First encounter with a LEO

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Personally I don't like DL's or vehicle registration as freedom of movement (travel) combined with private property (cars) should not become a privilege just because you are on a road your taxes paid for.

There are vehicles other than automobiles , pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists, that are hazarded by poorly controlled (hence licensing) or poorly configured (hence registration) motor vehicles. Might, as the ability to put another at risk, does not make right.

Roads are rightly travelled by other than tax payers, i.e. guests.

The First Amendment refers to the Right to 'peaceably assemble'

 

[BB62]

imported post

Legba wrote:

color of law - the lawyer I'm retaining is in independent private practice. I interviewed several before deciding upon him, and he's even recommended by the Bar Association...

Just so others (and maybe you) are clear - a "recommendation" by the Bar Association is worth about as much as you paid for it.

The BA does nothing more than gather info from attorneys about their area of practice, then give out a few names when a specific area is asked about.

Not worth much at all, IMHO.

I'm not assaulting your choice, just clarifying things.

 

[Legba]

imported post

That was semi-facetious - I know a BA recommendation doesn't mean much by itself, but by way of comparison, a word-of-mouth recommendation that had been given to me turned up that the lawyer had been suspended from practice before and nearly disbarred for some kind of professional misconduct - this guy at least has no bad marks on him. I'm satisfied with my choice in any case.

-ljp

 

[Demarest]

imported post

Who did the NRA recommend?

 

[color of law]

imported post

To: Legba



Criminal RULE 5. Initial Appearance, Preliminary Hearing
(A) Procedure upon initial appearance. When a defendant first appears before a judge or magistrate, the judge or magistrate shall permit the accused or his counsel to read the complaint or a copy thereof, and shall inform the defendant:
(1) Of the nature of the charge against him;
Do you have a copy of the COMPLAINT? And what does the complaint say.
You mention felony. Is this a felony charge? If it is a felony, was there a Grand Jury indictment? If not then it has to be by information. I personally would not accept a felony charge by information.

The complaint must tell you what the charge is being brought against you. The wording of the Ohio Revised Code section(s) or the ORC section(s) itself.

Do not wave the reading of the charge. Also do NOT acknowledge that you understand the charge.

Ask your attorney to motion for a Bill if Particulars. See Criminal Rule 7.

If you do not understand how this game of war is played and you don't keep your attorneys in line you will get screwed. You have to know the rules better than the attorney. If you don't he may cut corners.

If you don't protect yourself, most attorneys will not protect you. All you are is a meal ticket. They don't go to jail if you loose, you do.

 

[reefteach]

imported post

Hey color,

You may be able to answer this question whichI have been trying to find the answer to:

May a defendent demurrer for dismisal at the arraignment? It may apply to this case, but I have also wondered for misdemeanor cases where one might use a pro se defense. And how is a demur different from a motion?

 

[color of law]

imported post

[size=Reefteach][/size]
[size=][/size]
[size=A demurrer is a motion to dismiss these days. Once civil and criminal rules of procedures were put in place, demurrers went by the wayside.][/size]
[size=][/size]
Criminal RULE 12. Pleadings and Motions Before Trial: Defenses and Objections
(A) Pleadings and motions. Pleadings in criminal proceedings shall be the complaint, and the indictment or information, and the pleas of not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty, and no contest. All other pleas, demurrers, and motions to quash, are abolished. Defenses and objections raised before trial which heretofore could have been raised by one or more of them shall be raised only by motion to dismiss or to grant appropriate relief, as provided in these rules.
[size=][/size]
[size=Your question – “May a defendant demurrer for dismissal at the arraignment?”][/size]
[size=][/size]The answer is yes, BUT in Ohio Municipal courts, they will not consider a motion to dismiss. If you file one the court will deny your motion. For myself, when I get a traffic ticket, I file all kinds of motions and notices before arraignment. However, if the ticket is a slam-dunk, in that, the ticket failed to state a charge or for some other reason I can show no crime could have happened, I may not file any motions. But I will serve notices.
[size=][/size]
[size=I just had a friend that got a ticket for going through a stop sign. The problem is the cop did not state the intersection it happened. The cop said on the ticket that it happened at a particular address. The problem is no such address existed. ][/size]
[size=][/size]
I hoped I answered your question.

 

[color of law]

imported post

OOPS!! Did my post in MS word, forgot the junk that goes with word. Won't get the junk in word pad.

 

[reefteach]

imported post

OK. I am kind of pissed now. On what legal ground do they stand on when they deny a motion to dismiss? The motion to dismiss(as I have envisioned it pertaining to open carriers)basically says that "Yes, I did what what the cops say; But NO, it is not illegal." It cuts the crap and gets down to business, and forces legal authorities to actually read the revised code. It forces prosecutors and judges to think about whether a charge has any legal standing. Denying these motions only clogs the courts with.............:banghead::banghead::banghead::cuss::cuss::cuss::what::what::what:



Sorry. It just seems that whatI thought was one of my best defenses is no longer taken seriously.

 

[Demarest]

imported post

Did you watch my case at all? Mr. Ellis filed a number of various motions, all perfectly intelligent and fully within the law. Each and every step, the judge disregarded the law, precedent, etc. In fact, the motion that was filed that convinced the prosecutor and city law director that it was time to let it go, the judge had already read and denied.

I said read presumptively. There was at least one time during the process when Mr. Ellis was arguing in court points he had already made to the judge. Yet later in private, the judge made it clear this was the first time he heard these points. My attorney also at one point had to explain to Mr. Keller what miranda was and why it was important as well as how it related to this case.

The judicial branch is supposed to be our last resort. Our last chance against tyranny in execution and tyranny in legislation. Yet some judges do not take their oath to this great nation or the liberty of its citizens seriously. We need to start impeaching such officials for neglect of duty, a high crime enumerated by our founding fathers so that we have a way to keep our civil SERVANTS accountable to us.

 

[color of law]

imported post

The problem is even if they drop the original charge the other charges will not be dropped, like disorderly conduct, interfering with official business and resisting arrest.

The judge has that power to just deny the motion. You can ask for finding of facts and conclusion of law for why the motion was denied. If if is in front of a magistrate, he can only write a report and [size="-1"]recommendation[/size] and you can object to it before a judge makes a final decision.

Speedy trial is important. Also see 2945.72 and 2945.73 for exceptions.

2945.71 Time for trial.
(A) Subject to division (D) of this section, a person against whom a charge is pending in a court not of record, or against whom a charge of minor misdemeanor is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial within thirty days after the person’s arrest or the service of summons.
(B) Subject to division (D) of this section, a person against whom a charge of misdemeanor, other than a minor misdemeanor, is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial as follows:
(1) Within forty-five days after the person’s arrest or the service of summons, if the offense charged is a misdemeanor of the third or fourth degree, or other misdemeanor for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for not more than sixty days;
(2) Within ninety days after the person’s arrest or the service of summons, if the offense charged is a misdemeanor of the first or second degree, or other misdemeanor for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for more than sixty days.
(C) A person against whom a charge of felony is pending:
(1) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in Criminal Rule 5(B), shall be accorded a preliminary hearing within fifteen consecutive days after the person’s arrest if the accused is not held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge or within ten consecutive days after the person’s arrest if the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge;
(2) Shall be brought to trial within two hundred seventy days after the person’s arrest.
(D) A person against whom one or more charges of different degrees, whether felonies, misdemeanors, or combinations of felonies and misdemeanors, all of which arose out of the same act or transaction, are pending shall be brought to trial on all of the charges within the time period required for the highest degree of offense charged, as determined under divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section.
(E) For purposes of computing time under divisions (A), (B), (C)(2), and (D) of this section, each day during which the accused is held in jail in lieu of bail on the pending charge shall be counted as three days. This division does not apply for purposes of computing time under division (C)(1) of this section.
(F) This section shall not be construed to modify in any way section 2941.401 or sections 2963.30 to 2963.35 of the Revised Code.

 

[Splat!!]

imported post

We need to start impeaching such officials for neglect of duty, a high crime enumerated by our founding fathers so that we have a way to keep our civil SERVANTS accountable to us.

That is a slow process........................................................................................:celebrate

 

[color of law]

imported post

Most judges do NOT read motions. They claim they don’t have time because they are handling to many cases. The real reason is they are going to deny anyway. They are not impartial. They work for the state and they are going to side with the state. This system is rigged against the citizen. The citizen is their meal ticket.

If you want to get a judge by the short hairs. Write at the end of your motion something like this: “The denial of this motion is intended to deny the defendant of his due process. And this denial of this motion is because this court believes the defendant is not entitled to due process of law.”

If the judge reads the motion, he will deny it in writing and take exception to the above statement.

In open court:

Citizen: Judge, I filed a motion on such and such date in regards to such and such and my understanding is you denied the motion. Is that correct?

Judge: Yes, I did deny the motion.

Citizen: Did you read the motion?

Judge: Yes, I did.

Citizen: Then judge I must ask you to recuse yourself from the case for bias and prejudice.

Judge: On what grounds?

Citizen: When you denied the motion, judge, you said The denial of the motion was intended to deny the defendant his due process rights. And the denial of the motion is because this court believes the defendant is not entitled to due process of law.

Judge: I did not say that when I denied the motion.

Citizen: Judge, you said you read the motion. I will be happy to read it to you judge. On page X, the motion said “The denial of this motion is intended to deny the defendant of due process. And this denial of this motion is because this court believes the defendant is not entitled to due process of law.” Clearly Judge, you did not read the motion. Judge, you are bias and prejudice and I must demand that you recuse yourself.

Judge: I will not remove myself from this case.

Citizen: I object and I will file a petition for writ of mandamus to the higher court as it relates to this matter.


What’s the judge going to do? He is on the spot!!!

 

[Demarest]

imported post

Splat!! wrote:

We need to start impeaching such officials for neglect of duty, a high crime enumerated by our founding fathers so that we have a way to keep our civil SERVANTS accountable to us.

That is a slow process........................................................................................:celebrate

Oh... well... then let's just let them continue you on the fast track of eroding what justice we have left instead.

 

[Legba]

imported post

I'm on top of it - what can be done is being done, but at the snail's pace of the court system.

-ljp

 

[LuvmyXD9]

imported post

bangelo wrote:

So I just started to open carry about 2 weeks ago and today was my first encounter with a LEO. This literally happened about 5 minutes ago and im still pumped up on adrenaline so excuse any typos and or rambaling thoughts.

My girlfriend and I were hungry and its a beautiful day outside so we decided to walk the half mile to subway and have lunch. The whole walk there and while eating in subway, no one even notices i was OCing. On the way back three police cars pull up behind us and he honks his horn. They all three exit there vehicles and one of the says "How ya doing?" I said, "fine, how are you?" The officer to his right yelled and pointed at me, "Keep your hands away from your weapon!" So I raised them about shoulder height while the first officer approached me and asked for my ID. I pointed to my jacket and he said go ahead.

Im military so I handed him my Mil ID and my out of state DL. He asked if I had a CHL, I said no I dont. He told me I couldnt carry a gun then, so I explained ORC 9.86 and he asked his partner, the one that yelled at me if he knew anything about this. He said yes he is allowed to carry as long as its not concealed. I thought he was going to be cool but he was a real jerk about things. He kept trying to discorage me from carrying is a bad tone of voice. Things like "Do you have something to hide?" "Im a LEO and I dont just walk down the street with my weapon like that." He even asked what my first shirts name was so I guess now i am going to get a call from him.

So the guy that yelled at me told his partner to get his digital camera out of his car and take a picture of me. I asked him if I was required to have my picture taken. I really didnt want them to have a picture of me, it just kind of felt like harrassment. So the guy that yelled at me quickly replied "YES you are required to have a picture taken. So they took it. Is this legal? Could I have refused? Should I call the sherriff?

Any way, while all this is happening the third LEO was patting down my girlfriend and searching her purse behind me. I can maybe kind of understand that. But any way the first very nice officer said that expect to get a lot of police called on you, and he really tried to discourage me from OCing and all i told him was that I understand. Didnt say I would or wouldnt. He was very plesant and professional. Great officer.

So does any one have any comments on getting my picture taken? What should I do? The officer that searched my girlfriend told her that they are taking my picture so they know who I am if they get another call. Plausible I guess.


Comments?

Aren't female officers only the ones allowed to search female suspects?