Northrup v City of Toledo

[KeeFus]

I'm doing research for a lesson plan I am developing and am curious if any of you guys in Ohio (Toledo area hopefully?) know anything more than what is presented in this case. From what I have read, the case is in brief at this time.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12898128042980027812&q=shawn+northrup+toledo+ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=3,34

The 1st and 2nd Amendment arguments have been dismissed on summary judgment. However, the 4th Amendment argument has been allowed to go to trial. The defendants were granted summary judgment on 4th Amendment Monell claims.

From the ruling: In sum, the Defendants cannot offer any evidence to support their argument that, by the fact of the 911 call and subsequent dispatch, Officer Bright had a reasonable suspicion that Northrup had committed a crime, was committing a crime, or was about to commit a crime. It is the jury's role to determine whether Northrup or Officer Bright offer the more believable account of their encounter. The Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Northrup's Fourth Amendment claims because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether this incident violated Northrup's clearly established right to be free from unconstitutional searches and seizures. Additionally, the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Northrup's excessive force claim, as the permissibility of the use of handcuffs, at least in part, may rise or fall on the constitutionality of the seizure.

Coming to the conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 24), is granted in part and denied in part. The Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the following claims: (1) First Amendment — right to symbolic speech; (2) right to bear arms — Second Amendment and Article I, section 4 of the Ohio Constitution; (3) Fourth Amendment Monell claims; (4) state law and punitive damage claims against the Police Division of the City of Toledo; and (5) all remaining claims against Officer Comes. The Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims against Officer Bright and Sergeant Ray (1) for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, (2) for assault, battery, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution under Ohio law, and (3) for punitive damages.

[Alpha Sierra]

Rights CREATED by state law?

Judge needs a schooling about where rights come FROM.

[Alpha Sierra]

Haven't heard of this before but I like it.

Let that be a lesson to the few remaining Ohio police officers who do not understand the fact that the mere open carry of a firearm (not just a handgun) does not give you a reason to treat the citizen like a criminal.

Those two Toledo cops got burned for good reason.

[KeeFus]

Haven't heard of this before but I like it.

Let that be a lesson to the few remaining Ohio police officers who do not understand the fact that the mere open carry of a firearm (not just a handgun) does not give you a reason to treat the citizen like a criminal.

Those two Toledo cops got burned for good reason.

They have yet to be "burned". From my experience, most of these cases are settled before they actually reach trial. Most of the Plaintifs claims were dismissed. The remaining ones is where I tell my guys that they will get in a bind. Similar situation from a Federal District court case in NM a few years ago.

http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns

[Alpha Sierra]

They have yet to be "burned". From my experience, most of these cases are settled before they actually reach trial. Most of the Plaintifs claims were dismissed. The remaining ones is where I tell my guys that they will get in a bind.

Plaintiff using the same tactics used by prosecutors. Good on him.

It's too bad the guy is probably not wealthy. If he were, he should reject any settlement and go full court press to trial.

[joshs]

I'm doing research for a lesson plan I am developing and am curious if any of you guys in Ohio (Toledo area hopefully?) know anything more than what is presented in this case. From what I have read, the case is in brief at this time.

I have the original complaint and motion for summary judgment. I can provide them via email if you want them.


Rights CREATED by state law?

Judge needs a schooling about where rights come FROM.

The judge is citing a 6th Circuit precedent that he is legally bound to follow.

[ProtectGunRights]

What would you like to know to assist in your research?

[KeeFus]

What would you like to know to assist in your research?

Josh provided me with what I need thus far. Now Im sitting back and waiting to see what happens next. Im sure the case will be settled as others have been before it ever goes to trial.

[ProtectGunRights]

This is a good case for firearm advocates. It is important because it allows those individuals that might not want to apply or might not qualify for a concealed carry license to carry openly. While some of you might think it is "stupid" it may be the only manner in which an individual may lawfully carry. There are provisions in the Ohio Concealed Carry law that prevent lawful firearm owners from obtaining a concealed carry license. It is also important to note, some individuals do not want to be in the governmental databases maintained of concealed carry license holders.

Moreover, Mr. Northrup did not have his cell phone anywhere near his holstered firearm. He made no "furtive" movements towards his firearm as alleged by the police officer, but that is what created the disputed fact. Additionally, this case was an interlocutory appeal on the narrow issue whether Officer Bright was entitled to statutory immunity. Mr. Northrup is not permitted to appeal the other issues on summary judgment until after the trial on the merits.

[Ray Keith]

This is a good case for firearm advocates. It is important because it allows those individuals that might not want to apply or might not qualify for a concealed carry license to carry openly. While some of you might think it is "stupid" it may be the only manner in which an individual may lawfully carry. There are provisions in the Ohio Concealed Carry law that prevent lawful firearm owners from obtaining a concealed carry license. It is also important to note, some individuals do not want to be in the governmental databases maintained of concealed carry license holders.

Moreover, Mr. Northrup did not have his cell phone anywhere near his holstered firearm. He made no "furtive" movements towards his firearm as alleged by the police officer, but that is what created the disputed fact. Additionally, this case was an interlocutory appeal on the narrow issue whether Officer Bright was entitled to statutory immunity. Mr. Northrup is not permitted to appeal the other issues on summary judgment until after the trial on the merits.

The 6th Circuit heard an the interlocutory right? A panel? Who? Has either side requested en banc?

Did the district judge grant SJ on those issues that the 6th said the State was not entitled to one?

[Kingsfield]

The 6th Circuit heard an the interlocutory right? A panel? Who? Has either side requested en banc?

Did the district judge grant SJ on those issues that the 6th said the State was not entitled to one?

The 3-judge panel opinion is here:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf

[Kingsfield]

The opinion discusses a number of specific issues. Perhaps most of-note is:


"While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision—not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment—by detaining every “gunman” who lawfully possesses a firearm. See Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 896 N.E.2d 967, 976 (Ohio 2008) (holding that Ohio’s statewide handgun policy preempts contrary exercises of a local government’s police power). And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrup’s favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed."

[ProtectGunRights]

Police are permitted an interlocutory appeal when statutory immunity is denied. The Police officer was denied statutory immunity and the City of Toledo appealed the issue. If you read the decision, the Sergeant's denial of statutory immunity was reversed and the 6th Circuit granted it to him, but not to Officer Bright. It was remanded to the trial court for a trial against Officer Bright and a determination of the factual dispute.

[Hambo]

It is important because it allows those individuals that might not want to apply or might not qualify for a concealed carry license to carry openly. While some of you might think it is "stupid" it may be the only manner in which an individual may lawfully carry.

I do think that nothing says "shoot me first" like open carry, but that's not important right now. I'm more interested in who "might not qualify for a concealed carry license" that you believe should be carrying a gun. Teenagers? Convicted felons?

[ProtectGunRights]

The Ohio law denies individuals that qualify under both Federal and State law to own and possess firearms from obtaining a concealed carry license under certain circumstances for varying periods of time depending on the offense that disqualifies the individual. Most are offenses committed while a minor or misdemeanors that result in the denial of a concealed carry license for a period of time after which the person would be eligible to apply. If you want specific time-frame and offenses look at Ohio Revised Code Section 2329.125(D).

But I think your comment is more directed towards your belief that the only permissible manner to carry a firearm is "concealed." Do you honestly believe when you carry concealed it is not noticeable? If you are focused on your surroundings, most concealed firearms are easily identified.

It is remarkable that you would think that openly carrying a firearm states: "shoot me first." Isn't that the problem? You would have individuals disregard a Constitutional Right both as guaranteed by the US and Ohio constitutions because it invites those around you to "shoot me first?" How about if someone thought your comments protected by our Constitution should be suppressed because they did not agree with your point of view? When individuals and society begin to ignore one constitutional right because they don't agree with it, we are a society that is started down a slippery slope that puts all constitutional rights in jeopardy. How many wars, disputes or fights are started with words?

[Kukuforguns]

But I think your comment is more directed towards your belief that the only permissible manner to carry a firearm is "concealed." Do you honestly believe when you carry concealed it is not noticeable? If you are focused on your surroundings, most concealed firearms are easily identified.

It is remarkable that you would think that openly carrying a firearm states: "shoot me first." Isn't that the problem? You would have individuals disregard a Constitutional Right both as guaranteed by the US and Ohio constitutions because it invites those around you to "shoot me first?" How about if someone thought your comments protected by our Constitution should be suppressed because they did not agree with your point of view? When individuals and society begin to ignore one constitutional right because they don't agree with it, we are a society that is started down a slippery slope that puts all constitutional rights in jeopardy. How many wars, disputes or fights are started with words?
I'm not sure how you conclude Hambo believes that "the only permissible manner to carry a firearm is 'concealed.'" His statement supports a conclusion that he thinks carrying concealed is better practice than open carry, but that is a far cry from "only permissible manner." Just because you have the right to say all Purple People are idiots, it does not follow that it is a good idea to actually say that in a bar filled with Purple People. Can and should are two entirely different things.

[JAD]

I think the only thing that should prohibit open carry is common sense.

[Josh Runkle]

I think the only thing that should prohibit open carry is common sense.

So. Much. Epic. Win.

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

[Gadfly]

This will eventually put police in a situation that ends up in a tragedy. Yes, I realize that "what ifs" don't trump constitutional rights.

At some point, someone will walk towards a church/mall/hospital/park with a gun, someone will call 911 and be told "police don't respond to mere carry of a weapon" because it is not a crime... And that suspect will do something horrible. Then, it will be the polices fault for not responding.

So, do police stop investigating such calls? And if so, what happens once a call is ignored and you end up with Sandy hook 2.0? Is that in the best interest of gun owners? If cops respond, they are Jack booted thugs, if they don't respond, they have neglected their duty. Either way, the cops take the blame.

So what is the answer? I don't know.

[TSH]

Either way, the cops take the blame.

I'd say you answered your own question.

[TSH]

Haven't heard of this before but I like it.

Let that be a lesson to the few remaining Ohio police officers who do not understand the fact that the mere open carry of a firearm (not just a handgun) does not give you a reason to treat the citizen like a criminal.

Those two Toledo cops got burned for good reason.

Cute.

Some of you won't be happy until your contributions to this site drag it down to the level of The Truth About Guns.

[Kukuforguns]

This will eventually put police in a situation that ends up in a tragedy. Yes, I realize that "what ifs" don't trump constitutional rights.

At some point, someone will walk towards a church/mall/hospital/park with a gun, someone will call 911 and be told "police don't respond to mere carry of a weapon" because it is not a crime... And that suspect will do something horrible. Then, it will be the polices fault for not responding.

So, do police stop investigating such calls? And if so, what happens once a call is ignored and you end up with Sandy hook 2.0? Is that in the best interest of gun owners? If cops respond, they are Jack booted thugs, if they don't respond, they have neglected their duty. Either way, the cops take the blame.

So what is the answer? I don't know.

Until such calls become truly common, police will continue to investigate man with gun calls. There is plenty of room under current Constitutional law for police to conduct consensual investigations. Is there the likelihood that some bad guys will get through? Yep. Will people blame the police? Some. Will it gain traction? Not so much. Look what happened with the Santa Barbara shooter. Police conducted a welfare check but failed to prevent the shooting because they didn't have a basis to arrest the future shooter. There was some criticism, but it was pretty mild because the PD could articulate that officers lacked the legal basis to do anything more.

Once man with gun calls become truly common and police lack the resources to investigate all of them, the threat of a bad man with a gun will be diminished because there will now be other good men and women with guns who will (hopefully) act to limit the carnage.

Moreover, there's a fair amount of push back from gun rights advocates against the people who hold open carry demonstrations (at Applebee's or wherever) with long guns. It typically goes like this, "Yes, you have the right to be an asshole. Why do you want to be an asshole?"

[rsa-otc]

This will eventually put police in a situation that ends up in a tragedy. Yes, I realize that "what ifs" don't trump constitutional rights.

At some point, someone will walk towards a church/mall/hospital/park with a gun, someone will call 911 and be told "police don't respond to mere carry of a weapon" because it is not a crime... And that suspect will do something horrible. Then, it will be the polices fault for not responding.

So, do police stop investigating such calls? And if so, what happens once a call is ignored and you end up with Sandy hook 2.0? Is that in the best interest of gun owners? If cops respond, they are Jack booted thugs, if they don't respond, they have neglected their duty. Either way, the cops take the blame.

So what is the answer? I don't know.

I don't think anyone here is advocating not investigating "Man with gun" calls. The problem is that once the officer arrived and saw John Q Citizen walking his dog with his spouse legally carrying a holstered weapon and not doing anything illegal or derpy, that should have been the end of it. All the controversy and anger arises with the officer's derp that followed the initial contact that ended up with the law abiding citizen cuffed in the back of the car charged with inciting.

Once/IF the public becomes acclimated to people calmly and legally carrying firearms, just seeing a gun in the open will garner far fewer calls. They will learn the difference between lawful behavior and a terrorist/mental illness issue.

And no I don't think opening carrying a semi auto rifle in urban/crowded public areas is a good idea.

[KeeFus]

Before we go down an what an OC is to me rabbit hole...I researched this topic and placed it here in the LE section because it is so representative of what we will come across at some point. I wanted others to be able to see and follow this case. As soon as I read it I knew the officer had screwed the pooch and I DO NOT WANT OTHERS HERE, AND THOSE I HAVE TO WORK WITH TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE(s). Officers need to know the ramifications of these cases. Matthew St John v. Alemogordo is another great example of what happens when someone is offended by an OC'er and calls 911. http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/St.John%20v%20Alamogordo%20Police%20Order.pdf

I have had these calls, more than a few times, and had to educate the caller on what was and wasn't legal. I've seen it when I've been off duty and watched as people looked at the OC'er like they were f'in idiots. And yes people really do pay attention to people who choose to OC and the looks they get relay their feelings. Idiots they may be but it is their right to be idiots much the same as the news media types that add fuel to the fires of what we have seen over the past year (Ferguson, et al) because Feeedom of Press. Whatever.

I wholeheartedly dislike OC. But until its illegal these folk can do it. Its the trained and measured response by LEO's that will either fail us or make us prevail. Its education and training and a change in the thought process. Just because someone has passed a concealed weapons class doesn't make them less likely to kill anyone who hasn't been through one. The guy I killed in 2008 had a CHP. I had been in LE at that point for 13 years. It made no difference to me if he had a damn CHP or not...the only thing I wanted was to avoid another shotgun blast. It sucked for everyone involved. No one understood it then...and that hasnt changed.

Sorry for the rant. Its not about how anyone feels about OC. Its about the law and preventing future mistakes in these situations.

Hope everyone has a great Memorial Day weekend.