OC individual sues police for false arrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
The most recent case involved a Tipp City man, Roy Call, who walked into a Speedway gas station at 3201 Valley Pike in Riverside at 4:30 am on August 28, 2012 with a gun holstered on his hip in full view by anyone in the store. A customer alerted a police officer who happened to be in the store parking lot. When the officer asked Call who he was and what he was doing, Call said he was exercising his Second Amendment rights and initially declined to identify himself. The officer arrested Call and charged him with obstructing official business. - See more at: http://m.whio.com/news/news/advocates-put-police-gun-laws-test/nXyH5/#sthash.aGVvtBao.dpuf
Click to expand...

He should have just said "I'm paying for my gas and getting a cup of coffee" (or something to that affect)
 
You will note that it was "a customer" who went and alerted the police. The police officer was responding to the citizen's request for assistance. The police officer inquired of the guy who was OCing what he was about and who he was. The guy gives the cop a ration and the cop brings him in. Exactly how it should have been handled.

These OC guys are trying to make their point entirely the wrong way. In this case they prompted a citizen to request help from the police. Why? Probably because he/she was scared. It was 4:30 in the morning in a convenience store. Is it ever smart to scare people who have the right to go about their business unmolested?

These tactics just blow up in the face of gun rights advocates, including OC. It makes us all look stupid.
 
"Anti-gun advocate Sean L. Walton Sr. , of the Community Initiative To Reduce Gun Violence, said he questions the motives of advocates who might think is within their right to carry a weapon openly into a gas station.

"The public is hyper-sensitive and I consider it insensitive."​

Insensitivity is not a crime...yet. :uhoh:
 
As a retired cop, who was a supervisor, then a watch commander for many years.... the individual earned his arrest and the OC was only part of the case against him... If the press account is accurate (usually a doubtful proposition but all I have to go on in this instance) the real problem was the man's refusal to identify himself and at least try to dispel the offier's quite reasonable concern for the public's safety....

My advice to anyone that really, really wants to test the legal limits in any situation is to be careful not to violate other laws in the process... I'm not a lawyer , and I've watched many legitimate arrests not upheld in court, but in this instance the individual arrested migiht have a case that's not nearly as strong as it might be.

If I ever had an officer that allowed a suspicious person to refuse to identify him/her self in a possible arrest situation I'd be having a serious talk with them. In my view it would be tantamount to dereliction of duty....

One last thought... I really approve of armed citizens (they were quite uncommon down here in Florida during my era in policing-1973-1995). The accent should be on the "citizen" part for all of us. Anyone carrying a weapon that refuses to disclose their identity to a cop on duty is hardly a citizen in my view... (even though defiance of authority is as American as apple pie - and I wouldn't have it any other way..).
 
Last edited:
refuse to identify him/her self in a possible arrest situation
Click to expand...
What is the possible arrest situation? The OCer had broken no laws. There was no threat made. The citizen who "alerted" the police officer was obviously ignorant of the law as was the officer. There was no justification to accost the individual conducting his business at the gas station. I hope the OCer wins big.
 
With respect for your experience,

What compels self identification?

Must we now "produce papers" when walking legally?
 
The police officer was responding to the citizen's request for assistance.
Click to expand...
At which time the officer should have taken note that no laws were being broken and reassured the citizen of that.
 
in this instance the individual arrested migiht have a case that's not nearly as strong as it might be.
Click to expand...
That may or may not be the case, like you said, it is hard to tell.

One of the aspects that some OC activists press on is when and under what conditions anyone can be legally required to identify themselves and/or provide identity papers.

...The suit in federal court was not the only response from Call after the incident. He obtained a copy of the police dash-cam video of the incident through a public records request and posted it on YouTube. He added quotes from sections of Ohio Law on when people must identify themselves to police officers.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, it does to the question of what is strictly legal and what is not, as well as under what auspices an officer starts an investigation, whether that interview becomes a detention, and then an arrest, etc. All of that is very specific to relevant state law. And if officers overstep the black letter of what they're lawfully allowed to do to someone who is not obviously breaking the law, then they or (alas) their departments absolutely should be held vigorously accountable.

The law is the law, and a certain degree of kudos is due to those who take steps to hold law enforcement to a strict standard. Overstepping the law HURTS when the citizen is caught out. It should similarly HURT when a law enforcement officer does so.
 
lemaymiami said:
As a retired cop, who was a supervisor, then a watch commander for many years.... the individual earned his arrest and the OC was only part of the case against him... If the press account is accurate (usually a doubtful proposition but all I have to go on in this instance) the real problem was the man's refusal to identify himself and at least try to dispel the offier's quite reasonable concern for the public's safety....

My advice to anyone that really, really wants to test the legal limits in any situation is to be careful not to violate other laws in the process... I'm not a lawyer , and I've watched many legitimate arrests not upheld in court, but in this instance the individual arrested migiht have a case that's not nearly as strong as it might be.

If I ever had an officer that allowed a suspicious person to refuse to identify him/her self in a possible arrest situation I'd be having a serious talk with them. In my view it would be tantamount to dereliction of duty....

One last thought... I really approve of armed citizens (they were quite uncommon down here in Florida during my era in policing-1973-1995). The accent should be on the "citizen" part for all of us. Anyone carrying a weapon that refuses to disclose their identity to a cop on duty is hardly a citizen in my view... (even though defiance of authority is as American as apple pie - and I wouldn't have it any other way..).
Click to expand...

You advocate arresting private citizens for refusing to identify themselves?
 
As a retired cop, who was a supervisor, then a watch commander for many years.... the individual earned his arrest and the OC was only part of the case against him... If the press account is accurate (usually a doubtful proposition but all I have to go on in this instance) the real problem was the man's refusal to identify himself and at least try to dispel the offier's quite reasonable concern for the public's safety....

My advice to anyone that really, really wants to test the legal limits in any situation is to be careful not to violate other laws in the process... I'm not a lawyer , and I've watched many legitimate arrests not upheld in court, but in this instance the individual arrested migiht have a case that's not nearly as strong as it might be.

If I ever had an officer that allowed a suspicious person to refuse to identify him/her self in a possible arrest situation I'd be having a serious talk with them. In my view it would be tantamount to dereliction of duty....

One last thought... I really approve of armed citizens (they were quite uncommon down here in Florida during my era in policing-1973-1995). The accent should be on the "citizen" part for all of us. Anyone carrying a weapon that refuses to disclose their identity to a cop on duty is hardly a citizen in my view... (even though defiance of authority is as American as apple pie - and I wouldn't have it any other way..).
Click to expand...

Wow, and Police officers wonder why the communities that they "serve" don't support them so much these days..... Your view carries little weight, the law does. When you infringe upon the rights of others you "break the law". You don't get to do that as a LEO and still be the good guy.
 
Anyone carrying a weapon that refuses to disclose their identity to a cop on duty is hardly a citizen in my view...
Click to expand...
Woah.

Why should any American citizen have to talk to -- and certainly give up personal information like his name to -- ANYONE he doesn't wish to converse with? You're a cop on duty? That's great. I'm your boss -- you know, the taxpayer? And I don't feel like answering any questions right now so unless you have an articulable reason to be detaining me, I believe I'll be on my way. Besides, what good does knowing my name do for you? I was either just now breaking the law, or I wasn't. That's all you need to know.

Good heavens, this smacks of [Buford T. Justice]"You'll speak to me when spoken to, boy!"[/Buford T. Justice].
 
I'm all for cc and OC. I might point out this was in a relatively high crime area in early morning hours. The police responding were probably on high Leet when responding for there own safety. Failing to show any form of ID would most likely elevate that feeling. As if he has something to hide.
Personally I'd be more than willing to produce ID to show them there's nothing to fear.
Here's a YouTube dash cam vid of arrest.
http://youtu.be/siAqelKBUAA
 
Personally I'd be more than willing to produce ID to show them there's nothing to fear.
Click to expand...
Why, specifically, would saying who you are, or showing them ID make them know that you aren't going to kill anyone?
 
At least here in CO if there is suspicion of a crime you have to identify on demand. Police cannot just walk up and demand ID but while open carrying they could suspect you of disturbing the peace and demand ID.

16-3-103. Stopping of suspect
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Here in Ohio, numerous folks, expert witnesses etc are falling in to support the person. Turns out the chief of that town lost a similar lawsuit in Michigan. On the OFCC forum, there are numerous LEO's that agree that the lawsuit has merit.

There is an extensive discussion with links to the court dockets, etc on the Ohio CCW forum, but the Open Carry discussion forum is only viewable by folks that join the forum

If you wish to follow this, join http://ohioccwforums.org/index.php and then you can read more about it, the court papers, there is even the original police report.
 
Sam1911 said:
Why, specifically, would saying who you are, or showing them ID make them know that you aren't going to kill anyone?
Click to expand...


There's no guarantee of that or anything , but when they ran your name, dl# etc, they can see no outstanding warrants, past arrests which make them less likely to shoot you if you sneezed
 
MErl said:
At least here in CO if there is suspicion of a crime you have to identify on demand. Police cannot just walk up and demand ID but while open carrying they could suspect you of disturbing the peace and demand ID.
Click to expand...

Police can suspect you of *any* crime, anywhere, any time. The statute says *reasonably suspect*...engaging in a perfectly legal activity (open carry) should not cause, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion of a crime, anymore than driving a sports car makes one a suspect for reckless driving.
 
There's no guarantee of that or anything , but when they ran your name, dl# etc, they can see no outstanding warrants, past arrests which make them less likely to shoot you if you sneezed
Click to expand...

So, I'm just standing in a store, getting my morning coffee and a bagel, carrying a gun (which is perfectly lawful in that state), and they should run my name and D/L so they can check if I have outstanding warrants or past arrests? So they don't shoot me if I sneeze?

Great. I'll pass.
 
Don't visit CO then. Not saying it happens, saying it would be legit.

edit: Note it was not legit until the definition of deadly weapon was changed regarding firearms last year.

to JLR
Displaying a firearm could be considered disturbing the peace now. The police have to determine your intent in displaying which requires talking to you and they are going to ask who you are.
I'm sure this law changed because someone was walking around department stores in Ft Collins with an AR on their back. That was legal, even if they were after attention. Now it is not.
 
Last edited:
unfortunately there are fragile egos on both sides of this issue which prevent rational discussion at times.
 
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
School Shooting: Police Did Everything Right...but 3 students so far are still dead
Replies
5
Views
458
rbernie
rbernie
T
  • Locked
Police told murdered teen to stop calling them
Replies
6
Views
795
Coronach
C
D
  • Locked
Man’s arrest on gun charge prompts lawsuit
Replies
24
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
L
  • Locked
False Arrests Continue in NoVA
Replies
3
Views
883
Greg L
G
C
  • Locked
Why Are Hundreds Of Coloradans Wrongly Arrested?
Replies
0
Views
378
Connecticut Yankee
C
Back
Top