• 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.

Definition of "stopped for a law enforcement purpose"

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
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"?





.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
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.
 

Splat!!

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
71
Location
SouthWestern, Ohio, USA
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..........
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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 investigate[suP]1[/suP] (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/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
 

OCforAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Ohio, ,
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.
 
Top