911 law: Dan Sayers open carry arrest video

[basicblur]

From VCDL e-mail newsletter

Since carrying a gun is not illegal, a "man with a gun" call makes as much sense as a "man driving a car" call. There MUST be more information or the officers responding to such a call can end up needlessly endangering the lives of the very citizens they are supposed to be protecting.

This is a YouTube video of a guy who was pumping gas while OCing at a Sonoco gas station in Ohio about 5 minutes before the police video starts. Someone at the gas station apparently called 911 to report a "man with a gun." The cops pulled him over and ordered him out of the car at gunpoint with an AR-15. The guy asks the cops once he's in the back of the cruiser, "Did the person who called say the man with a gun was waving it around? Did they say he was touching or holding his gun in his hand?" The cop response is typical of what you seen on countless YouTube open carry stop videos: "Well, we don't get that much information. All we hear over our radios is "man with a gun."

It seems like this problem of police overreacting or even reacting at all by stopping someone for OCing could be avoided if 911 operators were simply required to ask people calling in about a "man with a gun" whether the man was waving it around or threatening someone with it, or if it was just in a holster. If dispatchers were then required to convey this crucial information to police in the field, there would be no reason for police to even stop OCers at all, since the 911 call would confirm that nothing illegal was going on. Is it possible to get the General Assembly to pass a law *requiring* 911 operators to ask these questions on man with a gun calls and then for police dispatchers to relay it to officers in the field before a decision is made about whether to make a stop?

This is a great memo from a PD in California. This is exactly the point of open carrying and exercising one's rights during an OC stop. I like that they are requiring their dispatchers to specifically inform officers of what the person is alleged to be doing with the gun so they can differentiate between OC and "man with a gun" calls, and respond accordingly.

I would go a step further and require that 911 operators inform "man with a gun" callers that OC is legal if a person is not brandishing or threatening people with their gun. These calls shouldn't even be forwarded to the police dispatcher in the first place.

Source: http://californiaopencarry.org/

 

[P.O.2010]

Exactly

The Officers in that video were wrong.

First, the Officer whose dash camera footage we're seeing ran at least one red light (around 1:26-28) that I could clearly identify without slowing down and was obviously driving at an excessive speed given the conditions (residential area/school zone). I say that as someone who is EVOC certified and is accustomed to running code 3 in both rural and congested urban areas. The call is for a man in possession of a firearm (something which the subject of this unfortunate exercise correctly pointed out is not a crime) not a reported homicide, aggravated assault, critical medical emergency or anything else. You slow down and look left and right when coming to red lights, stop signs and railroad tracks no matter what. Just because state traffic laws authorize a peace officer to violate them when using emergency lights and siren doesn't mean caution goes out the window. Rule #1 is "Arrive Alive".

Second, the individual stopped was treated with enormous disrespect. Particularly when the apparent supervisor threatens to send him to "rescue-crisis" (i.e. a locked psychiatric ward) for observation because he's justifiably outraged at having been proned out on the street with a rifle pointed at his face. I've seen that crap done before and it smacks of Soviet tyranny. Psychiatric observation is something which is reserved for people who are truly disturbed not people who (in the officer's mind) displayed "contempt of cop". Imagine being proned out at gunpoint, handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle and threatened with incarceration, however temporary, in a mental hospital with the implied threat of being placed in restraints and forcibly medicated. Most people would be irate too. Either that or they would begin to cry.

The first issue here, however, is the procedure for "man with a gun" calls. A call of a man with a gun, despite what many may think, is meaningless absent other factors. If your state allows open carry then someone carrying a pistol in a holster just going about his business is not grounds to call 911 and it is not grounds for a police response. Any 911 dispatcher is going to ask what the nature of the caller's emergency is. When the caller says "He's got a gun" the next question is going to be "Where are you?" After that it's going to be "What is he doing?" If the answer is something criminal, there we go. If the answer is "Well, he's refueling his vehicle" or "Well, he's in the aisle next to me at the Piggly Wiggly and he seems to be having difficulty choosing between regular Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios" then the caller needs to be informed that open carry is not a crime absent other factors. Unfortunately police and 911 procedures apparently haven't kept up with the state of the law.

Could the individual stopped have handled it better? Sure, if he had seen it coming. As it was he was placed under an enormous amount of pressure, implicitly threatened with death at gun point and apprehended (albeit temporarily) having committed no crime. I will give the Officer who spoke later on in the video credit, he wasn't as smarmy, ignorant and embarrassing as his predecessor.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Dan was a friend of mine. Haven't talked to him for quite a while, though....

The facts as presented in the tape are correct....

Dan did fly off the handle a bit, but broke no laws.... Here in OH, before we got Concealed Carry, at least one State Supreme Court Justice basically pointed out that we didn't need CC because we HAD OC....

(Currently, unlicensed OC is a little fuzzy. You can't carry in a vehicle, nor can you transport a loaded gun in a vehicle.... Makes for some interesting times when you want to go someplace and have a weapon on you once you're there....)

Dan had been to that particular gas station while OC'ing many times. The folks there didn't appear to mind. SOMEBODY "passing by" (anybody's guess who as far as I can remember) called it in....

(I don't remember the outcome - they took his guns and I'm not sure if he ever got 'em back.... Dan moved off the OFCC board and started his own, and I found it a little too "uncontrolled"....)

Regards,

 

[TexasRifleman]

Lawyer > Lawsuit > Beachfront Resort for life....

Do that a few times and this crap will stop. Sad that it takes this much to do such a simple, and Constitutionally protected, thing.

 

[RDak]

In Michigan that was a problem more than it is now.

Memos from the AG and State Police to local police agencies explain the in and outs of OC.

Brandishing is one thing but the memos differentiate that behavior from ordinary OC'ing. The dispatchers, from what I've heard, do ask pertinent questions to see if the person is really a menace.

It's getting better in Michigan nowadays.

 

[jonmerritt]

If you have conceal carry permit, then CONCEAL!!!!!
Sounds like he was asking for the problems.
Man with a gun!!! He is wearing all dark colors! Hard to see his face, has dark glasess and a hat hiding his face! Please hurry, he frightens me!
Oh wait, it is a cop. Never mind.

 

[springfield30-06]

If you have conceal carry permit, then CONCEAL!!!!!
Sounds like he was asking for the problems.

But OC is legal there. Sure I know that sometimes people get paranoid or police aren't fully informed about OC law but saying that he was asking for problems by legally open carrying is similar to saying that a woman was asking to be raped because she was wearing provocative clothing...

 

[CoRoMo]

...he was asking for the problems.

Really? How was he requesting this encounter?

 

[Sniper X]

When I first started carry in the state of New Mexico, we didn't have CCW, but OC was legal. I told my buddy who owned the gun shop that I intended top OC the 1911 I had just bought from him and he said...Yeah, if you don't mind getting thrown to the ground once a month or so. !!!! WHAT!!!! I asked him to explain why a citizen doing something that was as legal as walking down the street would be subject to such a response from police. He said the police in Albuquerque are so rabid about oc that you will be thrown to the ground and the gun will get confiscated and you may be charged with brandishing....Well, that was total BS I OCed for years basically everywhere legal to do so for years before CCW and never got a second look from a uniformed cop or a plainclothes cop....

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you have conceal carry permit, then CONCEAL!!!!!
Sounds like he was asking for the problems.

Yes, those pesky law abiding citizens again..... Someone ought to do something about them.

 

[rtroha]

In case anyone wonders how this ended...

Ohioans For Concealed Carry has learned through long-time legal representation and friend of the organization, Attorney Dan Ellis, that the case brought against Dan Sayers by the City of Oregon, OH has been dismissed. All property confiscated from Mr. Sayers at the time of his encounter is to be returned.

http://www.ohioccw.org/200706063887/city-of-oregon-v-daniel-sayers-dismissed.html

 

[Sam1911]

If you have conceal carry permit, then CONCEAL!!!!!
Sounds like he was asking for the problems.

Jon, sometimes sarcasm doesn't translate well in text. You were being completely sarcastic, right?

 

[Sam1911]

In case anyone wonders how this ended...

This is how it ended? Or this is where it stands at the moment before the lawsuit starts?

Mr. Sayers should be getting quite a financial boost for his trouble. And there should be some official letter of apology (at least) from the department.

There HAVE to be repurcussions for bad behavior like this. That's the only way it will ever stop.

 

[Sniper X]

Sam1911, that is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read about the dismissal. Personally, I would not only sue the city for false arrest, and get everything I could out of them, but I would also make sure they follow the law from that day on thru every means possible.

 

[Phatty]

Somebody should call 911 from a steak house and report a "man with a knife."

 

[One-Time]

Im suprised at a few replies in here, we are our own worst enemy I swear!

 

[Deanimator]

Im suprised at a few replies in here, we are our own worst enemy I swear!

Care to be specific?

 

[BlayGlock]

There HAVE to be repurcussions for bad behavior like this. That's the only way it will ever stop.

I agree. And the only way most cities will ever learn is to hit them in the wallet.

 

[CoRoMo]

We're just about 4 years out from his arrest (May '06). If he hasn't yet filed a civil suit against the city or PD, something's very wrong.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is how it ended? Or this is where it stands at the moment before the lawsuit starts?

Typically that means the city settled out of court and probably with a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement.

Some of the Open Carry guys have been very successful in making changes by suing departments that overreact and then allowing them to settle for very generous terms (things like training new officers, memos like those from the California PD, etc.).

Overall, I think it is a very smart strategy. Open carry gets the changes in policy it wants, police admin is generally grateful not to be hit with a big judgment, cops learn that harassing law-abiding OC will lead to mandatory training and other undesired fun and the taxpayers don't end up paying for a stupid decision.

And of course, if a department doesn't want to play along, the OC guys always have the option of pillaging the PD budget and using the money to fund the next round of challenges.

 

[Big Boy]

I am a supporter of OC and do it often.

First off, there's your example of response time. If this really were a situation of a man shooting every one up, you're probably going to be dead before the police get there. Carry a gun.

Second, wow. Now, I have to be honest, if I were a cop, and all the info I got was "man with a gun" I would have been in a hurry, and concerned. Just as the cop was. You don't know if it's an instance of OC, or if someone is brandishing and about to start firing.

DEFINITELY the dispatcher should have gotten, and conveyed more information. However, I've got to be honest, once you are in a car, and they can't plainly see you just have a weapon holstered on your side, things do get a bit sketchy. It's not like walking up to someone who is OC'ing and detaining them without cuffs to ask them a few questions. There really aren't too many different ways it could have gone down. Did they need they AR? Probably not, but a gun is a gun. Glocks will put holes in you just as well when they are pointed at you. Did he have to be put to the ground? Well, that's generally the arresting procedure. They are unaware of what is going on, they have to create a safe environment. Not to say I wouldn't have been a little ticked, but I could have understood, they don't know you. They don't know what you are doing. All they have is a call from a frightened little person who saw a gun that might magically jump out of a holster and kill them.

Where things definitely went wrong, is how they treated him. A lot of people in this world, including cops, have trouble admitting they were wrong. They ran his license plate? Ok, they can do that without even stopping you, who cares. They ran his name for background. I'm sure they did it off of his ID, but again, who cares, you have to provide your name to LEO if asked. What I wouldn't have agreed with is running the serial numbers on my guns. Of course nothing is going to come back on them, however they are my property that were seized and I didn't consent to a search of them. But, it's gonna happen. During the 15 minutes after he was stuck into the back of the car they are basically trying to find something they can charge him with so they don't look bad.

This is where my mind would have switched to "I'm calling a lawyer when I get home." The "rescue-crisis" comment from the officer is RIDICULOUS. That right there, is the case. Also the fact that the officer just tells him to shut up, when he is answering his questions.

I don't understand the time from pretty much 16min on in the video. Why was was he not released? They knew his intentions, they had run everything and found nothing wrong, why is he still being detained?

Then the video just ends? Who knows if and when he was eventually let go. Also apparently from other posts on here his guns were kept? All of that is ridiculous. I would sue for everything after they took me out of the car. Like I said above. They should have gotten more information, but with the information they had, they did what they are supposed to do with removing him from the car.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Big Boy:

Even so, you respond to a MWAG call in ways that don't escalate it, or further endanger yourself or the public. It's pretty clear that the Officers missed that day of training. In this case, I suppose the caller could have enhanced things a little, but if the Dispatcher asked "what's he doing", "he just drove away after paying for his gas" should have calmed the situation down a lot.

(This also can depend a little on where, and what time of day, too.... Sure looked like those factors weren't involved.)

I don't understand the time from pretty much 16min on in the video. Why was was he not released? They knew his intentions, they had run everything and found nothing wrong, why is he still being detained?

It was then decided to "see what we can find anyway".... Which is pretty much what you saw at that point. Dan cranked 'em off a little too much.... (Bear in mind, too, that this was very early on in the Concealed Carry era, and he was wearing TWO Bersa's! That has nothing to do with the initial response, but had to have the LEO's thinking....)

Then the video just ends? Who knows if and when he was eventually let go. Also apparently from other posts on here his guns were kept? All of that is ridiculous. I would sue for everything after they took me out of the car. Like I said above. They should have gotten more information, but with the information they had, they did what they are supposed to do with removing him from the car.

I don't recall if Dan got a ride to the PD or was just allowed to leave the scene, but the guns were confiscated. IMHO, the LEO's on scene mishandled everything. Particularly silly is making him climb out of the car without being able to open the doors. (At least he was young and physically capable enough....) The AR ended up on the hood of one of the vehicles, btw. Nominally unattended....

I tend to be pro-LEO. I'm a semi-retired rent-a-cop, among other things, and counted a lot of local Officers as friends, although most of them are dead now.... The arrest still looks like about the worst thing I ever saw in a training film.... And, all too often, the younger Officers these days will sit around trying to find a way to hang some paper on somebody just because they think they need to justify the stop.

Regards,

 

[One-Time]

Care to be specific?

The 'he was asking for it' type responses

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I would go a step further and require that 911 operators inform "man with a gun" callers that OC is legal if a person is not brandishing or threatening people with their gun. These calls shouldn't even be forwarded to the police dispatcher in the first place.

I think that training/memo for the 911 call centers should be the first step. They aren't just dispatchers they are supposed to be call screeners and if they can't do something as simple as that there are others who need jobs who can.
A simple "Sir/Ma'am that's not illegal" could have avoided this whole can of worms. By the time it gets to the officer it very well may have turned into "armed suspect last seen at..."

 

[divemedic]

If you have conceal carry permit, then CONCEAL!!!!!
Sounds like he was asking for the problems.

Where have I heard that before- oh, wait, I remember:

If the sign says no coloreds, then don't sit at the whites only lunch counter.
Sounds like that darkie was asking for trouble.

Discriminating against a person for exercising a natural right is just as evil as discriminating against a person for the color of his skin.