5th amendment rights question and CCW


We will call this a 'hypothetical" question.
Opinions please, highly thankful!

A person is being charged with Ohio RC 2923.15 (A) which reads as : Using weapons while intoxicated.

(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

Short and sweet and no definition of what intoxicated even constitutes as.

Here is an abstract from 2923.12

2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons.

(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person's person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:

(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun;

(2) A handgun other than a dangerous ordnance;

(3) A dangerous ordnance.

(B) No person who has been issued a concealed handgun license shall do any of the following:

(1) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a concealed handgun license and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun;

(2) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, knowingly fail to keep the person's hands in plain sight at any time after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the person while stopped and before the law enforcement officer leaves, unless the failure is pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by a law enforcement officer;

(3) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose, if the person is carrying a concealed handgun, and if the person is approached by any law enforcement officer while stopped, knowingly remove or attempt to remove the loaded handgun from the holster, pocket, or other place in which the person is carrying it, knowingly grasp or hold the loaded handgun, or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the person's hands or fingers at any time after the law enforcement officer begins approaching and before the law enforcement officer leaves, unless the person removes, attempts to remove, grasps, holds, or has contact with the loaded handgun pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by the law enforcement officer;

(4) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, knowingly disregard or fail to comply with any lawful order of any law enforcement officer given while the person is stopped, including, but not limited to, a specific order to the person to keep the person's hands in plain sight.

If a licensee is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and if the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun at the time the officer approaches, the licensee shall promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the licensee while stopped that the licensee has been issued a concealed handgun license and that the licensee currently is carrying a concealed handgun; the licensee shall not knowingly disregard or fail to comply with lawful orders of a law enforcement officer given while the licensee is stopped or knowingly fail to keep the licensee's hands in plain sight after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves, unless directed otherwise by a law enforcement officer; and the licensee shall not knowingly remove, attempt to remove, grasp, or hold the loaded handgun or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the licensee's hands or fingers, in any manner in violation of division
(B) of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code, after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves.

(D) A person who holds a valid concealed handgun license issued by another state that is recognized by the attorney general pursuant to a reciprocity agreement entered into pursuant to section 109.69 of the Revised Code or a person who holds a valid concealed handgun license under the circumstances described in division (B) of section 109.69 of the Revised Code has the same right to carry a concealed handgun in this state as a person who was issued a concealed handgun license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code and is subject to the same restrictions that apply to a person who carries a license issued under that section.


PARTICULARS OF THIS HYPOTHETICAL CASE

1.The person has a legal CCW, had it securely out of site in a handbag, was walking home after an argument , late at night, and was stopped by the police.
2.After the stop the person was offered 3 options, go back to where she was arguing with a family member to 1) press charges, 2 get a cab ( had no money), or 3 go to the police station with the office ( no reason??)
3. The person asked to be aloud to continue on their way and was told they could not.
4. Before giving the officer the ID, she put her hands in the air and announced that she had a CCW and loaded weapon in her purse, as she was taught that was the law in the state of XXXX
5. Upon revealing this information, she was put in handcuffs and put in the police car and told she was guilty of a Felony 5, her gun was confiscated and was told to blow for an alcohol count, which read .06
6. The person asked to do other sobriety test to show t hat they were not intoxicate, but was denied.
7. The person was denied the opportunity to have someone pick them up at the scene
8. The persons ID and CCW was not even checked until going to the police station
6. The person was taken to booking and charged with Ohio RC 2923 15 "Using a weapon while intoxicated" a M1 charge, and then taken to The XXX County Jail, and given bail.
7. After weeks of trying to get a report, and the audio, this person was finally sent the report from from her Public Defender.
8. All of the paperwork was marked " cannot be used for public purposes, only Police investigations" Ns the Video was not aloud released
9. When asking the Public Defender to collaborate the story by listening to the Video, was told that the Video/audio was not started until after they were booked, therefore there was no proof of what was said or seen before the arrest.

The Report from the unnamed officer stated, and I quote "On June 20. 2015 I was eastbound on XXX when I observed XXXX XXXX walking down the sidewalk crying. I pulled up next to XXXXX and got out to check on her. I could detect a moderate odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage emitting from XXXXX. XXXXX informed me she and her daughter had gotten into an argument on the way home from XXXXXXX Pub in XXXXXX. XXXX said she got out of the car and began walking on XXXXX RD near XXXX XXXXX. When asked for ID,before reaching into her purse, XXXX informed me that she had a (out of state) XXXXXX CCW permit and was carrying a loaded firearm in her purse. I took the purse from XXXXX and placed her in the back of cruiser #2. In XXXX's purse I recovered a Smith & Wesson .38 loaded with five rounds. Once removing the firearm, I gave the purse back to XXXXX who provided me with her (out of state) XXXXX drivers license and XXXX CCW permit. I asked XXXXX to perform a breathe sample on the PBT, which read .060. XXXX was placed under arrest for carrying a loaded firearm and booked her into the XXXX County jail.

Here is my question.....Is it possible that this person's 5th amendment rights were violated, as she was required to, by the states law, to announce that she had a weapon before giving the officer her ID or proceeding in anyway with the stop?

After all, she was not stopped for any "lawful crime", and was not found guilty/suspect of any other crime at that time, or even after her arrest.
There was not a crime until she revealed that she had the firearm and CCW, which was itself a required state law.
Wasn't she technically incriminating herself by telling the officer she had the gun? Wasn't it a violation of her rights?
If she wasn't stopped, or even if she was, she did not have to reveal that she had a CCW, if she was able to just hand over her license, and as a result,she would have most likely have been let go, as there was no additional crime.

At least, that's what I am leaning towards. I may be way off base, but would love to hear some others thoughts on this.

I'm just looking for opinions.
Thank you in advance!
 

I would say that your best bet would be a violation of your 4th Amendment rights against unlawful detainment. What crime would the officer have the reasonable suspicion to detain you with to begin with? Under your steps 1-3 what crime would have been committed if you just continued walking to wherever you were walking to?

My advice to you is first to attempt to find an attorney who file a lawsuit against the officer/city for illegal detainment violating your 4th Amendment rights who will take the case on a contingency basis where they will get paid out of a settlement. If you can't find an attorney on a contingency basis, then sell/pawn whatever you have to for your defense and hope that you win the lawsuit to get your money back.

Let this be a lesson to those that like to say "just comply" with officer friendly..... the OP should have just simply refused to produce ID.

Ohio Code:
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

After you were illegally detained, then it would appear that the notification statute violates your 5th Amendment. See (D) in the code mentioned above - as an example. Why is (D) there? Because in the situation of minor in possession of alcohol the statute would violate the 5th Amendment. You are basically being required to admit to committing a crime by being required to inform a police officer of a firearm that you might be carrying illegally.
 
Thank you both for your opinions, it means a lot to me.

I think I will follow your advice NavyLCDR, and try my best to find an attorney. I just wasn't sure if it was worthy.
 
The Report from the unnamed officer stated, and I quote

The report didn't have the name of the officer who was filing it? Other than the amorphous "state," who would be your accuser if this wasn't a "hypothetical" scenario?

Is there such a thing as a quotation coming from within a hypothetical? LOL (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Blues
 
My thought is that she didn't have to give ID or details. It is not illegal to cry while walking down the street. Anything past that is a slippery slope because following the law can put you in legal problems.
 
She had to, because they wouldn't let her leave. And the law in Ohio says you have to disclose, had she not, abd they found it, it would have been a felony

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
 
She had to, because they wouldn't let her leave. And the law in Ohio says you have to disclose, had she not, abd they found it, it would have been a felony

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

No, it either would have been a misdemeanor in the first degree or a minor misdemeanor. See ORC 2923.12 (F)(3).

It still isn't right that only a person properly licensed to carry a concealed handgun can be convicted for not informing an officer when a person who is illegally carrying a concealed handgun cannot because the duty to notify only applies to persons legally concealing it.
 
It still isn't right that only a person properly licensed to carry a concealed handgun can be convicted for not informing an officer when a person who is illegally carrying a concealed handgun cannot because the duty to notify only applies to persons legally concealing it.

Yeah, government needs to pass a law that says criminals who are carrying without a permit have to inform officers too lol. I couldn't resist - just kidding Navy - don't chew me out. :jester:
 
Yeah, government needs to pass a law that says criminals who are carrying without a permit have to inform officers too lol. I couldn't resist - just kidding Navy - don't chew me out. :jester:

What we can probably expect is the government to pass a law that says no one can legally carry a firearm that has affected interstate commerce within 1000' of any person the subject should reasonably know is a police officer unless the gun is unloaded and locked in a case - for officer safety, of course.
 
No, it either would have been a misdemeanor in the first degree or a minor misdemeanor. See ORC 2923.12 (F)(3).

It still isn't right that only a person properly licensed to carry a concealed handgun can be convicted for not informing an officer when a person who is illegally carrying a concealed handgun cannot because the duty to notify only applies to persons legally concealing it.
Sorry about that, I was getting the disclosure, and what would have happened under the same circomstances, if she were in a car confused. If she were in a car and blew under the .08, she was told that would have been a felony.

It's a sad world we're living in, the criminals really do have more rights and a better chance for a defense than we law abiding citizens do.


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
 
What we can probably expect is the government to pass a law that says no one can legally carry a firearm that has affected interstate commerce within 1000' of any person the subject should reasonably know is a police officer unless the gun is unloaded and locked in a case - for officer safety, of course.
Sad, but I could see that really happening!

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
 
fb4a5b39540954b6363c5f786d707242.jpg
 
Sorry about that, I was getting the disclosure, and what would have happened under the same circomstances, if she were in a car confused. If she were in a car and blew under the .08, she was told that would have been a felony.

It's a sad world we're living in, the criminals really do have more rights and a better chance for a defense than we law abiding citizens do.


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
Thank the ACLU in part. I watched a special on illegal immigrant criminals yesterday and one police chief said his department is too afraid of the ACLU to detain illegals despite their violent criminal past.
 
Well, the prosecutor in her case refused lowering the charges to a disorderly, so her attorney recommend she take it to a jury trial if she could make it up to Ohio. But, financially that's impossible. So, she plead via mail, no contest to the charges.

The prosecutor offered her 180 days, 179 dismissed 1 served, a $25.00 fine and court costs. She was assured it will not affect her CCW permit or ability to buy a gun. But, I don't see how it won't.

She did call the Florida Department of Agricultural, and they said, as long as, it's a misdemeanor it won't.

As far as getting back her gun, the attorney did put it in the paper he had her sign, that she was requesting her property be returned. He said that she will still need to go to Ohio to get it, if the judge agrees, because they won't release it to him.

But, before she left Ohio, she checked to see how she could get her gun back, and was told that once the court released it, the Sheriff's Department there would send it to the Sheriff's Department in Florida.

So, now, it's another wait and see until she hears back from the attorney. It is scheduled for jury trial on the 19th.

I feel that the only reason it wasn't lowered to a lesser charge, is that they know how hard it is for anyone to stop their life in another state a d go up there to solve this.

I think they are taking advantage of the fact that since it's's still a misdemeanor, and the charge is basically a catch all with no clear way of defence against it, most people will just give into it, and pay the fine, which is exactly what she had to do.

Can anyone tell me if the bail money she paid gets used towards her fine and court costs?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
 
I think when you spoke and he smelled alcohol and then when you notified him of the gun he tied the two together. I'm not experienced in OH law but looking at the Ohio Law and Rules I believe stopping you was not within the purvey of the law. You were under no obligation to speak to him because the stop was not for "law enforcement purposes." He wasn't enforcing any law, handling any violation of any law or conducting any investigation. You're allowed to cry in public. You were under no obligation to speak to him at all. Once you did it sealed your fate.

NavyLCDR gave you good advice. I believe your 4th amendment right was violated. Any arrest resulting from evidence obtained from such a violation would be inadmissible. But it's a tough fight. You can still pursue the violation in fed court. Had you plead guilty it would have barred you but pleading no contest was not an admission of guilt. You haven't allocuted on the record.
 
I think when you spoke and he smelled alcohol and then when you notified him of the gun he tied the two together. I'm not experienced in OH law but looking at the Ohio Law and Rules I believe stopping you was not within the purvey of the law. You were under no obligation to speak to him because the stop was not for "law enforcement purposes." He wasn't enforcing any law, handling any violation of any law or conducting any investigation. You're allowed to cry in public. You were under no obligation to speak to him at all. Once you did it sealed your fate.

NavyLCDR gave you good advice. I believe your 4th amendment right was violated. Any arrest resulting from evidence obtained from such a violation would be inadmissible. But it's a tough fight. You can still pursue the violation in fed court. Had you plead guilty it would have barred you but pleading no contest was not an admission of guilt. You haven't allocuted on the record.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to this. I can use all of the help I can get. I just feel so taken advantage of. They know I'm unable to defend myself, so they're pushing it to the limit. Now, I mainly hope I get back my gun.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top