They need to be reminded their opinion is NOT law. Good Job!
Thread: Gallia County Bad Encounter
Had a deputy sheriff try to make me cover my weapon..... I refused.
Short version: after eating inside McDonalds while open-carrying (no-one said anything, done it many times prior this McD's) I walked across the street to get something there, and when I came back to my vehicle I was asked why I was carrying a gun.
Listen to the recording for further info. It has been edited to remove personal info somewhat, and for empty spaces and such.
BTW, I have pictures I took immediately following this encounter of both entrance doors, they are NOT POSTED!
I will be talking to the Sheriff tomorrow if possible. As you can tell if you listen to the audio, I REFUSE to back down and/or be intimidated by a thug with a badge.
They need to be reminded their opinion is NOT law. Good Job!
Nice job, way to stand your ground! I'm interested to see what kind of response you get from the sheriff.
1 Up to OP for standing your ground...good job. You handled it great. I would definitely be calling their office. I am also interested in a follow up.
Update 8/20/10 I went to the Sheriff's office, got nowhere (got an attitude with me), next to City Police dept, they were polite but didnt remember any calls on that end of town and time, suggested I go to the 911 dispatch center and they would be able to tell me. That was already my next stop anyways, had a pleasant experience there and should have all requested info by early next week, will update more then.
Good job, but is Ohio a shall identify State? Were you driving your vehicle inside McDonalds when he pulled you over? If not why did you show your drivers license?
Ohio is a shall identify state. I was on foot, and I kicked myself for providing any ID at all......... (besides the required verbal name and address required in OH)
Unless you are friends or family of the sheriff, I would recommend against talking to the sheriff.
A formal written complaint. Verbal stuff is preferred by some police because they can just sweep it under the rug after they blow a person off with lip service.
Also, a written complaint may end up in the officer's personnel folder. That tends to get more attention than a passing word at the water cooler, if the supervisor is inclined to let it pass otherwise.
The main point is to hammer the legal angles. Let the fuzz know you know. For example, and only if this applies in your state, unless the cop had reasonable suspicion of a crime, he had no authority to detain you, nor to demand your ID. I did not listen to the audio, but I would be surprised if the cop requested your ID in a way that made it totally clear it was entirely voluntary whether you wanted to supply it. The main point is that they might laugh at you unless you prove you know the law and your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
The 4th Amendment angle is and always has been the main point of police encounters. A police encounter is only slightly about 2nd Amendment rights. It is much more about 4th Amendment rights.
Realize, too, that if you were in fact illegally seized and an identity document demand was made without authority, this is very unlikely the cop's first time doing so. A hard hitting written complaint may be the thing that starts the cop on the road to shaping up or shipping out, and saves who knows how many other future citizens from illegal detentions.
If you need help on figuring out these legal points, just ask.
Last edited by Citizen; 08-20-2010 at 10:23 PM.
Very well written Citizen, I can only agree with your statement.
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George S. Patton, Jr.
No news/info yet from the 911 center, and I will be out of town for a few days.....
Our early Colonial forefathers; criminals, traitors, revolutionaries and spies that they were, wrote the guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures into our Constitution in response to the actions of the lawful representatives of the Crown who were tasked with the keeping of the peace and preserving order. It it any wonder that certain parties who are tasked with keeping the peace and order of today's United States are somewhat ..... mmmm... reluctant ... to support the spirit of the Fourth Amendment?
The only purpose of the Fourth is to protect those who may be doing something the representatives of the government do not approve of.
It is a lot more than that. It upholds the dignity of the individual and prevents the wholesale fishing expeditions that JBTs with "hunches" and "gut feelings" often conduct.
Unfortunately the 4th still looks like a swiss cheese version of the original 4th A. I think that voice and video recorders will be great tools for flushing out the JBTs and reassigning them to other public service jobs like waste management specialist and sewer inspector where their abuse of law abiding citizens is less likely.
He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty
The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776
Thanks for standing your ground. You stood up for yourself, but by extension, you also stood up for all of us, as we have these rights in common. Stuff like this always improves my day.
In the movies, it's John McClane and big acts of heroism but in reality it's small acts of heroism like this that make a free society.
Why does this still happen? I know the gun laws better than most cops in Ohio. I refuse to believe that they are that ignorant. A lot of them just get off on being the bully and just like most bullies, once you stand up to them they back down. This stuff could have worked before preemption because of local laws but not anymore.
Went to the Gallipolis City Police station today, had a very pleasant conversation with the Chief. He stated that they were aware of the incident ( one of the officers saw it online) and have been doing an investigation (informal) of it. I have purposely kept some info off of the prior posts that (possibly) involved the City Police in this also.....(what transpired after the posted audio) as I was waiting to see what the info/facts would show. I am now satisfied about this aspect (the city police) and see no need to pursue this part any further.
I still need to have a conversation with the Sheriff, I just havent found a convenient time for myself to be able to do so. I have been told that he has an open-door policy and that it is easy to see/talk to him.
I am sure though, that he is aware of what happened and would not be surprised if he has listened to the audio himself, so I see no reason to talk to him sooner than is convenient for both of us......
I see some positives to what has transpired since this initially happened.... more people now know that open carry is legal (including some police/deputies that may not have known) and now maybe more citizens will carry that were possibly not sure of themselves (or the law) before.
(hopefully now they wont be unjustly confronted about it)
Last edited by axeanda45; 08-27-2010 at 04:29 PM.
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 “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. According to ORC §1.02(F) “And”¯ may be read “or,” and “or”¯ may be read as “and” if the sense requires it. Further, ORC §1.42 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 ORC §2921.29(A) is in direct violation of Hiibel. Clearly, ORC §2921.29(A), when applied with the term “and” instead of “or”¯ goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed under the Fourth Amendment.
Name only when open carrying, IMO.
Good Job, axeanda45.
Got in to see Sheriff Browning today. We had a good conversation, My main purpose for meeting with him was to make sure he was aware of what happened, and my side of the incident. He said he had already discussed the incident with the deputy that was involved. He assured me that his office is pro-gun and has no problem with citizens legally carrying firearms.
I did not bring up the issue of the deputy lying about the doors being posted and such...I was not there to be confrontational or to complain about /get revenge on the deputy....
I see this as incident as educational for all involved (and closed/finished).
Good on ya!
Well done, sir!