Man Files $3 Million Lawsuit After Being Arrested for Lawful Open Carry


opsspec1991

Active member
By FWebb

As a citizen of these United States, you are not obligated to identify yourself to a police officer unless that officer can “reasonably” suspect that a crime is imminent or already under way. Well, unless you live in one of those “stop and frisk” states, of course. But I consider those to be more akin to the USSR than the United States of America.

That means that you need not identify yourself to an officer unless that officer can show probable cause that a crime is being committed (again, unless you live in one of the “stop and frisk” police states).

Yeah yeah yeah, but what does that really mean? That means that if you’re carrying your (legal, of course) weapon into a store and are breaking no laws, you need not even look in the direction of a police officer if you don’t want to.

Someone forgot to tell that to these two Ohio cops, who decided to harass one Ray Call for openly carrying his firearm in his hip holster into a Speedway. After threatening him with “reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances”, and — wait, WHAT? Noise disturbances? And get this little gem:

“Why are you out with a gun?”

“Exercising a right”

“What right is that?”

“The second amendment.”

“Which is to?”

“Bear arms”

“And you think you can just walk in a store with a gun, and refuse to identify yourself, and have no ID on you?”

“That is correct.”

Well actually, officer douchebag, that is correct. According to the Ohio Revised Code section 2921.29,

Unless an officer reasonably suspects a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense, that person is not required to disclose their name, address, or date of birth.

Since Ohio allows open carry without a license, there was no crime being committed, nor was there reasonable grounds for suspicion of one.

Way to go, Ohio PD. You’re about to cost your department a lot of money because you couldn’t be bothered to read the laws you are sworn to uphold.

Since the posters of this video have requested that it not be embedded, follow the link here to see the original dashcam footage, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Bozz

New member
I hope the guy gets NOTHING...he's an idiot. Just because the law says you don't have to identify yourself, doesn't mean that you shouldn't. He was clearly setting this thing up the whole time, so hopefully he gets nothing but court costs.

IMHO, he makes all of us law abiding citizens look like baffoons.
 

SouthernBoy

New member
I hope the guy gets NOTHING...he's an idiot. Just because the law says you don't have to identify yourself, doesn't mean that you shouldn't. He was clearly setting this thing up the whole time, so hopefully he gets nothing but court costs.

IMHO, he makes all of us law abiding citizens look like baffoons.

You've go to be kidding. You don't really believe this... do you? Have you forgotten for whom the police work? The police here were clearly in violation of the rights of this man and to suggest he feed their illegal actions is unconscionable.
 

HD-kutz

New member
Good for him. I can only hope that a monetary award forces police to respect citizens rights and change their policy. The only person that looks bad in the video are the ones that violate citizens rights and think they can actually make the rule.
 

muccione

New member
I hope the guy gets NOTHING...he's an idiot. Just because the law says you don't have to identify yourself, doesn't mean that you shouldn't. He was clearly setting this thing up the whole time, so hopefully he gets nothing but court costs.

IMHO, he makes all of us law abiding citizens look like baffoons.
You must be a cop or were a cop.
You may be willing to give up YOUR rights but Mr. Call, ME, and most of the good citizens on this site refuse to give up our rights just because a cop THINKS he can do anything.
 

CarryNM

New member
Not all , but in some instances, if you give a man/woman a badge, and a gun they think they are God. I once sent a deputy back to 6 weeks of training for not knowing the law and illegally detaining me after an accident, in which I was not even involved in. Just stopped to be of service to the injured. Detained me for over an hour to write me a bogus ticket, and when i contested it and went to court, the judge laughed at him, and ordered him back to school for 6 weeks. LMAO , but he didn't!! They need to know the laws they are about to enforce.. I used to live in Ohio, please note the [past tense. Now in NM. and open carry all the time, even to the bank.
 

BC1

,
Three million seems a little low, wish I could sit on the Jury in this one.
This is a legitimate suit. The LEO did much more than not understand the law. Comments like "I've been doing this longer than you've been on earth." Comments about the NRA. Refusal to check the code before affecting an arrest. More than just a mistake. This one is going bad for the department.
 

docmath

New member
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license. Just like my CHL. If I ever get pulled over, which I never do, the 1st thing I would tell the officer is that I have a CHL and a firearm with me, including it's location, whether or not it's hot, or in some cases let him know it's open with nothing in the magazine and the magazine is not installed and nothing chambered. If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition. Why wouldn't you have your ID with you? I carry my ID whenever I leave the house. What if this guy was a felon and just made up a name, are they supposed to take his word for it? I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?
 

SouthernBoy

New member
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license. Just like my CHL. If I ever get pulled over, which I never do, the 1st thing I would tell the officer is that I have a CHL and a firearm with me, including it's location, whether or not it's hot, or in some cases let him know it's open with nothing in the magazine and the magazine is not installed and nothing chambered. If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition. Why wouldn't you have your ID with you? I carry my ID whenever I leave the house. What if this guy was a felon and just made up a name, are they supposed to take his word for it? I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?

It is this sort of attitude I find most disturbing with some people.

"You don't mind if I take a look in your car, do you?"
the answer to this should always be "No, you may not search my car". Close your windows and lock your car if asked to exit. Do NOT allow police to search your vehicle. (obviously if there is real PC then you don't have that position on your side).

Why carry an ID if you don't need to do this? Suppose you're out for an evening walk around your neighborhood. Do you carry an ID for this? I certainly don't. And if I an OC'ing, I don't need one anyway.

The point is if given an inch, police will want a mile. They are out for bodies (read "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party).
 

SouthernBoy

New member
Good for him. I can only hope that a monetary award forces police to respect citizens rights and change their policy. The only person that looks bad in the video are the ones that violate citizens rights and think they can actually make the rule.

The only problem with this is it will be the taxpayers who foot the bill for the illegal actions of the police in this case. That is not right. The individual officers and perhaps their chief should be held personally accountable and to hell with qualified immunity when it comes to police overstepping their bounds and authority that we lend them.
 

JCliff

New member
Police were clearly wrong in this case, and not a little arrogant. Arrogance can usually be traced directly to the leadership in the department. If the leadership is arrogant, the subordinates will be even more so. I doubt Mr. Call will see an award of the magnitude he is asking, but it sure looks like he has a good case.
 

jrs

New member
Below is an article written by a former LEO and now Attorney who consults on Constitutional rights to Law Enforcement agencies.
It appeared in USACarry forum as indicated in the text re: NY Safe Act, but the part about violation of Constitutional rights seems to be applicable here.

Following his logic, these officers could be sued in a Civil Proceeding and their Dept or Town wouldn't be on the hook monetarily...they would.
Text as follows:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/new-...-gun-laws-infringe-post415428.html#post415428
Posted by: golocx4
On: 02-27-2013 10:55 AM

This guy is spot on! I highlighted my previous points.

Retired Capt. Robert Jones
Readers note: This article was written by Robert A. Jones of Troy, NY. He is a retired New York State Police Captain, and an attorney. It was published in the Troy Record newspaper.




Kudos to the Rensselaer County Legislature for its Resolution condemning Gov. Andrews Cuomos 'irrational gun and magazine ban'. Now, as a former police legal advisor and alumnus of the FBI National Law Institute for police legal advisors, I propose the real dangers to law enforcement be considered. First, it is plain that the new law fails to exempt police from being felons if they carry firearms onto school property. Indeed, it technically makes it a crime for anyone including police to possess any firearm. There are many other mistakes too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that 'this law was drafted and passed by a bunch of incompetent ideological zealots' who rushed it through in the middle of the night to escape rational review.

But police must also consider civil rights liability if they choose to enforce an unconstitutional law. Those of us who are or have been in law enforcement know we can be sued in federal court under 42 USC 1983 if we violate a citizens Constitutional rights. These lawsuits are filed regularly. The Second Amendment is prominent on the list of rights, as is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which makes vague laws unenforceable and unconstitutional. Ex post facto laws are also a violation of the Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10. A police officer can be held personally liable for damages as well as punitive damages if he violates ones Constitutional rights. Thus, besides making felons of our police, Cuomo's law creates a real dilemma for law enforcement. Police have an independent obligation to not violate a persons Constitutional rights. It is not enough that a politician assures us that our actions are Constitutional. The politician will not be held
liable, will not lose his bank account, or house, 'or other assets'. But the police officer who violates Constitutional rights will. Thus, a police officers informed use of discretion regarding whether to enforce some of the new laws provisions may, on the one hand, anger political zealots who want every word enforced regardless of the laws probable Constitutional infirmity or, on the other, subject the officer to financial ruin from civil liability for violating ones Constitutional rights. The officer will be well advised to exercise his discretion in his own self interest the politicians will surely throw him under the bus when the going gets tough.

I previously used the phrase Ex-Post Facto law. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that punishes previous conduct undertaken when such conduct was not a crime. For example, it can be credibly argued that a person who had lawfully acquired and owned a 17 round magazine on Jan. 14 had committed no crime perhaps he had owned the magazine for decades. Yet Cuomo's best law in the nation suddenly made owning this previously lawful magazine a crime. The owner did nothing between the time he lawfully owned the magazine and the time his ownership was made a crime. Rather than grandfather this magazine in his new law so that its continued ownership would remain lawful, 'Cuomo made the previous lawful conduct of owning it a crime'. But, you may argue, it is not the previous conduct that is now criminal, but the ownership after the effective date of the new law that is made criminal. Nice try but the government may not force a forfeiture of private property to avoid criminal liability. This
argument is only credible if the effect of the new law was to not effectively force the previously lawfully owned magazine to be forfeited. Yet this is what Cuomo's law does. It also forces the forfeiture of previously lawful weapons that now fall within the more restrictive so-called assault weapon definition. The current owner can register them but cannot pass them on to his children or anyone else. They are, essentially, forfeited by the arbitrary and uninformed action of the government.

With such an argument that this law is an unconstitutional Ex Post Facto law, I fear that some good intentioned law enforcement officers will step into the trap laid by the governor and have his or her life ruined by the lawsuits sure to follow.
Nice job by the gaggle of incompetent ideological zealots in Albany. This law must be repealed.
 

DocWho

New member
Why carry an ID if you don't need to do this? Suppose you're out for an evening walk around your neighborhood. Do you carry an ID for this? I certainly don't. And if I an OC'ing, I don't need one anyway.

The point is if given an inch, police will want a mile. They are out for bodies (read "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party).

Exactly, the issue of showing ID is not one of the 2nd amendment rights but one of the 4th and 5th amendment rights. Those would be the ones prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure and against self incrimination. When pulled over operating a motor vehicle you are required to show your license "proving you are authorized to operate the vehicle in question", when carrying concealed and determined to be doing so you may be required to show your CHL "proving that you are legally authorized to carry concealed". You are not required to carry identification, proof of citizenship, or any other form of "papers" at any point in time. As for why I mention the 5th amendment right check out
"Don't talk to the Police". Respect and appreciate you local LEOs as they've got a really crappy job and generally deal with scumbags, but the politicians have passed SO many laws that just about everything is illegal so the only question is what they decide to prosecute and if they can prove anything.
 

Seeya

New member
Crimminaly charge the officer's for violation of his civil liberties under USC Title 18 241 & 242 and when they go to jail, or just the battle to stay out of jail will send a message that they need to rethink how they do things. This is the only way to fight police abuse of power. Money comes out of the peoples pockets that employ them (taxpayers). Felony charges elimate the individual from being a leo or voting upon conviction.

18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
 

Icemanii

New member
It is this sort of attitude I find most disturbing with some people.

"You don't mind if I take a look in your car, do you?"
the answer to this should always be "No, you may not search my car". Close your windows and lock your car if asked to exit. Do NOT allow police to search your vehicle. (obviously if there is real PC then you don't have that position on your side).

Why carry an ID if you don't need to do this? Suppose you're out for an evening walk around your neighborhood. Do you carry an ID for this? I certainly don't. And if I an OC'ing, I don't need one anyway.

The point is if given an inch, police will want a mile. They are out for bodies (read "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party).

First off, I agree these officers overstepped the line greatly.

But this line got me curious. I alway have my ID with me, guess it is just habit. Clothes, gun, wallet, cell phone, flashlight, knife. All the time, everytime I go out. Never really thought about it.

Like the saying for motorcycles ATGATT (All The Gear, All The Time). That way, I don't forget when it matters.
 

BC1

,
Also consider that the guy didn't have ID on him. He didn't refuse the LEO. He simply had no ID on him. That's not grounds for arrest. How many of us zip-out for an errand and forget our wallet? Did I wake-up in Moscow this morning? I've been stopped in the past driving without ID on me but I wasn't arrested. Bad cop. No doughnut.
 

jrs

New member
Crimminaly charge the officer's for violation of his civil liberties under USC Title 18 241 & 242 and when they go to jail, or just the battle to stay out of jail will send a message that they need to rethink how they do things. This is the only way to fight police abuse of power. Money comes out of the peoples pockets that employ them (taxpayers). Felony charges elimate the individual from being a leo or voting upon conviction.

18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

I think you missed an important point in the article.... The suit is filed "personally" against the offending officers, not the Municipality or Police Department they work for. They are sued personally...that means that they will have to fund their own defense. The municipality will run from this as not being responsible for the actions of an individual LEO, leaving the officer to drain his bank accounts, cash out his equity in his house and likely have liens if he loses. The taxpayer will not be footing the bill in these cases.

Just a couple suits like this against the LEO would send shivers through the ranks. I believe they would think twice before making an arrest for a 'questionable' offense (or lack of real offense), or before they enforce a sham of a law (ei: NY Safe Act) which should be deemed unconstitutional.
 

SouthernBoy

New member
I think you missed an important point in the article.... The suit is filed "personally" against the offending officers, not the Municipality or Police Department they work for. They are sued personally...that means that they will have to fund their own defense. The municipality will run from this as not being responsible for the actions of an individual LEO, leaving the officer to drain his bank accounts, cash out his equity in his house and likely have liens if he loses. The taxpayer will not be footing the bill in these cases.

Just a couple suits like this against the LEO would send shivers through the ranks. I believe they would think twice before making an arrest for a 'questionable' offense (or lack of real offense), or before they enforce a sham of a law (ei: NY Safe Act) which should be deemed unconstitutional.

Yep, and that's how you get them. Hit them personally where it hurts. Police can be criminals just like anyone else. There is nothing special about them. How many times have you heard of police running illegal firearms or drugs or scamming businesses? I know of a scam that was run by the Arlington County, VA police some years ago against certain businesses. Now Arlington County is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation so you wouldn't think this would happen.

Get them where it hurts the most and make them pay. Or "out" them to the press and their town councils. We had a locally famous case here six years ago where seven open carriers met at a pizza shop. Someone, a former marine if you can believe that one, called the police about these openly armed men. Keep in mind the standard, or normal, mode of carry in Virginia is open, not concealed. The police showed up and harassed the armed customers and forced the manager to ask them to leave. The police even tried to get the armed men to break the law (wouldn't that make the police accessories and therefore subject to arrest?) by telling them to cover up their firearms. At the time in Virginia, you couldn't carry concealed into a business that served alcohol for consumption on the premises.

At the next town council meeting, the room was flooded by people... so much so that there was no room in the meeting room and people were spilled out into the hallways. Most were openly armed. This happened again at the next council meeting. Needless to say, they got the message and their officers were so informed. Nothing like this has occurred since.

With public officials, be they mayors, council members, or police, when they act outside of the law, make their lives miserable. After all, we own them. They work for us, not the other way around. We are their bosses and they are where they are to do our bidding. Make sure they know this.
 

muccione

New member
I am all for 2nd amendment rights, but I really don't see the big deal. If an officer ask's me for my I.D., and I'm open carrying, why is it so hard to show him your drivers license. Just like my CHL. If I ever get pulled over, which I never do, the 1st thing I would tell the officer is that I have a CHL and a firearm with me, including it's location, whether or not it's hot, or in some cases let him know it's open with nothing in the magazine and the magazine is not installed and nothing chambered. If you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a concern. I don't like the gestapo tactics, but arguing with 2 cops with a loaded firearm on your hip and no ID is just flat out stupid and a losing proposition. Why wouldn't you have your ID with you? I carry my ID whenever I leave the house. What if this guy was a felon and just made up a name, are they supposed to take his word for it? I guess the real question is are your rights being trampled on if you are carrying a cannon on your hip, and you are simply asked if they can see your ID?
Would you let the police walk in your house and start looking through everything? No reason, just because the cop want to look, You have nothing to hide so why not. How about getting searched because you had a yellow shirt on?

Stop and frisk
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrant-less search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband)
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,392
Messages
623,131
Members
74,216
Latest member
medialodge
Top