CherokeeGunslinger
Member
For my first thread post, I decided I wanted to bring something that may be very germane to my fellow open-carriers who reside in a state that is covered by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you read in the title, this has to do with the case of Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Department, in my home state of Ohio. I'm making this thread because I haven't seen any thread on the case, nor its legal implications.
In this case, Shawn Northrup was stopped by a Toledo police officer after a motorcyclist had a verbal altercation with both Northrup and his wife over Northrup's visible handgun, then the motorcyclist called 911. Northrup was walking with his wife Denise, his dog and his grandson. The police officer, David Bright, performed a Terry stop on Northrup. After a series of "furtive" movements (according to Officer Bright), Bright removed the handgun from Northrup's person and threatened to charge Northrup with inducing panic (O.R.C. 2917.31). Northrup said Bright indexed his holster and threatened to shoot Northrup, prompting Northrup to pull out his phone and take video. Northrup gave Bright his driver's license but refused to give Bright his concealed handgun license (CHL). Northrup was handcuffed and placed in the back of Bright's car for half an hour until a sergeant arrived. At that point, Bright had established that Northrup had an active CHL and released him with a citation for failure to disclose personal information (O.R.C. 2921.29). The citation was later dropped.
When the case reached the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled partially in Northrup's favor. The court found that it was unlawful to disarm and detain a person for carrying a firearm openly when there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and that simply carrying a firearm openly isn't enough to give reasonable articulable suspicion when and where it is legal to do so. The court also ruled partially against Northrup, because Northrup alleged one of the officers involved was not covered by qualified immunity: the court disagreed with Northrup on this part.
A more detailed account of the case is available directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' own holding paper, available here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1700723.html
What are the take-aways from this? Well, there's one. For starters, as open carry is legal in Ohio, a Terry stop isn't justifiable unless other circumstances exist, as Terry v. Ohio requires that there be reasonable articulable suspicion an actual crime is occurring. For the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, when a person openly carries a firearm in a state that allows it under the prevailing circumstances, a police officer cannot assert reasonable articulable suspicion to detain or disarm someone without some other circumstance at play. In general, unless a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that one has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, they cannot stop a person or seize that person's property, and this extends to openly visible firearms.
The crime of inducing panic, mentioned earlier, cannot be applied to the act of carrying a firearm openly as the statute says:
Because carrying a firearm openly in Ohio is not an offense in and of itself, the inducing panic statute does not apply, as it requires a person to be committing a crime to apply.
The crime of failure to disclose personal information is not a traditional "stop and identify" statute. The crime of failure to disclose personal information, also mentioned earlier, cannot be applied to this situation as the statute says:
Stay aware of and informed about your rights to keep and bear arms, as well as against unlawful searches and seizures. If you are openly carrying when state law allows you to do so, and your state falls under the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, then if a police officer stops you for said openly carrying, do not consent to searches or seizures, and do voice that refusal in a clear, concise way as silence can be used against you. Don't physically fight with the police or run from them: it's better to get your day in court than to end up getting hurt or even killed, and even if you survive a physical altercation that you started, that'll mean you'll likely lose in court. If the police illegally detain you or illegally seize your firearm, don't resist: stay calm and have your day in court. Stay safe and carry on, brothers and sisters.
Sources:
In this case, Shawn Northrup was stopped by a Toledo police officer after a motorcyclist had a verbal altercation with both Northrup and his wife over Northrup's visible handgun, then the motorcyclist called 911. Northrup was walking with his wife Denise, his dog and his grandson. The police officer, David Bright, performed a Terry stop on Northrup. After a series of "furtive" movements (according to Officer Bright), Bright removed the handgun from Northrup's person and threatened to charge Northrup with inducing panic (O.R.C. 2917.31). Northrup said Bright indexed his holster and threatened to shoot Northrup, prompting Northrup to pull out his phone and take video. Northrup gave Bright his driver's license but refused to give Bright his concealed handgun license (CHL). Northrup was handcuffed and placed in the back of Bright's car for half an hour until a sergeant arrived. At that point, Bright had established that Northrup had an active CHL and released him with a citation for failure to disclose personal information (O.R.C. 2921.29). The citation was later dropped.
When the case reached the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled partially in Northrup's favor. The court found that it was unlawful to disarm and detain a person for carrying a firearm openly when there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and that simply carrying a firearm openly isn't enough to give reasonable articulable suspicion when and where it is legal to do so. The court also ruled partially against Northrup, because Northrup alleged one of the officers involved was not covered by qualified immunity: the court disagreed with Northrup on this part.
A more detailed account of the case is available directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' own holding paper, available here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1700723.html
What are the take-aways from this? Well, there's one. For starters, as open carry is legal in Ohio, a Terry stop isn't justifiable unless other circumstances exist, as Terry v. Ohio requires that there be reasonable articulable suspicion an actual crime is occurring. For the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, when a person openly carries a firearm in a state that allows it under the prevailing circumstances, a police officer cannot assert reasonable articulable suspicion to detain or disarm someone without some other circumstance at play. In general, unless a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that one has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, they cannot stop a person or seize that person's property, and this extends to openly visible firearms.
The crime of inducing panic, mentioned earlier, cannot be applied to the act of carrying a firearm openly as the statute says:
(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:
...
(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.
...
(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.
Because carrying a firearm openly in Ohio is not an offense in and of itself, the inducing panic statute does not apply, as it requires a person to be committing a crime to apply.
The crime of failure to disclose personal information is not a traditional "stop and identify" statute. The crime of failure to disclose personal information, also mentioned earlier, cannot be applied to this situation as the statute says:
(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.
Because Northrup had not committed the crime of inducing panic in the first place and Bright had no reasonable articulable suspicion that Northrup had committed the crime of inducing panic in the first place, the failure to disclose personal information statute does not apply, as it requires reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to apply.(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
Stay aware of and informed about your rights to keep and bear arms, as well as against unlawful searches and seizures. If you are openly carrying when state law allows you to do so, and your state falls under the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, then if a police officer stops you for said openly carrying, do not consent to searches or seizures, and do voice that refusal in a clear, concise way as silence can be used against you. Don't physically fight with the police or run from them: it's better to get your day in court than to end up getting hurt or even killed, and even if you survive a physical altercation that you started, that'll mean you'll likely lose in court. If the police illegally detain you or illegally seize your firearm, don't resist: stay calm and have your day in court. Stay safe and carry on, brothers and sisters.
Sources:
- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1700723.html
- https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf
- https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov...h-and-Seizure-(Open-Carry)-Northrup-v-City-of
- https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2921.29
- https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2917.31
