Unlawfully arrested?

[Sigger]

Wouldn't that be a hoot, to march down the street as a group of ordinary citizens, simply exercising our right to open carry, and no, sir, officer, i dont have ID, and no, sir, you may not relieve me of my firearm or search my person. It would be a good laugh... yaknow, until they start tazing people for no reason. Of course, then you'd have the "pain and suffering" clause for a sizable lawsuit...

Honestly, I think the place we need to have an all-day OC walk is in front of The Ohio Attorney General's office. There is too much of this crap going on. Unfortunately, with the recent event in Ct., I don't thing that now would be the best time.

 

[Hareuhal]

Honestly, I think the place we need to have an all-day OC walk is in front of The Ohio Attorney General's office. There is too much of this crap going on. Unfortunately, with the recent event in Ct., I don't thing that now would be the best time.

The Attorney General supports our 2A rights, including OC. I'm not entirely sure why we should walk in front of his office when we can do that in front of offices in cities which refuse to follow the law.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[color of law]

One of two things needs to be taken care of by your attorney.

You want the ammo back or the value of such ammo paid to you. No political office is allow to profit without a statute that allows for such. Also, the court has not declared the ammo as contraband. Taking the ammo is plane and simple theft.

You also want an affidavit from the property officer that the ammo has been in his/her's custody until returned to you or destroyed. And that your firearm has never been fired while in his/her's custody. You also want the same from whoever had possession of the firearm and ammo, chain of custody.

Your attorney needs to get the police to have this happen on their on volition or have the court order the cops to do it.

I hope you did not sign anything waving your rights.

You don't need your bullets or shell casings showing up at a crime scene.

 

[Ohio Patriot]

Excellent news.

And time for an open carry walk...

 

[ps1mhd]

http://kingsknight.org/ocpacket.zip

The Open Carry Packet has been updated to include the new document from Cincinnati Police Dept.. There are a handful of documents in here that state that OC is legal and therefore does not constitute RAS/PC.
I hope it helps.

BTW - the pointy object I carry in my pocket is a tool, not a weapon. I used it today to open a fresh tomato.

Sigger

Do you have a new link?
The one in your post no longer works.

Mike

 

[Sigger]

Sigger

Do you have a new link?
The one in your post no longer works.

Mike

It's fixed. Thanks for letting me know!

 

[Michael Porschien]

Dismissal

I have excellent news for everyone here who has helped me wade into this murky legal system, and to come out on the other side: Case dismissed! I have in my possession a signed and dated document saying i'm an innocent man. Not that i needed the confirmation, but my civil attorney sure seemed to want it. I went to court this morning, armed with an audio recorder and an empty holster, sat in the room for maybe 30 minutes, and my attorney beckoned me out to tell me the good news. However, this is where the story takes a turn for the less than ideal.

These Youngstown cops really need to learn the law...

So, i walk into the police station, next door to the muni. court, and head up to the fourth floor. My efforts to get my knife and ammunition were fruitless, because the property officer wanted a court order, or someone to sign off on it. The three people allowed to sign off on the release were not present, so as instructed by my attorney, i gave her a call, and headed back towards the muni. court. That's where things got really hairy.

As i was walking to security, and began taking my phone, wallet, keys, ect, out of my pockets, i was stopped by a Srg. Dapolito, who insisted that i could not enter the courthouse wearing an empty holster. i stayed polite, while i pulled out my recorder (yes, yes, i know!! i shouldn't have turned it off. it was almost out of storage space, and i had already been through 2 checkpoints!!) And after i got it out, i recorded him saying the following:

(keep in mind this is not a full transcript of the 2 minute recording, and the audio will be up in a little bit, after i redact any personal info.)
(About halfway through the audio)

Srg: If you can give me one good reason why you wanna go up there with that holster, I might consider it. Now give me one good reason.

Me: Because it is completely harmless. and i am legally allowed to do it.

Srg: No! You're not allowed to do it.

Me: Ahh... yeah!

Srg: No! You're not! Where's your concealed carry weapon.. ahh... ID.

Me: It's just a piece of plastic.

Srg: I don't care!, you're not going up there with it. Go outside and call your attorney. tell them what i said.

Me: Fair enough.

(End Transcript)

Afterwards i walked out and called my attorney, who told me to just go home, so as to not get arrested for .... nothing, again. So, what do you all think?

 

[Hareuhal]

We need to do an OC walk, me thinks.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[eye95]

You legally whooped the cops. They didn't like that. So they are picking new fights with you. This is bordering on harassment. Unless you hold the officers civilly or criminally responsible for their behavior, expect some to keep finding new and different ways to make you pay for contempt of cop.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Hareuhal]

Out of curiosity, did you get stuck paying the bills, or did they?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[color of law]

I have excellent news for everyone here who has helped me wade into this murky legal system, and to come out on the other side: Case dismissed! I have in my possession a signed and dated document saying i'm an innocent man. Not that i needed the confirmation, but my civil attorney sure seemed to want it. I went to court this morning, armed with an audio recorder and an empty holster, sat in the room for maybe 30 minutes, and my attorney beckoned me out to tell me the good news. However, this is where the story takes a turn for the less than ideal.

No you don't have excellent news. You just have news. And questionable news at that. None of this happened in open court? Your civil attorney?

So, i walk into the police station, next door to the muni. court, and head up to the fourth floor. My efforts to get my knife and ammunition were fruitless, because the property officer wanted a court order, or someone to sign off on it. The three people allowed to sign off on the release were not present, so as instructed by my attorney, i gave her a call, and headed back towards the muni. court. That's where things got really hairy.

And your civil attorney did not ask for an order from the judge releasing your property? Sounds par for the course. Attorney dropping the ball at the five yard line.

As i was walking to security, and began taking my phone, wallet, keys, ect, out of my pockets, i was stopped by a Srg. Dapolito, who insisted that i could not enter the courthouse wearing an empty holster. i stayed polite, while i pulled out my recorder (yes, yes, i know!! i shouldn't have turned it off. it was almost out of storage space, and i had already been through 2 checkpoints!!) And after i got it out, i recorded him saying the following:

And they know you just got screwed by your attorney because your attorney did not have the necessary skills to properly protect you. How do I know that?

Afterwards i walked out and called my attorney, who told me to just go home, so as to not get arrested for .... nothing, again. So, what do you all think?

Because your attorney told you to go home...................

 

[Michael Porschien]

1: i have never had anything happen in "open court." The only time the judge even saw my case was at the Suppresion hearing on the 18th of Dec. They always do their deals behind the door. I think its a Muni. thing, or a Youngstown thing. My Civil attorney has not been retained yet, as he has not yet seen the order to dismiss. I have an appt. for Monday at 3 pm, the earliest i could get.

2: Absolutely, to this. I told her before i went to pick up my property that they would not release it. She insisted i try. When i failed, i called her, to talk to her back at the courthouse. That of course led to...

3: The woes of a court appointed attorney, which, while free, is not my permanent sword and shield. She was still on the second floor, with another client, while i was floundering to logic my way into the mind of an r-tard.

4: See #3.

To answer Hareuhal, also see #3. Court appointed means i don't pay.

All that being said, I'm still quite happy the criminal matter is dismissed. Now i have more leeway in how i proceed. Stop raining on my parade, Color of Law! (As always, i appreciate the input, and thank you for it)

 

[color of law]

I do intend to rain on your parade. Your attorney free or not had a duty to do her job completely, not half a$$. OH - go home - I'll deal with your rights some other day. Pretty poor excuse for an attorney.

We do things behind closed doors, I don't think so. So you don't even know if your case was dismissed with prejudice. Not that the charges will be refiled, but don't forget this was a criminal case and yes you could have gone to jail.

I've only had a run-in with one cop and when it was over he was not a cop anymore and never will be one again. And I did it pro se. He found out I was the one guy that you don't put in cuffs.

There are a lot of knowledgeable people on these forms who have been down these roads. In other words a wealth of experience. We don't impart this info to hear ourselves talk.

Good luck with your case, I wish you the best.

 

[Werz]

So you don't even know if your case was dismissed with prejudice.

A dismissal granted upon the motion of the state pursuant to Crim.R. 48(A) is a dismissal without prejudice. The trial court cannot grant a dismissal with prejudice unless it finds a constitutional or statutory violation which, in and of itself, bars further prosecution. A suppression of evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds is not sufficient for that purpose. State v. Bertram (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 281, 284.

 

[color of law]

A Crim.R. 48(A) dismissal by the prosecution/state is required to be done in open court. From what I see this did not happen. Even Crim.R. 48(B) requires findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal.

We don't know why this case was dismissed. So State v. Bertram, at this point, has no relevancy. Bertram, in effect, was an interlocutory appeal or right to appeal on the granting of a motion to suppress evidence. There is no appeal pending from the granting of the motion to suppress that we know of.

We do know one thing, the stop itself appeared to be a Fourth Amendment violation, no RAS. Looks prejudicial to me, but we don't know and I bet we will never know.

Without any of this info pretty much renders a civil suit lacking for damages. In other words the cops got to harass this guy without any consequences.

There is nothing here for a civil case. what was the damages. Missing a day or two of work as damages don't get you to first base.

 

[Werz]

A Crim.R. 48(A) dismissal by the prosecution/state is required to done in open court.

If the prosecutor files a motion to dismiss, citing good cause, the court can deny a dismissal. But if the court signs the dismissal entry without a hearing, the case is dismissed. If you have precedent that says otherwise, I would like to see it.

We don't know why this case was dismissed. So State v. Bertram, at this point, has no relevancy. Bertram, in effect, was an interlocutory appeal or right to appeal on the granting of a motion to suppress evidence.

• "The trial court and the court of appeals do not possess adequate or complete prosecutorial information and, therefore, are unable to make an informed judgment as to whether sufficient evidence remains to prosecute after the controverted evidence has been suppressed." State v. Bertram (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 281, 284.
• "If a trial court finds a Fourth Amendment violation, the remedy is suppression of the wrongfully obtained evidence, not dismissal." State v. Lassiter, Cuyahoga App. No. 92278, 2009-Ohio-3893, quoting Bertram, supra, and State v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie 0337 (1991), 58 Ohio.St.3d 166, 169.
• See also, State v. Marcum, Butler App. Nos. CA2005-10-431 and CA2005-20-446, 2006-Ohio-2514; State v. Malone, Erie App. No. E-03-060, 2004-Ohio-3794; State v. Couch (June 25, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17520.

As I previously stated, the trial court cannot grant a dismissal with prejudice based solely on suppression of evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds.

 

[color of law]

State v. Pendleton, 2011-Ohio-2024

“The state may by leave of court and in open court file an entry of dismissal of an indictment, information, or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate.”

“[T]he term ‘open court’ means that court is in session and the judge is on the bench.” State v. Monroe, (June 14, 2000) 4th Dist. No. 99CA632, (citing Linden v. Bates Truck Lines Inc., (1982) 4 Ohio App.3d 178, 180, 446 N.E.2d 1139). (My emphasis)

From the court docket the “STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.” However, the State's motion to dismiss the complaint was presumably pursuant to Crim.R. 48(A). Apparently the court determined that there was good cause to dismiss and granted the State’s motion. However, the dismissal placed Porschien in the same position he was in prior to the State’s filing of criminal charges. In other words the state could recharge.

State v. Bertram has no relevancy to this case.

 

[BB62]

...However, the dismissal placed Porschien in the same position he was in prior to the State’s filing of criminal charges. In other words the state could recharge...

This is exactly why we need a REAL gun rights group in Ohio - one that will fight the insidious and ongoing activities like those of the Youngstown police and prosecutor.

 

[Werz]

From the court docket the “STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.” However, the State's motion to dismiss the complaint was presumably pursuant to Crim.R. 48(A). Apparently the court determined that there was good cause to dismiss and granted the State’s motion. However, the dismissal placed Porschien in the same position he was in prior to the State’s filing of criminal charges. In other words the state could recharge.

State v. Bertram has no relevancy to this case.

Bertram is absolutely relevant to this case. It is an Ohio Supreme Court decision which clearly establishes that suppression of evidence in not sufficient for a dismissal with prejudice. So you should not be harping on Michael or his attorney for failing to get a type of dismissal they could not have obtained in the first place.

As to the "open court" requirement, motions to dismiss are filed by prosecutors and entries signed by judges all the time. As to a Crim.R. 48(A) motion, the court has only two choices: grant or deny. If the court is unwilling to grant it at the outset, then there will be a hearing on the record, in open court, for the prosecutor to show good cause.

I suspect you have a notion that the defendant can object to the dismissal and demand that the prosecution go to trial without the suppressed evidence. No, that's not going to happen. Feel free to come up with precedent which supports that notion.

 

[color of law]

Bertram is absolutely relevant to this case. It is an Ohio Supreme Court decision which clearly establishes that suppression of evidence in not sufficient for a dismissal with prejudice. So you should not be harping on Michael or his attorney for failing to get a type of dismissal they could not have obtained in the first place.

I'm at a loss to understand why someone would continue to argue about a case that addresses the suppression of evidence when no one else raised that issue. Not even the prosecutor, and if he had he would have appealed the judges decision.

As to the "open court" requirement, motions to dismiss are filed by prosecutors and entries signed by judges all the time. As to a Crim.R. 48(A) motion, the court has only two choices: grant or deny. If the court is unwilling to grant it at the outset, then there will be a hearing on the record, in open court, for the prosecutor to show good cause.

I suspect you have a notion that the defendant can object to the dismissal and demand that the prosecution go to trial without the suppressed evidence. No, that's not going to happen. Feel free to come up with precedent which supports that notion.

I learned a long time ago when you make a bet and you loose that bet continuing to argue just makes you out to be a fool. Apparently you disagree with the court of appeals. Take it up with them.