Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Definition of "stopped for a law enforcement purpose"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.12

    "If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun"



    Other than the obvious traffic stop or RAS detainment, exactly what does "stopped for a law enforcement purpose" mean? If I'm standing in line at Walmart and leo approaches me to ask why my t-shirt says "Shall not be infringed", is that a "stop", is there a law they are enforcing and is their purpose simply to ask a question?

    The way this is worded it seems to me like they could use any excuse in the world. I read this as the language "law enforcement purpose" to mean they are enforcing the laws of Ohio. Why do I get the feeling they worded this so that it can be used to mean whatever they want it to, such as "officer had a hunch" or "something looked out of place so we asked him questions".

    I also see this language as a way to screw the guy who was just stopped and has already informed. This says that you have to inform "any" leo who approaches you after you have been stopped. I read that to mean that if leo 1 stops you then leo 2 walks over, then 3, then 4, etc., you have to notify them as well?


    What if the leo simply approaches you to ask if you were a witness, is that a stop? If so then leo cannot then approach you because the stop occurred after the fact, so do you still have to alert them? And if that's the case then what if they stop you, walk back to their car, then turn around to approach you again? Why can't they simply say "any encounter" or "for RAS"?


    And then you have this scenario: Leo approaches you looking for info about potential crime you witnessed. While talking he notices bulge on your side, asks if you're CC, you refuse to answer, he eventually decides to conduct Terry frisk and finds CCW. Is there RAS or fruit of poisonous tree? If suppressed, get license back or still have to wait a year?





    Has the state defined "Sopped" and "Law enforcement purpose"?





    .

  2. #2
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,077

    Post imported post

    It's not that complicated, and I don't recall any real issues over the matter.

    traffic stop
    stopped for questioning
    witness to a crime or suspected crime
    sobriety checkpoint

    In addition, I would notify if I called THEM for an official purpose, such as to report a crime or suspected crime.

    I don't recall ever seeing a SERIOUS issue over an "official purpose" stop. If there have been any, I'm sure they're outnumbered 20 to 1 by issues regarding "promptness" of notification, especially in instances where a sleazy cop tells somebody to remain silent, THEN charges them with failure to "promptly" notify. This happened in Beachwood. The guy managed to notify after 51 seconds. He was arrested, charged, tried and acquitted. I'd be VERY surprised if he didn't sue all involved.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    SouthWestern, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    70

    Post imported post

    I had an issue with this the other day................I rolled up on a service call , unit had thrown a driveshaft in the middle of the road... state patrol has pulled in behind disabled unit..........Driver is talking to LEO at cruiser window, I proceed to downed unit and on phone trying to get wrecker ETA.........

    I start back to my truck and I am motioned over to cruiser as I am approaching he asks, When were you going to tell me about the gun........?? ( wind is whipping and blowing cover shirt everywhere, I carry OWB with cover shirt only) I replied I wasn't , I wasn't a subject ofa stop or encounter until now.. Checks my info and whines a little about notifying ,anytime a LEO is present..........

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850

    Post imported post

    OCforAll quoted:
    http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.12

    "If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun"
    This sounds to me like a perfect example of sloppy (deliberate?) phrasing that confuses things for the citizens and gives cops latitude they don't deserve.

    Why use the confusing word "stopped"? A legal term thatis much clearer is "seized": "If the person is seized for a law enforcement purpose..." Such phrasing makes it much clearer.

    Many seizures are obvious--traffic stops, road-blocks, and so forth. But, how is a person to know during a foot encounter that he is being contacted for a law-enforcement purpose unless the cop declares it?Also, remember, cops are allowed to contact someone consensually to investigate1 (investigate being a law enforcement purpose.) If a person is being contacted consensually for a law-enforcement purpose, does it meanthe person is being "stopped"

    I have seen right here on this forumpolice commentswhere the word "stop" is used sloppily to include even consensual encounters.



    1. " [t]here is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets,..." Terry v Ohio Justice White's concurring opinion.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZO.html
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    I don't think seized is the correct term though, as it implies detainment. A leo could stop you and you are not detained, e.g. ask questions. What if you are standing next to someone and leo starts talking to them but not you. What if you approach leo to report a traffic accident. What if you are just standing there and leo walks up to you. If you're not in motion and not being detained, how is that a stop? What if leo starts talking to you, you ask if you are being detained, and they say no, are you being stopped since you are free to leave?

    Another one: The tow truck driver. Leo calls him over to ask about why not notify. Driver explains the law says there was no stop then notifies he is legally CC. Leo asks to see CCW permit and driver refuses. Nothing in the law mandates you have to show id, only that you have to notify. But in this case I guess leo saw the weapon so then driver would have to produce license.


    This law is so vague it's ridiculous.

Posting Permissions

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