• 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.

Riverside OH, OC dash-cam

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
6,012
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Who is the idiot that posted this from OFCC??????

They cite a worthless case, USA v. Robert Jones Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland from 2012.

It's a unpublished case. And it deals with a traffic stop.
 

Makarov

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Dayton, Ohio, USA
They souldn't have the power to turn off any recording! It doesnt matter anyway because this cop is about to be spanked for his behavior. LOL My neighbor is a retired Riverside CoP. He says this Sgt Jones is a real loser. He was fired from Randolph Township before working for Riverside years ago for incompetance. He must of did a lot of boot licking to become Sargeant. Sue them where it hurts. I think an open carry march might be in order!
 
Last edited:

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
Between Facebook and a few of forums, I still can't figure out the story. Anyone have a link or links to details?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
6,012
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I'm not going to burn up a lot of time trying to figure out what OFCC is trying to accomplish. Of course I know of no case that OFCC was involved in defending an individual that ended in a win. And plea bargains are not wins.
 

JediSkipdogg

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
139
Location
Batavia
Between Facebook and a few of forums, I still can't figure out the story. Anyone have a link or links to details?

Here's the police report. Grab a coke and some popcorn...it's a good read full of jokes. I love how multiple times he feels the need to explain that a criminal would do XXXXX as if justifying his arrest then at the end he adds the subject did nothing illegal with his firearm but he was arrested because a bystander that was talking to the police at the time in the parking lot became scared.

https://www.facebook.com/download/266837743435057/roycallredacted.pdf
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Jedi is now on OCDO?! Yay!

So, someone did something perfectly legal, then someone else got scared of that legal activity, then the police arrested the first someone?

Someone is an idiot, but which one?

:banghead:
 

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
I got "the page you requested was not found" when I clicked on the PDF link... ARRRGGG! Thanks for the attempt, JediSkipdogg, and it's good to see you posting over here too. :)
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
... he was arrested because a bystander that was talking to the police at the time in the parking lot became scared.
Actually, it's more interesting than that. It wasn't just a bystander. His supplement indicates that he was talking to an unnamed female "about a stop [he] had just completed on a family member of hers."

In my mind, this raises a few issues:
  • Why is this female not named? Is she not a highly relevant witness? Is he not, at least in part, using her fear as a basis for his detention of Mr. Call?
  • Why did he stop the female's family member? Does she come from an environment where, if a gun appears, someone is likely to get shot?
 

JediSkipdogg

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
139
Location
Batavia
I got "the page you requested was not found" when I clicked on the PDF link... ARRRGGG! Thanks for the attempt, JediSkipdogg, and it's good to see you posting over here too. :)

Link works for me. Maybe you have to be logged into facebook to access it. It asks me to download it when I click on it.

Yeah, signed up a week ago, looked back a few pages, thought about correcting all the mistakes everyone posted, but then thought, nah, I don't have a week to do it. LOL So I'll start as I see info come up.
 

JediSkipdogg

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
139
Location
Batavia
Actually, it's more interesting than that. It wasn't just a bystander. His supplement indicates that he was talking to an unnamed female "about a stop [he] had just completed on a family member of hers."

In my mind, this raises a few issues:
  • Why is this female not named? Is she not a highly relevant witness? Is he not, at least in part, using her fear as a basis for his detention of Mr. Call?
  • Why did he stop the female's family member? Does she come from an environment where, if a gun appears, someone is likely to get shot?

I don't follow the relevance of the second one but do agree on the first one. She should be named somehow in the report as a witness. Of course he was only charged with Obstruction so a witness isn't really needed, the officer would be the witness.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Ohio's Disorderly Conduct statute has been posted before, but...

2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:
(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;
(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.

(C) Violation of any statute or ordinance of which an element is operating a motor vehicle, locomotive, watercraft, aircraft, or other vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, is not a violation of division (B) of this section.

(D) If a person appears to an ordinary observer to be intoxicated, it is probable cause to believe that person is voluntarily intoxicated for purposes of division (B) of this section.

(E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (E)(3) of this section, disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies:
(a) The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.
(b) The offense is committed in the vicinity of a school or in a school safety zone.
(c) The offense is committed in the presence of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person who is engaged in the person’s duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.
(d) The offense is committed in the presence of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person’s duties in an emergency facility.

(F) As used in this section:
(1) “Emergency medical services person” is the singular of “emergency medical services personnel” as defined in section 2133.21 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Emergency facility person” is the singular of “emergency facility personnel” as defined in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
(3) “Emergency facility” has the same meaning as in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
(4) “Committed in the vicinity of a school” has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 01-25-2002




2921.31 Obstructing official business.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official business. Except as otherwise provided in this division, obstructing official business is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, obstructing official business is a felony of the fifth degree.

Effective Date: 03-10-2000

Is doing nothing the same as 'doing any act'? Is remaining silent an 'action'?
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"Officer! OFFICER! Oh my god, there's a BLACK MAN and he just went into that convenience store! I'm so scared, won't you do Something about it? I'm scared!!!!11one eleven!!!!"

Yeah.

Good report; the officer as much as admitted that Ohio is an open carry state and that the subjects actions were completely legal. It's going to be hard to have his obstruction (which amounted to remaining silent when he wasn't required by law to say or admit anything) charge hold up as not being "fruit of the poisoned tree."
 
Last edited:

JediSkipdogg

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
139
Location
Batavia
But he wasn't charged with D.C. The officer even wrote in the report... "As Ohio is an open carry state, and he had not actually done anything illegal with the gun beyond scaring the female customer..."

He was charged with...

2921.31 Obstructing official business.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official business. Except as otherwise provided in this division, obstructing official business is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, obstructing official business is a felony of the fifth degree.

Effective Date: 03-10-2000
 

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
Link works for me. Maybe you have to be logged into facebook to access it. It asks me to download it when I click on it.
Yep, one has to be logged in to download it. I don't really do facebook, so...

Yeah, signed up a week ago, looked back a few pages, thought about correcting all the mistakes everyone posted, but then thought, nah, I don't have a week to do it. LOL So I'll start as I see info come up.
lol
 

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
I'm only part of the way through that report as it's difficult to choke down. That cop appears to be living in some fantasy world. Good Lord!

I think the female witness should've been named as she, supposedly, was frightened and this triggered the chain of events. If she even exists. She was the 'reason' that the officer was investigating; i.e. she was the reason for the 'official business' that was allegedly obstructed.

The report reads like a load of BS to me...
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
The Ohio Attorney General has already said that OC is not grounds for DC.

But he didn't charge Roy with "scaring" the lady, either.

The arresting civil employee (calling him a cop would be insulting other cops) mentioned "obstruction of justice" before changing his mind to "obstructing official business".

My favorite line from the video?

"I already know everything. When were you born?"

The pre-trial date is Oct. 2nd. I'll happily go out to say hello, but most pre-trial hearings are non-events. I'll even buy Roy's lunch.
 
Last edited:

Makarov

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Dayton, Ohio, USA
I know the "Rest of The Story". The cop had no call of a "man with a gun". The person was open carrying with no problem until Sgt. Jones starts harassing. He was there starting his shift. Sgt Jones observes Mr Call in the store and asks him " you can't carry in a store that sells liquor. The rest is history. The arrest was obstruction of official business.
 
Last edited:
Top