They are used to include all items of a list, in a sentence. Therefore, a Law Enforcement Officer may ask for one, any, or all of these items, if they have reasonable suspicion that "(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense." Show me how, this does not include all three items in the list of the sentence and how, it is used just for "the person's name"?
    Apparently you have chosen not to read my little treatise listed above. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    PS. Based on my above explanation as to why the ORC section does not support your theory is that a friend was acquitted of only giving his name. I'm not an attorney. But, look up the true definition of lawyer. And no, most attorneys are not lawyers.
    Last edited by color of law; 01-22-2011 at 11:55 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65
    Then why don't we have that part of the ORC changed to say, "(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name when requested by a law enforcement officer, who reasonably suspects either of the following:". and just omit the rest.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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