Lon
05-15-2015, 11:58 PM
Interesting case for you Ohio cops out there specifically, here is a link to the decision they just came out with:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf
For those that aren't familiar with Ohio's OC laws, OC is legal without any license whatsoever. It's codified in the Ohio Revised Code 9.68. Also by case law in Klein v. Leis. Unfortunately many Ohio cops still haven't caught on or been taught that this is so.
The short version is this: guy and his wife were out walking their dog. He's oc'ing a pistol. Passerby gets into an argument with them about the legality of OC, then calls Toledo PD saying "there's a guy walking down the road carrying a gun in the open". Toledo PD dispatch sends a unit out. Said officer ends up stopping, disarming and later arresting the guy for "failing to disclose personal information". (This law requires people to provide their name, address and DOB if they've commited a crime or when there's RAS they committed a crime or witnessed certain crimes.) After the guy is cut loose, the PD eventually drops the charges. (Since OC isn't a crime and there was no RAS of a crime, it was a bad arrest) Guy sues. The District court threw out the suit and the guy appeals. 6th Circuit overturns the Distrcit courts decision, saying:
While the dispatcher and motorcyclist may not have known the details of Ohio’s open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty. If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes.(They refer to the recent Heien v NC decision in the citation)
And this:
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
I'm not a huge OC fan, but it's legal and I make sure my guys know not to do stupid shit like this. It's a good decision by the 6th for the most part. There's some language in the decision about "assault rifles and illicit weapons" I wish they would have explained more fully. I've read all of the Circuit cases (Black, J.L, and Ubiles, etc.) they mention and they are a great read if you're interested in what's PC and what's not when it comes to dealing with legally armed citizens.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf
For those that aren't familiar with Ohio's OC laws, OC is legal without any license whatsoever. It's codified in the Ohio Revised Code 9.68. Also by case law in Klein v. Leis. Unfortunately many Ohio cops still haven't caught on or been taught that this is so.
The short version is this: guy and his wife were out walking their dog. He's oc'ing a pistol. Passerby gets into an argument with them about the legality of OC, then calls Toledo PD saying "there's a guy walking down the road carrying a gun in the open". Toledo PD dispatch sends a unit out. Said officer ends up stopping, disarming and later arresting the guy for "failing to disclose personal information". (This law requires people to provide their name, address and DOB if they've commited a crime or when there's RAS they committed a crime or witnessed certain crimes.) After the guy is cut loose, the PD eventually drops the charges. (Since OC isn't a crime and there was no RAS of a crime, it was a bad arrest) Guy sues. The District court threw out the suit and the guy appeals. 6th Circuit overturns the Distrcit courts decision, saying:
While the dispatcher and motorcyclist may not have known the details of Ohio’s open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty. If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes.(They refer to the recent Heien v NC decision in the citation)
And this:
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
I'm not a huge OC fan, but it's legal and I make sure my guys know not to do stupid shit like this. It's a good decision by the 6th for the most part. There's some language in the decision about "assault rifles and illicit weapons" I wish they would have explained more fully. I've read all of the Circuit cases (Black, J.L, and Ubiles, etc.) they mention and they are a great read if you're interested in what's PC and what's not when it comes to dealing with legally armed citizens.