• 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.

New to open carry

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
That's a new one on me. If asked he better be able to articulate his reason for the stop. You need to read all of "Terry" and all the associated cases.



Also name only.......

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:


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.

Though i agree with the application of Terry and Hibel decisions, I think you miss the syntax usage of "or" in ORC §2921.29. The option is not for you to chose which one to give, but rather if any one of the requirements is not met you have failed to provide as required.

"Or" in addition to being a regular conjunction is not so limited and can be either a inclusive or exclusive disjunction.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Grapeshot, I was not implying an option is that you get to chose which one to give the officer. It was based on the wording of the statute.
(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:
The officer requests the name or address or date of birth. Versus name and address and date of birth.

The bottom line is Hiibel only requires giving your name if and only if the officer can articulate that a crime is about to be committed.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Grapeshot, I was not implying an option is that you get to chose which one to give the officer. It was based on the wording of the statute.

The officer requests the name or address or date of birth. Versus name and address and date of birth.

The bottom line is Hiibel only requires giving your name if and only if the officer can articulate that a crime is about to be committed.

I understand Hibal.

Your syntax comparison of the statute is flawed. If you fail to give any of the required elements, you are at fault: Name, address or date of birth. Replacing the "or" with an "and" would indicate that all 3 elements would need to be withheld - that is clearly not the case.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I understand Hibal.

Your syntax comparison of the statute is flawed. If you fail to give any of the required elements, you are at fault: Name, address or date of birth. Replacing the "or" with an "and" would indicate that all 3 elements would need to be withheld - that is clearly not the case.

Not flawed at all. The issue has already been before the court word for word as I posted. The person was charged with only giving their name and refusing to give address AND date of birth. The person was acquitted.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Not flawed at all. The issue has already been before the court word for word as I posted. The person was charged with only giving their name and refusing to give address AND date of birth. The person was acquitted.

Was that before a court of record that will effect lower court rulings or are you still subject to the next interpretation?
 
Top