Ohio Police Encounter - Notification

[cmort666]

Bad Police Encounter
Hopefully this will finally kill the requirement to notify in Ohio.

This is at least the second time police have abused this requirement here. They can't be trusted with it and it needs to be taken away from them.

 

[27145]

Those particular Cops cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean the law should be abandoned.
As a retired Cop, telling me you have a weapon and handing me a carry permit is just one level below seeing a Police id card and shield. It would put me at ease knowing I am dealing with a "good guy" who has had a background check.

Usually bad guys just pull out the gun and shoot, I doubt if they ever tell the Cop they are carrying. Letting a Cop know you have a ccw should end any problem of inadvertant exposure of the weapon and being drawn upon with a Cop's gun.

If 2 concealed carry licensee's screwed up, should we all demand that ccw end?

 

[hatt]

Those particular Cops cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean the law should be abandoned.
As a retired Cop, telling me you have a weapon and handing me a carry permit is just one level below seeing a Police id card and shield. It would put me at ease knowing I am dealing with a "good guy" who has had a background check.

Usually bad guys just pull out the gun and shoot, I doubt if they ever tell the Cop they are carrying. Letting a Cop know you have a ccw should end any problem of inadvertant exposure of the weapon and being drawn upon with a Cop's gun.

If 2 concealed carry licensee's screwed up, should we all demand that ccw end?

Usually, telling the police you have a legal gun results in you being disarmed and your numbers ran, etc. Not sure how that's safer for anyone involved. Thankfully Florida doesn't have such a nonsense requirement. If the LEO feels he needs to know he'll ask. They usually don't ask.

 

[mg357]

the mean behavior of these two specific law enforcement officers makes me sick, and they give a black eye to all of the brave law enforcement officers everywhere who do there very best to protect and serve.

 

[27145]

Anyone have a link for the video? I could not find it, just read the transcript.

 

[cshoff]

Why is it any of the officer's business whether or not a person is armed? And most especially, why should that information be of an arbitrary nature? IMHO, this issue is the same as issues that involve race, religion, and sexual orientation. It's really none of their business. If the officer asks and a person wants to answer, then fine. If not, it should be protected information under the 5th Amendment.

Note: I am not saying this protection exists/should exist when exigent circumstances exist or when probable cause standards have been met.

 

[The Big D]

I'm still trying to figure out how this ended up in charges against the citizen. Moreover, what were the charges?

Be safe.

 

[walnutred]

Those particular Cops cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean the law should be abandoned.
As a retired Cop, telling me you have a weapon and handing me a carry permit is just one level below seeing a Police id card and shield. It would put me at ease knowing I am dealing with a "good guy" who has had a background check.

Here in Ohio the CCW is tied to your cars plates. As soon as the LEO runs your plates they know. So the LEO knew before he walked up to the car that the driver was a "good guy".

 

[cshoff]

Anyone have a link for the video? I could not find it, just read the transcript.

The video is not available yet. It is being held as evidence in an ongoing investigation/case.

 

[27145]

Here in Ohio the CCW is tied to your cars plates. As soon as the LEO runs your plates they know. So the LEO knew before he walked up to the car that the driver was a "good guy".

Not really, he may not have been the owner of the car.

I think you all can understand my way of thinking, unfortunately it is abused.

 

[27145]

Why is it any of the officer's business whether or not a person is armed? And most especially, why should that information be of an arbitrary nature? IMHO, this issue is the same as issues that involve race, religion, and sexual orientation. It's really none of their business. If the officer asks and a person wants to answer, then fine. If not, it should be protected information under the 5th Amendment.

Note: I am not saying this protection exists/should exist when exigent circumstances exist or when probable cause standards have been met.

The 5th amendment is the right not to incriminate yourself. If you lawfully carry and inform the officer, you are not incriminating yourself.

 

[walnutred]

In the original posting on the OFCC web site the initial post stated that the driver was in his vehicle.

 

[27145]

In the original posting on the OFCC web site the initial post stated that the driver was in his vehicle.

Ya but when the Cop's approached they have no way of knowing it is his car and he has a gun. Running the plate will reveal that the registered owner has a cc permit.

 

[Vartarg]

Good Law

I don't have a problem with the law.....I've notified a couple of LEOs in LA and TX stops, and had no repercussions. The problem here was the particular cops who made the stop and took out their nasty attitude on the CHL holder.

Re the question: why should the officer be entitled to know.....it's the simple fact of life that there's no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop, and often times the person stopped is a felon or some other variety of villain. It's about officer and public safety.

JMHO.....YMMV.

Cheers

 

[Steve in Vermont]

If this is all true, when I wore a uniform had I done something like this I'd be looking for another job the next day. And to compound this, the officers had to know they were being recorded. Talk about stupid, there it is for all to see. I hope the citizen doesn't back down, I wouldn't. These jerks (and I'm making the assumption the facts are as stated) need to be held accountable, otherwise history will repeat itself. And you can't "fix" behavior like this, a warning to them would be a joke. They'd just be more careful (to not get caught) in the future. Some people just can't handle the authority without abusing it. They should be weeded out, ASAP.

 

[The Big D]

WHY WAS THE CITIZEN CHARGED? (Pardon me for shouting.)

I read (or tried to) the 16 page linky...no reason was given and it was referenced the DA was willing to drop charges.

Thank you to whomever answers, in advance.

Be safe.

 

[27145]

WHY WAS THE CITIZEN CHARGED? (Pardon me for shouting.)

I read (or tried to) the 16 page linky...no reason was given and it was referenced the DA was willing to drop charges.

Thank you to whomever answers, in advance.

Be safe.

It doesn't say, but probably the usual dis-con resisting and obstructing. Just a guess.

 

[blujax01]

Ohio law states that if a CC permit holder finds themselves in the presence of a police officer, they must immediately declare - and I mean immediately. If you say: "Nice Day, isn't it?" before declaring, that is technically an infraction.
It is obvious to me that the cop in question knows this and duped the citizen. Unfortunately, due to "privacy issues" we will never know just what his discipline will be. I can only hope justice will be served.

I have been pulled over twice while armed and both times, I rolled down my window, placed my hands on the wheel at 10 and 2 and as soon as the officer appeared I stated in a loud, clear voice "Hello Officer, I have a concealed carry license and I am armed. How would you like to proceed?"
Both times, I was treated with courtesy and respect, was not removed from my vehicle and was not required to disarm.
In short, it was a non-event.

And this whole "Declaration should not be required" argument has been hashed out almost as much as the voluminous "Open Carry" thread.

 

[ladder13]

Re the question: why should the officer be entitled to know.....it's the simple fact of life that there's no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop, and often times the person stopped is a felon or some other variety of villain. It's about officer and public safety.

Wow, sanity and reason...who'da thunk it?

 

[cshoff]

The 5th amendment is the right not to incriminate yourself. If you lawfully carry and inform the officer, you are not incriminating yourself.

Except that ANYTHING you say could be incriminating. Even disclosing that you are legally carrying a firearm could be incriminating. That is why, in most states, you CANNOT be compelled to provide ID without RAS or Probable Cause.

 

[hatt]

Re the question: why should the officer be entitled to know.....it's the simple fact of life that there's no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop, and often times the person stopped is a felon or some other variety of villain. It's about officer and public safety.

JMHO.....YMMV.

Cheers

The felon, or other villain, isn't going to tell you he's armed. Especially if he plans on shooting you soon. This is another law with the sole purpose of targeting the honest(you know, the one who went out and got the permit, and then dutifully told he was armed) citizen for intimidation or harassment. The whole officer/public safety stuff is laughable.

Do you feel safer when you enter a gun free zone? It's the same thing. The honest citizen(the ones not the problem?) is going to comply. The criminals(the problem?) are not so worried about the sign.

Perhaps we should pass a law where criminals are required to inform you prior to victimizing you. We'd be safer than ever.

 

[kewpie]

The felon, or other villain, isn't going to tell you he's armed. Especially if he plans on shooting you soon. This is another law with the sole purpose of targeting the honest(you know, the one who went out and got the permit, and then dutifully told he was armed) citizen for intimidation or harassment. The whole officer/public safety stuff is laughable.

Do you feel safer when you enter a gun free zone? It's the same thing. The honest citizen(the ones not the problem?) is going to comply. The criminals(the problem?) are not so worried about the sign.

Perhaps we should pass a law where criminals are required to inform you prior to victimizing you. We'd be safer than ever.

Exactly. The cops stop hundreds of people carrying illegally and never know it or ask about it. (And in the Ohio case, it seems the cops were using the badge as a mask to rob the person of his rights. I hope they are punished to the max if the soon-to-be-released video proves what the defendant's lawyer claims he saw.)

 

[jtpur]

where is the video???????

 

[kewpie]

where is the video???????

In the 16 pg discussion on the Ohio Concealed forum the video is said to have been seen by the defendant's attorney who has asked for a copy IIRC. . (Quite a lot of reading

Defendant was subsequently (according to the atty) offered to 'just forget about incident' but appears to be suing the police (And I hope if he's right he breaks all the banks and insurance companies involved.)

 

[cshoff]

I don't have a problem with the law.....I've notified a couple of LEOs in LA and TX stops, and had no repercussions. The problem here was the particular cops who made the stop and took out their nasty attitude on the CHL holder.

Re the question: why should the officer be entitled to know.....it's the simple fact of life that there's no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop, and often times the person stopped is a felon or some other variety of villain. It's about officer and public safety.

JMHO.....YMMV.

Cheers

But you see, it is NOT really about officer and public safety. In the case of "duty to inform" laws, it is about an invasion of privacy. It is about mandated disclosure of information that is of a personal nature. Just like the officer would have no right to know if you were gay, if you were catholic, or if you'd had a sex change, he also has no right to know (arbitrarily) if you are armed. These laws take the burden of RAS and/or probable cause off of the state, and make it criminal for a person to exercise his/her right to remain silent. A true conflict with the Constitution, IMO.

 

[oldman45]

It does not bother me a bit to inform that I am carrying. What does it hurt?

 

[cshoff]

It does not bother me a bit to inform that I am carrying. What does it hurt?

It hurts nothing, if you volunteer the information. Additionally, if there is RAS or PC to suspect you of a crime, then it hurts nothing for you to be compelled, by law, to divulge the information. Some of these "duty to inform" laws, however, compel you under penalty of law, to divulge the information if you happen to come in contact with an LEO for ANY reason (no requirement for RAS or PC). Certain LEO's are then using that information maliciously; ie: they are illegally seizing guns and running serial numbers, detaining people, and sometimes handcuffing them.

 

[cmort666]

WHY WAS THE CITIZEN CHARGED? (Pardon me for shouting.)

I read (or tried to) the 16 page linky...no reason was given and it was referenced the DA was willing to drop charges.

Thank you to whomever answers, in advance.

Be safe.

He was charged with "failure to 'promptly' inform" that he had a CHL and was armed... after he was forcibly PREVENTED from informing by the cops.

Think of it in this way:

You're driving on a two lane road, in a no passing zone. A cop pulls in front of you, slows down to 10mph, then cites you for "failure to maintain posted minimum speed" and "obstructing traffic".

It was an act of pure malice, and not the first one either. Virtually the same thing happened in Beachwood, Ohio a few years ago. They actually took the victim to trial, where he of course was acquitted.

Any cop who doesn't assume that ANYBODY he stops could be armed is too dumb for the job.

These are two examples of this sort of abuse, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to hear that there have been more.

Sorry, my level of trust has dropped to zero. The notification requirement needs to go away.

 

[cmort666]

It does not bother me a bit to inform that I am carrying. What does it hurt?

1. It's none of the cop's business. He should assume you are.
2. It gives an anti-gun cop an excuse to harass a gun carrier.
3. It gives a sociopathic cop an opportunity to falsely accuse you of a serious crime, for which you could lose your CHL or your freedom, apparently just for fun, in this case.

Sorry, the two cases mentioned are reason enough to take away that DEMONSTRATED opportunity for abuse.

 

[27145]

1. It's none of the cop's business. He should assume you are.
2. It gives an anti-gun cop an excuse to harass a gun carrier.
3. It gives a sociopathic cop an opportunity to falsely accuse you of a serious crime, for which you could lose your CHL or your freedom, apparently just for fun, in this case.

Sorry, the two cases mentioned are reason enough to take away that DEMONSTRATED opportunity for abuse.

You actually have me convinced with your opinion. In NYC only Cops and ccl holders had guns. When I saw a shield/id or a ccl, I was put at ease knowing thse people were good guys.

We always had out of State Cops in the City. I have pulled a few over, never even asking if they had a gun (I didn't want to know) warned and admonished them for their traffic infraction and went on my merry way.

To this day I will always tell a stopping Officer I carry under LEOSA, it just saves grief. I agree with your opinion now though. It would be nice if people, out of just courtesy put their interior lights on, shut the car put their hazard lights on and advised that they had a ccl, w/o fear of being abused. I guess getting rid of this law would be good.

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