Ohio Police Encounter - Notification

[cmort666]

I imagine that much like any law making session, the requirement to inform was a compromise. After all, I know the Officer is carrying and can see his firearm. It's only fair to tell him that we're on equal footing.

It wasn't a "compromise". It, like the required open carry in vehicles, was an attempt at a poison pill. Unfortunately for the Ohio Highway Patrol and the rest of those who wanted to kill shall issue concealed carry in Ohio, it FAILED and we got CCW.

Given that the ONLY purpose of the provision was to PREVENT people from carrying concealed, AT ALL, and it FAILED, there's no point in it being retained.

Cops in Ohio are unlawfully using it to falsely arrest people. It needs to be taken away.

 

[cmort666]

What the hell were they thinking??????

Considerable observation and experience tells me that they were thinking, "We've done this before and nothing bad happened to us."

When there's no oversight or discipline, things in any organization rapidly revert to a state of nature. Where these kinds of things happen, that seems to be the common factor. Assuming that things are as described by the victim's defense counsel, I'd bet money that the perpetrators have LONG histories, unaddressed or impotently addressed by management.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

The bottom line is this: We have every right to expect anyone in uniform to act professionally, to maintain their behavior in all circumstances that reflect positively on them and their brother officers. These officers did not. I wore a uniform for many years and not once did I engage in such behavior. These officers insulted the dignity of their uniform and, by association, every other officer (past and present).

 

[cmort666]

Carrying a sidearm may be farily new to many. People make mistakes when doing so. Police officers are becoming accustomed to encountering armed people. Both sides need to make adjustments and learn the viewpoints of others.

The ONLY "adjustments" necessary are to know and obey the law. The victim knew the law and ATTEMPTED to obey it and was INTENTIONALLY and UNLAWFULLY thwarted by the two cops.

There were no "mistakes" in this incident.

1. The victim INTENTIONALLY tried to obey the notification law.
2. The cops INTENTIONALLY prevented him from doing so.
3. One of the cops INTENTIONALLY threatened to murder the victim.
4. The cops INTENTIONALLY falsely arrested him for not obeying a law which THEY prevented him from obeying by their overt action.

It's happened before and it will probably happen again as long as the notification requirement exists. That's why it needs to be eliminated.

 

[cmort666]

I disagree. Even in their own department, Internal Affairs would find cause to suspend and terminate. Then there can be criminal charges brought as well as Malfeasence of Office.

Sorry, a statement that broad is simply without factual or rational basis.

Over the weekend I learned that Detective Alvin Weems of the Chicago PD committed suicide. You probably don't know who he was. He was the guy who shot an unarmed man in the face, who was not only not resisting, he wasn't even being detained. He then spun a "ripping yarn" about being "surrounded" and people trying to "snatch his gun". Too bad that he was standing under a literal battery of transit authority security cameras. Apart from his name, literally EVERYTHING in Weems' statement was a lie.

What was the outcome?

1. The Police Board recommended that Weems be fired.
2. The superintendent overruled the police board and gave Weems a 30 day suspension without pay... for showing up late and out of uniform. Apparently the KILLING and the false official statements weren't even considered worthy of mention.
3. The superintendent then PROMOTED Weems to detective.
4. Weems was never so much as charged with "unlawfully discharging a firearm".

You can say that in YOUR department, serious misconduct is properly addressed.

You can say that in YOUR town, serious misconduct is properly addressed.

There's simply no basis for a BLANKET statement that there's some guarantee that serious misconduct will be properly addressed in other places.

And I just gave you a VERY heavily documented case where it was NOT.

 

[redlevel]

I think you are way off base here.

A law abiding citizen getting shot while reaching for wallet as opposed to reaching for a gun is not a good thing to have happen. The citizen should not mind some intrusion into his life for a moment vs a bullet for an innocent event.

A criminal can expect to be shot. The difference is the officer will not know who is a criminal and who is the law abiding citizen.

I have gone to the funerals of several good officers that gave the criminal the benefit of doubt. I have also been stopped (for speeding) by an officer I did not know. I notified him and allowed him to disarm me. Did it hurt me or cause me distress in any way? Nope. But had I pulled my jacket back as I reached for my wallet, seeing my gun may have caused him to take me to the ground or possibly shoot me.

I have also had one person get stupid in notification. He ran out of his front door yelling "I have a gun." I took that as a threat but he calmed down rapidly as I unholstered.

I cannot see why the concern of notification. Does one object to showing their drivers license as well? The driver's license is no more than a priviledge that allows one to operate a motor vehicle on the roadway. A CCW is a priviledge that allows one to carry concealed and should be seen just as a driver being asked to step out of the car, unless someone is carrying a stolen or illegal firearm.

And I think you are way off base. Did you read the GA case?

I don't believe quoting from a State Court of Appeals decision is a violation of copyright.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress from the bench, explaining that the State had failed to show any legal justification for the officer's insistence on seizing Jones's firearm. We agree.

At least three types of police-citizen encounters exist: verbal communications involving no coercion or detention; brief "stops" or "seizures" that require reasonable suspicion; and "arrests," which can only be supported by probable cause. A first-tier encounter never intrudes upon any constitutionally protected interest, since the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between police and citizens, but simply to prevent arbitrary and oppressive police interference with the privacy and personal security of individual citizens. On the other hand, a second-tier encounter may violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer briefly "stops" or "seizes" a citizen without an articulable suspicion. Articulable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a citizen is involved in criminal activity.

I have to say, based on some of your comments, you seem to have a very cavalier attitude concerning the 4th Amendment and unlawful searches. Also, in Georgia at least, mere possession of a firearm doesn't constitute reasonable articulable suspicion, much less Probable Cause. An officer has absolutely no right to disarm a citizen without one or the other.

 

[Engine 21]

Considerable observation and experience tells me that they were thinking, "We've done this before and nothing bad happened to us."

When there's no oversight or discipline, things in any organization rapidly revert to a state of nature. Where these kinds of things happen, that seems to be the common factor. Assuming that things are as described by the victim's defense counsel, I'd bet money that the perpetrators have LONG histories, unaddressed or impotently addressed by management.

Bingo! Two bad actors do not make a department but the Chief has sent a strong message that this behavior will be tolerated and therein lies the problem. As a LEO you are there to enforce the law, not make it up as you go. Nor can you violate the laws you were sworn to uphold. And the topper is people who are sworn and carry badges are held to a higher standard than the average citizen. A Leo is given a great deal of authority. However, coupled to that authority is responsibility - you must exercise that authority in a responsible manner.

 

[cmort666]

You may reach for your license but your hand is going for a gun I have not been told about. Do I wait to see what you are reaching for and let you shoot me or do I pull my gun and shoot you thinking you are going for a gun?

Can you explain how that works ANY differently for a citizen who doesn't have a CHL, or indeed a firearm AT ALL?

Or, will you ignore somebody WITHOUT a CHL who could be a convicted felon when he reaches for HIS wallet?

You seem FAR more afraid of people who've passed background investigations than of random strangers about whom you know NOTHING.

 

[oldman45]

And I think you are way off base. Did you read the GA case?

I don't believe quoting from a State Court of Appeals decision is a violation of copyright.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress from the bench, explaining that the State had failed to show any legal justification for the officer's insistence on seizing Jones's firearm. We agree.

At least three types of police-citizen encounters exist: verbal communications involving no coercion or detention; brief "stops" or "seizures" that require reasonable suspicion; and "arrests," which can only be supported by probable cause. A first-tier encounter never intrudes upon any constitutionally protected interest, since the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between police and citizens, but simply to prevent arbitrary and oppressive police interference with the privacy and personal security of individual citizens. On the other hand, a second-tier encounter may violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer briefly "stops" or "seizes" a citizen without an articulable suspicion. Articulable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a citizen is involved in criminal activity.

I have to say, based on some of your comments, you seem to have a very cavalier attitude concerning the 4th Amendment and unlawful searches. Also, in Georgia at least, mere possession of a firearm doesn't constitute reasonable articulable suspicion, much less Probable Cause. An officer has absolutely no right to disarm a citizen without one or the other.

Nope, my attitude is sensible, law abiding and Constitutional.

Show me where a person is allowed to go armed in the Constitution. A person can own and bear arms true enough. But only within the laws of the government. If the law requires notification, then so be it.

I am not against the Fourth Amendment either. Yet I will go home tonight even if you do not. I am not searching you. I am not placing you in custody. I simply want to make sure you are who you say you are. After all you broke the law in some way that initiated the stop.

Now speaking of IA, the local area depts have dismissed officers for getting a DUI in private vehicles, failure to respond to calls, running away from a call, pushing a spouse, not mentioning verbal communication in a report and flirting with a citizen. Any aggression toward an individual that is unwarranted would be vitually immediate suspension and quick termination.

 

[cmort666]

Nope, my attitude is sensible, law abiding and Constitutional.

Show me where a person is allowed to go armed in the Constitution.

Show me in the Constitution where a person is "allowed" to wear a black t-shirt.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of law in the United States, the highest law (the Constitution) in particular.

In the United States, that which is not PROHIBITED is PERMITTED.

Were things to be done your way, there wouldn't be enough trees to print enough statute books or enough hard drives to hold the INFINITY of "authorizing" laws necessary for everyday life.

It's precisely this sort of thinking which so often gets cops into trouble, and indeed very serious trouble in civil court.

I don't need a law to do things.
The police need a law to STOP me.

 

[ladder13]

Bingo! Two bad actors do not make a department but the Chief has sent a strong message that this behavior will be tolerated and therein lies the problem. As a LEO you are there to enforce the law, not make it up as you go. Nor can you violate the laws you were sworn to uphold. And the topper is people who are sworn and carry badges are held to a higher standard than the average citizen. A Leo is given a great deal of authority. However, coupled to that authority is responsibility - you must exercise that authority in a responsible manner.

Where's that DOUBLE "like" thingy we so desperately need?

 

[oldman45]

Show me in the Constitution where a person is "allowed" to wear a black t-shirt.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of law in the United States, the highest law (the Constitution) in particular.

In the United States, that which is not PROHIBITED is PERMITTED.

Were things to be done your way, there wouldn't be enough trees to print enough statute books or enough hard drives to hold the INFINITY of "authorizing" laws necessary for everyday life.

It's precisely this sort of thinking which so often gets cops into trouble, and indeed very serious trouble in civil court.

I don't need a law to do things.
The police need a law to STOP me.

With all due respect, you are a law breaker. If the law says notify, then notify. If you are stopped, you were stopped for a reason and should not complain when a directive is given that is according to law.

Some years ago, there was a gentleman that was stopped, after a short chase, due to being potentially intoxicated. He was but when being placed under arrest, he was found to be armed. The man broke loose and ran. He was tackled and took to the ground. His head hit a curb and he ended up in a nursing home, unable to move. So to date, he was DUI, Resisting Arrest, Felon with a Firearm and Flight to Avoid. His family took the attitude the police had no right to stop him in the first place, the officer used excessive force and other claims. They claimed violation of the 2nd and 4th. They sued the city. It was cheaper to settle than to fight. Two days after the settlement was reached, the family suddenly had a change of heart about the guy and discontinued feeding and said they did so because he was a low life. He was a law breaker but his family had an issue with the law. They were very much on his side until they got money.

People when in the wrong want to claim many things that might put them in a different, more favorable light. Sadly I have had to go to court for many of these. Yet if you break the law, you should be punished. If you do not like the law, then get it changed.

According to some here, the Second would allow unrestricted carry. It does not. The Fourth protects from any search or seizure. It does not. But there is a big difference between search and notification or momemntary surrender.

You guys might like to read:

rights are suspended by mayor cedric glover of shreveport louisiana

I disagree with that Mayor but he is pretty much right. Does the 2nd allow a person in prison to bear arms? Do you lose your right to vote after getting a felony conviction?

Once you are stopped, you lose certain rights for the safety of the community and those involved.

There are many things that common sense says should not be allowed but there is no law against it. A great example of this is contained in a law suit by a prisoner. He has Religious Freedom according to the law and Constitution. His suit says that his religion requires the use of minor boys in sacrificial services. Does he get his religious freedom simply because we cannot write everything into the law books?

 

[redlevel]

I agree that if the law requires you to inform, you should. That doesn't mean I agree with the law. I would argue that even though the law might require a citizen to inform, that absolutely doesn't make it lawful for an officer to disarm that person without reasonable articulable suspicion. The Georgia Court ruled that very point, that an officer in Georgia may not disarm a citizen without ras, and that mere possession of a firearm doesn't meet that standard.

Again, your recitation of the story about the drunk and subsequent chase and law suit has absolutely no bearing on what we are discussing. If you pull me over and I'm DUI, that's one thing. If you pull me over for a simple speeding ticket, or tail light out, or improper lane change, etc, that is something else. If I'm going 65 in a 55 zone, that doesn't mean I shed my 4th amendment rights. I am not arguing from an absolutist 2nd amendment position, either. You threw that in as a distracter, I guess. I am more concerned in this discussion with the 4th amendment, and it appears to me that your attitude is that the 4th amendment is suspended when a traffic stop occurs. Courts have ruled over and over that this isn't the case. The 4th amendment doesn't prohibit any search and seizure, but it does indeed protect against unreasonable search and seizure. I'm glad I live in Georgia, where the state Court recognizes this.

Once you are stopped, you lose certain rights for the safety of the community and those involved.

Coming from an LEO, this is scary indeed. I haven't lost any of my 4th Amendment rights until you as an officer have reasonable suspicion. Because my tail light is out, or even if you thought I was DUI, is absolutely NOT ras. You and Cedric are wrong, wrong, wrong!

 

[cmort666]

With all due respect, you are a law breaker. If the law says notify, then notify. If you are stopped, you were stopped for a reason and should not complain when a directive is given that is according to law.

Your problem is that you make a lot of baseless assumptions.

What "law" did I "break"?

1. You apparently assume that I was "stopped".
2. You apparently assume that during this imaginary stop, I was carrying and didn't notify.

NEITHER is true, nor supported by ANYTHING I've posted here.

In the incident being discussed, the victim TRIED to obey the Ohio Revised Code by notifying that he was carrying and was INTENTIONALLY thwarted by those two cops, who then THEMSELVES violated the Ohio Revised Code by falsely arresting him for something which they INTENTIONALLY forcibly prevented him from doing.

At NO point have I advocated, nor have you seen me advocate disobeying the notification law. I have REPEATEDLY advocated the REPEAL of the notification requirement because it's a BAD law, passed for BAD reasons, misused REPEATEDLY by BAD cops.

Now if you think that makes me a "lawbreaker" then your problems with the Constitution are even bigger, and now include the 1st Amendment.

Certainly my advocacy of a change in the law WOULD make me a "lawbreaker"... in China, probably for "slandering the state" or "being a socially harmful element" or some such. We are fortunately, NOT in China.

And by the way, people are "stopped" for a variety of reasons, some of which are Federal civil rights violations. Just because you are stopped for a "reason" doesn't make a it a good, or indeed a LAWFUL reason. People have frequently been stopped for skin color, ethnicity, and indeed for sheer amusement.

 

[redlevel]

There are many things that common sense says should not be allowed but there is no law against it. A great example of this is contained in a law suit by a prisoner. He has Religious Freedom according to the law and Constitution. His suit says that his religion requires the use of minor boys in sacrificial services. Does he get his religious freedom simply because we cannot write everything into the law books?

But it is written into the law that human sacrifice and/or abusing children is illegal, just like it is written that polygamy is illegal, and that drug use is illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled against petitioners who claimed that their 1st amendment rights allowed them to do these things.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with a couple of officers using a bad law to bully a citizen, or the 4th amendment rights of citizens when they are involved in a simple traffic stop.

 

[cmort666]

But it is written into the law that human sacrifice and/or abusing children is illegal, just like it is written that polygamy is illegal, and that drug use is illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled against petitioners who claimed that their 1st amendment rights allowed them to do these things.

I think the telling point is that in order to justify his "argument", he had to:

1. Cite a CONVICT IN PRISON.
2. Cite PEDOPHILE HUMAN SACRIFICE.

If that's with whom he equates LAWFUL gun owners with concealed carry credentials, his "argument" has collapsed before he even made it.

I'm sure that if one of us equated the two cops in the actual incident with the Einsatzgruppen, he would be horribly offended. Yet he compares lawful CHL holders to PEDOPHILE MURDERERS.

It is unfortunate that some LEOs have that mindset, and it no doubt contributes to these sorts of abuses.

 

[Engine 21]

Where's that DOUBLE "like" thingy we so desperately need?

Thanks, Mike.


Don

 

[blujax01]

Is ANYONE else GETTING dizzy TRYING to follow THIS thread?

In the same spirit that I would tell a casual acquaintence that he had a boogie sticking out of his nose:

Mort, your writing style makes it very difficult to read your posts. My inclination is to disagree with you before I reach the end of a sentence.

Sorry if I'm talking out of turn ...

~Alan

 

[Springfeildkid585]

So what if I do disarm you momentarily? We both walk away and your gun is returned so it leaves with you.
.

What If I disarmed you momentarily? Since we're in the business of comprimise, I'll give you my gun when you give me yours. I don't beleive anyone has the right to disarm me unless I have commited and infraction.

 

[Fishinfool]

What the heck, I have some time to kill, so I'll jump in here....

Fist, yea, there are dishonest cops, just like there are dishonest doctors, plumbers, teachers, politicians, clergy, etc... Single out and punish the offenders, not the other 99% who work with pride and respect for their fellow citizen. The "secret society of police, government, military, (fill in the blank) who sit in the secret under ground bunker at Fort Dix, planning to strip citizens of their rights, take over the world, etc." is pretty silly thinking.. A lot of "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" lawyers who missed the class on common sense as well.

Second - My experience. I was a state cop in the 1980's in a state that issued state permits to carry. I wish I had a dollar for every time I stopped a car, and someone opened a glove box with a gun in it to retrieve their registration, jumped out of a car with a handgun stuffed in their waist, etc. And how many times my hand went to my gun in fear of my safety, and how many times I actually drew, but thank god never fired. And these are folks I am talking about who had permits to carry who never gave a thought to the appearance they were presenting at the time. So yea, a notification law like in Ohio could definitely be viewed as a safety issue for both officers and honest citizens.

Larry