Open Carry Advocate wants $3.6 Million

[JBP55]

Dayton Daily News

DAYTON, Ohio — While openly carrying his Springfield XDM .40-caliber handgun, Tipp City resident Roy Call walked into a Riverside Speedway store at 4:30 a.m. Aug. 12, 2012 to buy a sports drink.

That's when — as claimed in a lawsuit against the city of Riverside, its mayor and two police officers — Call said he was illegally detained and briefly had his gun confiscated. Call is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $3.6 million in a lawsuit field in the United States District Court/Southern District of Ohio in Dayton.

But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate.

"Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two," Reiss said.

Open carrying a firearm without a license in Ohio is legal in most circumstances. Call does have a conceal and carry license (CCW), but Reiss said Call did not immediately provide police with his CCW, driver's license or admit that he drove to the gas station.

"Given the time of the day, the location, and the fact that convenience store/gas stations are typical targets for robberies in the middle of the night," Reiss said. "It would seem reasonable in the eyes of a police officer to ask someone who was carrying a gun if it was legally permissible for them to do so."

Police reports show a citizen at the Speedway at 3201 Valley Pike was concerned that a man had a gun in the open and told Riverside police Sgt. Har-old Jones, who motioned to Call to come outside.

The lawsuit recounted that "After Call complied with Jones' request, which was made with no probable cause, or a warrant, and without legal authorization, Sgt. Jones questioned Call, 'Why are you wearing an open gun?' Jones continued to question Call even though Call asked, 'Am I free to go?' to which Jones told him no."

Call was charged with obstruction of justice, but Riverside City Manager Bryan Chodkowski said that charge was dropped Oct. 2.

"Based on the totality of the circumstances, we recognized that it was probably a viable charge at the time," Chodkowski said. "But recognizing what it meant in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a charge that we felt was worth pursuing."

Jones' incident report said Call would not answer questions relating to his identity. "He eventually said he had no identification with him. This was actually a lie as his identification was approximately 50 feet away in his truck along with his CCW card," Jones' report said. "This was not found for several minutes. He told me he was exercising his Second Amendment rights to openly carry a gun."

Call had his gun taken from him, was handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser while Jones and Riverside police officer Matthew Jackson found Call's ID and searched to see if he was under any disability. Call's lawsuit also said he had a recording device which Jones found and turned off and that officers "falsely reported that Call had a history of initiating confrontations with police officers and recording the incidents."

A Facebook page called Miami County, Ohio Concealed/Open Carry includes a link to a YouTube video of a man allegedly stopped in Vandalia for open carrying a gun with a shared link from a "Roy Call."

Asked if he belonged to any groups, another incident report said Call replied, "Yes. The NRA." Call had his gun and ammunition returned to him after his identification check was complete.

The suit asks for $600,000 for compensatory damages for "emotional trauma" and other factors and for $3 million in punitive damages for the "willful, callous and malicious conduct" of the defendants. Call's attorney, Charles E. McFarland of New Castle, Ky., said: "I normally do not comment on ongoing cases to the media, but believe that the complaint speaks for itself."

Chief Reiss added: "With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there's a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way."

 

[Leadfoot]

Good luck.

Chief Reiss added: "With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there's a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way."

- This

Don't be a douchebag martyr for the cause. Give your ID, be polite and GTFO. How hard is that?

 

[Vermiform]

Call's lawsuit also said he had a recording device which Jones found and turned off and that officers "falsely reported that Call had a history of initiating confrontations with police officers and recording the incidents."

Falsely reported my ass. Why would they even say anything like that if it weren't true. Even if it turns out that this wasn't a lawful arrest, them saying something like this would only hurt their case and wouldn't do them any good.

Ass-Hats like this are killing us. They are in it for themselves, not for the cause. Waiting to see if the Grand Poohbah of LOCAL shows up here again with another paypal scam asking for money for this bums legal defense.

 

[LACamper]

I have to agree with the sentiment. Just because I legally carry an exposed weapon (I'm not an OC'er) I shouldn't have to expect to be hassled by LEOs.

However, him asking for enough money to retire on isn't right either. If it were me I'd demand that the money go to the NRA, or be donated to training for local LEO's, etc. Asking for cash beyond legal fees and time spent for missed work is mercenary.

 

[po verde]

I don't usually reply to threads, BUT - here goes: What type of training would assist LEOs in dealing with people who want to carry guns in potentially suspicious circumstances (middle of the night in a gas station), and have already incited a "citizen complaint." Even if him being in the station shouldnt be considered "suspicious", I dare you to tell someone "Oh he's just exercising his 2nd amendment right, bug off." What if he does shoot someone then? That cop is fired. Period. What if the guys shoots someone later and is a felon who shouldn't have had the gun to begin with? I will repeat what has already been said - comply and GTFO.

Everyone always has criticism, but never a solution.

Off my soap box

 

[LACamper]

ok... one more time. The presence of a firearm on my hip is NOT probable cause to detain or question someone. The fact that its not common does not change the situation. The 911 operator's answer when someone calls about a person carrying a holstered weapon should be 'so? is he doing anything illegal?' and it should stop there.

I am not in favor of the OC'er's hobby of fishing for police interactions to film but it does get the word out. There's a better way to accomplish that without causing such a negative interaction. The leaders of LOCAL and other similar groups need to contact the sheriff's associations and supply training (maybe a carrot approach? Here's some money we raised for vests but we want a chance to talk at your next function?)

 

[Pacioli]

Good luck.

Chief Reiss added: "With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there's a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way."

- This



Don't be a douchebag martyr for the cause. Give your ID, be polite and GTFO. How hard is that?

Just show your papers comrade. The the state will let you go to your state job so you can buy food to eat in your state apartment.

 

[Jack]

ok... one more time. The presence of a firearm on my hip is NOT probable cause to detain or question someone. The fact that its not common does not change the situation. The 911 operator's answer when someone calls about a person carrying a holstered weapon should be 'so? is he doing anything illegal?' and it should stop there.

I am not in favor of the OC'er's hobby of fishing for police interactions to film but it does get the word out. There's a better way to accomplish that without causing such a negative interaction. The leaders of LOCAL and other similar groups need to contact the sheriff's associations and supply training (maybe a carrot approach? Here's some money we raised for vests but we want a chance to talk at your next function?)

In this situation you are wrong(IMO). Man walks into a gas station with a gun at 4:30 in the morning is enough for reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur(again IMO). By refusing to answer questions relating to his identity he violated this statute.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

 

[Pacioli]

In this situation you are wrong(IMO). Man walks into a gas station with a gun at 4:30 in the morning is enough for reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur(again IMO). By refusing to answer questions relating to his identity he violated this statute.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(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.

A holstered gun should not, by itself, rise to this statute. It's the officer's interpretation of his rights under the statute, and whether he made that interpretation in good faith, that is up for debate.

 

[Bayoupiper]

ok... one more time. The presence of a firearm on my hip is NOT probable cause to detain or question someone. The fact that its not common does not change the situation. The 911 operator's answer when someone calls about a person carrying a holstered weapon should be 'so? is he doing anything illegal?' and it should stop there.

I am not in favor of the OC'er's hobby of fishing for police interactions to film but it does get the word out. There's a better way to accomplish that without causing such a negative interaction. The leaders of LOCAL and other similar groups need to contact the sheriff's associations and supply training (maybe a carrot approach? Here's some money we raised for vests but we want a chance to talk at your next function?)

The way you describe it is a "perfect world" scenario.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the complainant made it sound like he was waving the gun around shouting "Heeeeeeeyyyyy!"





.

 

[Jack]

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(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.

A holstered gun should not, by itself, rise to this statute. It's the officer's interpretation of his rights under the statute, and whether he made that interpretation in good faith, that is up for debate.

You're right, but it isn't just the gun, it is the location and the time that make it reasonable to me.

 

[Pacioli]

You're right, but it isn't just the gun, it is the location and the time that make it reasonable to me.

Would you have the same "time and place" concern if the gun in question were a scoped Mini 14 on a rack in his truck? At 4:40am, at a gas station?

 

[Jack]

Would you have the same "time and place" concern if the gun in question were a scoped Mini 14 on a rack in his truck? At 4:40am, at a gas station?

No, because outside of a gas station in a truck is not the same location as inside a gas station.

 

[JNieman]

Thugs don't carry guns in holsters, openly, for all to see and analyze, before they draw and rob people.

I'm no cop, and I've never had first hand experience with this stuff, but in every video I've ever seen of gun fights in convenience stores, or robberies, they either come in guns blazing/pointing, or they drawn them from under baggy sweatshirts, pants, pockets, etc.

I've never seen someone walk in with some nice leather or kydex, walk around for a while with it showing, get some chips and a drink, then think "Maybe I'll make a withdrawal" before drawing down on the clerk.

What is reasonable about the suspicion there, Jack?

4:30am is also when a great number of people are leaving for work and getting their coffee in the morning. A lot of people start their jobs when the sun comes up, and commute over an hour to get there. When I was working in Baton Rouge, while living in Lafayette, and driving every morning, I was in the gas station at 5am sometimes (sometimes earlier) loading up on Monster Rehabs and an apple or banana or two. Lots of people obviously starting there morning commute.

Also, I don't know the legal eagle definitions or requirements of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" but I know enough to know you can't just throw those terms around based on their Webster Dictionary generic definitions, so I won't pretend to lecture on RS or PC. I'm just talking about good old fashioned common sense, here.

 

[Leadfoot]

Someone saw the gun, they were concerned and called the police. There's your answer as to why he was contacted.

And you're right, thugs don't openly carry a firearm, but you have to remember that not everyone thinks the way you do.

People see a gun and they get nervous, the thought doesn't immediately come to mind that they aren't a threat. To them, the gun IS the threat.

 

[Jack]

Thugs don't carry guns in holsters, openly, for all to see and analyze, before they draw and rob people.

I'm no cop, and I've never had first hand experience with this stuff, but in every video I've ever seen of gun fights in convenience stores, or robberies, they either come in guns blazing/pointing, or they drawn them from under baggy sweatshirts, pants, pockets, etc.

I've never seen someone walk in with some nice leather or kydex, walk around for a while with it showing, get some chips and a drink, then think "Maybe I'll make a withdrawal" before drawing down on the clerk.

What is reasonable about the suspicion there, Jack?

4:30am is also when a great number of people are leaving for work and getting their coffee in the morning. A lot of people start their jobs when the sun comes up, and commute over an hour to get there. When I was working in Baton Rouge, while living in Lafayette, and driving every morning, I was in the gas station at 5am sometimes (sometimes earlier) loading up on Monster Rehabs and an apple or banana or two. Lots of people obviously starting there morning commute.

Also, I don't know the legal eagle definitions or requirements of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" but I know enough to know you can't just throw those terms around based on their Webster Dictionary generic definitions, so I won't pretend to lecture on RS or PC. I'm just talking about good old fashioned common sense, here.

I'd assume the way they will approach it is that he had the tools for committing a crime in an area where that crime is commonly perpetrated, the comparison I would make would be something like walking around a parking lot with a bent up coat hanger.

Reasonable suspicion(in my understanding) relies entirely on being able to cite facts which led to that suspicion(basically it can't be a hunch, intuition, or a feeling).

 

[matt99]

It seems like there are quite a few OC "fishers" lately....but they are all showing that your rights go out the door when that certain cop shows up

I personally got hassled for it by a Shreveport cop including search of myself and then a dog search of my truck with a two hour detainment. I apparently didn't use a turn signal and placing the gun on my dash in plain view and immediately alerting the cop to this wasn't the best idea.

 

[SVT]

We should be able to defend ourselves no matter the time of day or place (as long as it is a lawful place of course). Now with that in mind, the courts have established that the lawful carry of a gun is not RS/PC. If it is lawful to OC at this gas station, we should not be subject to questions and should not have to "show our papers" for lawful activity. Just bc criminals rob gas stations, does not mean everyone should be treated as a criminal for a lawful activity. Just bc criminals rob gas stations should not be RS/PC that everyone might rob that gas station.

 

[JNieman]

Much as I hate to say it; in this specific case and set of circumstances, and with the information I can see so far, I agree with SVT.

 

[SVT]

Much as I hate to say it; in this specific case and set of circumstances, and with the information I can see so far, I agree with SVT.

Lol