OH Appeals Court Confirms Legal Open Carry

[Speedo66]

An OH appeals court confirmed a ruling that open carry is legal, and that police officers are required to know it's legal. An arrest violated a man's 4th amendment rights. Police charged him with creating a public disturbance after a complaint was made.

The court ruled that while the complainant and the dispatcher may have been unaware, the police officer had an obligation to know the most recent rulings.

I personally am not an advocate of open carry, just putting this out for informational purposes. My feelings were reinforced by the recent article about a security guard being shot in the face for the purpose of relieving him of his exposed weapon.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/appe...n-carry-violated-ohioans-4th-amendment-rights

 

[627PCFan]

Link update-

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/appeals-court-arrest-open-carry-violated-ohioans-4th-amendment-rights

 

[Frank Ettin]

The case is Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Department (Sixth Circuit, 14-4050, 2015) and the decision can be found here.

 

[denton]

The ruling also found that the officer's conduct was outside what could be covered by qualified immunity.

 

[dogmush]

The ruling also found that the officer's conduct was outside what could be covered by qualified immunity.

[raises eyebrows] Really?

Laying the ground work for a 42 USC 1983 suit, I wonder?

 

[Dain Bramage]

[raises eyebrows] Really?

The court decision linked by Mr. Ettin states that the detaining officer does not have qualified immunity, and they remanded the case to a lower court for trial. It basically says that the officer should have known Ohio law, and there were no grounds for detainment based on the depositions before the court.

They also found the police sergeant, the second officer on the scene, maintained his qualified immunity. The sergeant arrived after the OCer was handcuffed, and it was reasonable for him to believe the first officer's version of the events leading to the detainment.

 

[agtman]

Actually, the ruling isn't by an "Ohio Ct of Apoeals."

It was a decision from the federal 6th Circuit Ct of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky & Tennessee.

Those are, of course, known to be red-neck, pro-gun states that are constantly watched by anti-gun types, whether private or governmental.

Just sayin'

 

[carbine85]

It's about time some action was taken. Open carry has been legal here in Ohio for years. The problem has been the Liberals and cops in the Cleveland and Toledo (northern Ohio) areas which bring out the open carry advocates to challenge them. The cops did know the law IMHO. The whole thing was mishandled from start to finish including the idiot that made the original call. The guy that made the original call was trying to start trouble when the guy was just walking down the street minding his own business.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Ripple effects from Heller. Courts can no longer treat firearms differently than any other area of law. In this case they had to apply long-standing 4th Amendment law. I love the court's analogy. Needing to check a open carrier's permit to make sure the are not illegal is like needing to check wallets to see if they contain counterfeit currency.

Mike

 

[Frank Ettin]

... In this case they had to apply long-standing 4th Amendment law....

Yup, this is a basic Fourth Amendment case. For example, compare Northrup with another Sixth Circuit case, Embody v. Ward (Sixth Circuit, 11-5963, 2012), cited in passing in Northrup (slip op., at 6).

Embody was also a civil suit following what Embody claimed was a wrongful detention for an investigation related to his open carrying of a firearm. But the 6th Circuit found the temporary detention of Embody to satisfy Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirements because of the nature of the gun carried by Embody, Embody's conduct, and the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

So it appears that in the Sixth Circuit, at least, openly carrying a gun would not, by itself, justify a stop. But other surrounding circumstances, in addition to the openly carrying of a gun, could.

 

[steve4102]

It's about time some action was taken. Open carry has been legal here in Ohio for years. The problem has been the Liberals and cops in the Cleveland and Toledo (northern Ohio) areas which bring out the open carry advocates to challenge them. The cops did know the law IMHO. The whole thing was mishandled from start to finish including the idiot that made the original call. The guy that made the original call was trying to start trouble when the guy was just walking down the street minding his own business.

I don't think he was trying to start trouble, he was just unaware of the law and actually thought he was witnessing a crime. Once the dispatcher informed him that open carry was indeed legal, he basically said, never mind.

From page 2

Rose called 911, reporting that “a guy walking down the street” with his dog was
“carrying a gun out in the open.” R. 39 at 22–23. When asked what type of gun the guy was
carrying, Rose replied, “A handgun, and he’s telling me it’s legal to carry out in the open.” Id. at
23. That’s right, the dispatcher responded, it’s legal “f you have a CCW”—a concealed-carry
weapon permit. “I’ll get a crew out though.” Id. The legality of Northrup’s behavior threw
Rose for a loop, prompting him to add: “I’m not going to call a crew out if it’s legal to carry a
gun out in the open.” Id.
Despite Rose’s change of heart, the dispatcher sent an officer to the scene anyway.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf