Ohio Police Encounter - Notification

[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??????

 

[blujax01]

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.

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.

And a successful compromise is a deal whereby both parties are equally dissatisfied!

I do hope there aren't a board of anti's who found two cases of CCW license holders acting like Jack-Wagons and are saying: "SORRY, the two cases mentioned are reason enough to take away that DEMONSTRATED opportunity for abuse of their right to carry concealed."

The requirement to inform is a compromise I can accept.

 

[oldman45]

I might get an infraction for this but I have to say it.

We will make some assumptions here for a few moments.
1. We are all adults.
2. We all are out in public and we pick up a date to carry home for the evening.
3. We do not know this person and never saw them before.

Ok, before we get serious for the evening, do you want to know if the person has any life threatening diseases or not? What happens in the next few minutes could mean life or death for one of us. Being armed is not different when you are in a situation that can result in death.

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.

It is best to know when one is armed from the point of view of law enforcement. 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?

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

Notification is so easy but paperwork following a shooting is so difficult.

 

[oldman45]

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.

Again and this is about the millionth time this has been mentioned in gun forums, "It is where you live."

Many areas are new to concealed weapons. Officers have not became accustomed to encountering armed, law abiding citizens. Citizens have to respect the position the officer is in as well.

Come to AZ, LA or FL and officers will be more receptive to those that are armed than would officers in NYC, OH, IL or where ever else that frearms have been restricted until recently.

Both the armed citizen and the working officer have the same goal and that is to go home to their family safely.

 

[blujax01]

...
Both the armed citizen and the working officer have the same goal and that is to go home to their family safely.

Can I get an "AMEN"?!

That's it in a nutshell...

 

[Engine 21]

Screened

Several points related to this situation. First, how were these 2 officer (sic) screened for the job? The offending officer obviously have some serious mental health issues (and that will enter into any litigation - I was under a lot of stress from.....). Second, the department either does not follow up on officer well being or department standards (if they have any). Third, Command Officer is responsible for his P.O.'s on the street. What, if any supervision was in place and was the Command Officer reviewing the performance of his officers on a regular basis and how was that done. If the department was up to operational standards ,then are these two offending officers are just rogue officers that can't be removed from service and/or disciplined? Judging from the Chief's remarks, he runs a lose organization and boys will be boys. If that's the case - it's time to clean house by firing and charging these two and turn it over to the feds for prosecution (civil rights). Then bring in some professional management and build up the litigation war chest because the city will be paying out large chunks of change for the actions of the two newly minted felons (ex police officers).

 

[walnutred]

Mook012 I think you are underestimating the power of the FOP. These Officers might get a wrist slap but at worst they will relocate to another PD.

 

[oldman45]

Mook012 I think you are underestimating the power of the FOP. These Officers might get a wrist slap but at worst they will relocate to another PD.

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.

Where there will be a fine line drawn between admitting wrong doing and having a large civil judgement against them and the department. If fault is acknowledged at any time before a civil suit is settled, then the department may has well hand over a blank check.

Also there is a possiblity, however slight, that the video does not tell the whole story. Just as with the Rodney King video, it may be the other half has not been shown. A lot goes on off camera. I have dififculty thinking these officers copped an immediate attitude with someone they just encountered. Not saying he was right or wrong but just saying the entire story has yet to be told. The officers certainly appear to be in the wrong and are wrong in their verbage but the guy may not be as pure as fresh snow either.

 

[redlevel]

I might get an infraction for this but I have to say it.

We will make some assumptions here for a few moments.
1. We are all adults.
2. We all are out in public and we pick up a date to carry home for the evening.
3. We do not know this person and never saw them before.

Ok, before we get serious for the evening, do you want to know if the person has any life threatening diseases or not? What happens in the next few minutes could mean life or death for one of us. Being armed is not different when you are in a situation that can result in death.

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.

It is best to know when one is armed from the point of view of law enforcement. 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?

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

Notification is so easy but paperwork following a shooting is so difficult.

Yeah, and from the point of view of law enforcement, just suspending the 4th Amendment would make their job a lot easier, wouldn't it? We might as well go ahead and suspend the 5th and 6th Amendments too, I guess.

Your analogy about the date fails, by the way. If the date is consensual, then yes, those questions are legitimate. I would assume that at least 99.9% of those stopped by police are stopped against their will.

Do you really think that requiring a law-abiding citizen to inform is going to make one whit of difference to a criminal who might actually reach for his gun instead of his wallet?

Unless you, as an officer, have probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion that I have just committed a crime, am in the process, or just about to commit a crime, then whether or not I am armed isn't any of your business. What I may or may not have in my car or on my person isn't any of your business unless those criteria are met.

Under normal circumstances, if an officer I do not know asks me if I have firearms in my car, my answer is going to be, "I have nothing illegal in my vehicle." If he asks if I mind if he 'takes a look in my vehicle' my answer will be, "Yes sir, I do mind. I do not consent to searches."

And you, Sir, unless you have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause, have absolutely no right or reason to disarm me.

I sure am glad I live in a relatively free state. I believe most GA LEOs are familiar with citizens' rights. There are always those exceptions who do not. (oldman45, I am not putting you in the group who does not understand. I just disagree with what you think an officer should be able to do.)

There is some interesting reading on georgiapackingdotorg concerning this issue. Here is an interesting case relating to a Georgia Court of Appeals decision related to disarming a citizen without RAS or PC.
Caselaw on GeorgiaPacking.org, THE STATE v. JONES, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008)

 

[Engine 21]

Mook012 I think you are underestimating the power of the FOP. These Officers might get a wrist slap but at worst they will relocate to another PD.

walnutred;
I disagree in that if you are fired, charged and found guilty of a felony or on federal charges (civil rights violations) it's a safe bet your not going to work in the law enforcement field again, ever. No municipality or Police Chief would take on the risk to their community. Even the Pope couldn't save you leave alone FOP.

 

[oldman45]

Yeah, and from the point of view of law enforcement, just suspending the 4th Amendment would make their job a lot easier, wouldn't it? We might as well go ahead and suspend the 5th and 6th Amendments too, I guess.

Your analogy about the date fails, by the way. If the date is consensual, then yes, those questions are legitimate. I would assume that at least 99.9% of those stopped by police are stopped against their will.

Do you really think that requiring a law-abiding citizen to inform is going to make one whit of difference to a criminal who might actually reach for his gun instead of his wallet?

Unless you, as an officer, have probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion that I have just committed a crime, am in the process, or just about to commit a crime, then whether or not I am armed isn't any of your business. What I may or may not have in my car or on my person isn't any of your business unless those criteria are met.

Under normal circumstances, if an officer I do not know asks me if I have firearms in my car, my answer is going to be, "I have nothing illegal in my vehicle." If he asks if I mind if he 'takes a look in my vehicle' my answer will be, "Yes sir, I do mind. I do not consent to searches."

And you, Sir, unless you have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause, have absolutely no right or reason to disarm me.

I sure am glad I live in a relatively free state. I believe most GA LEOs are familiar with citizens' rights. There are always those exceptions who do not. (oldman45, I am not putting you in the group who does not understand. I just disagree with what you think an officer should be able to do.)

There is some interesting reading on georgiapackingdotorg concerning this issue. Here is an interesting case relating to a Georgia Court of Appeals decision related to disarming a citizen without RAS or PC.
Caselaw on GeorgiaPacking.org, THE STATE v. JONES, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008)

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.