Jump to content


Photo

Appeals Court: Arrest for open carry violated Ohioan's 4th Amendment rights


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic

#1 WillT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 12

Posted 15 May 2015 - 08:10 AM

A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court's ruling allowing a lawsuit against a City of Toledo police officer to proceed. The suit claims that TPD officer David Bright illegally detained Shawn Northrup for openly carrying a semi-automatic handgun.

 

On a midsummer evening, Shawn and Denise Northrup went for a neighborhood walk with their daughter, grandson, and dog. Apparently in a happy-go-lucky mood, Shawn wore a t-shirt reading, “This Is The Shirt I Wear When I Don’t Care.” Shawn carried a cell phone, which he holstered on his hip — next to a black semiautomatic handgun.

 

A passing motorcyclist stopped to complain about Shawn’s visible firearm. The stranger, Alan Rose, yelled, “[Y]ou can’t walk around with a gun like that!” But “[O]pen carry is legal in Ohio!” Denise responded. As the Northrups walked away, Denise and Rose exchanged increasingly unprintable words until he was out of view (and earshot).

 

Rose called 911, reporting that “a guy walking down the street” with his dog was “carrying a gun out in the open.”

 

http://www.buckeyefi...mendment-rights


I want to CCW my Mossberg 500. That's legit, right?

#2 222 rem mag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 15

Posted 15 May 2015 - 08:46 AM

Excellent decision. As police have been telling us for years ignorance is no excuse. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps this will give some officers pause on making up a charge or stretching a charge to fit the situaation.

#3 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,968 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 15 May 2015 - 09:32 AM

I personally think officers should be trained on the law, maybe nearly as far as a law degree. If they're being authorized to use force, up to deadly force, they need to know exactly how a law applies.

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#4 POAT54

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 15 May 2015 - 09:36 AM

I found this comment very interesting.

 

But in its the ruling, the court allows no room for a law enforcement officer to be unfamiliar with the law.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#5 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 15 May 2015 - 10:08 AM

Wow, that court decision was a legal beatdown. You can't get more unambiguous than essentially being told, "The officers were wrong about everything they did, in every possible way."

 

whoopass2.jpg


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 15 May 2015 - 10:08 AM.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#6 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 15 May 2015 - 10:37 PM

Several states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Alabama, and Georgia among them) have explicit statutes prohibiting detainment for mere open carry of a holstered handgun. Ohio could use the same.



#7 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,536 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 16 May 2015 - 10:04 PM

Several states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Alabama, and Georgia among them) have explicit statutes prohibiting detainment for mere open carry of a holstered handgun. Ohio could use the same.

There shouldn't need to be a law stating that you can't be detained absent reasonable suspicion of a valid crime - and not just something they've made up.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#8 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 20 May 2015 - 11:54 PM

 

Several states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Alabama, and Georgia among them) have explicit statutes prohibiting detainment for mere open carry of a holstered handgun. Ohio could use the same.

There shouldn't need to be a law stating that you can't be detained absent reasonable suspicion of a valid crime - and not just something they've made up.

 

Ideally, no. But we don't live in such an environment yet.



#9 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,137 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 21 May 2015 - 07:15 AM

Glad to hear the court made the right call. Hopefully this will result in some re-training of the officers in question

NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#10 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 21 May 2015 - 07:59 AM

There was a case out ofnthe 7th circuit on a feln with a gun that had some similar dicta

I forget the name of it maybe skinny can help with it
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#11 RANDY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 07

Posted 23 May 2015 - 03:04 PM

US v deberry written by Posner may have similarities.


One persons paranoia is another persons situational awareness.

Maybe it is time to remove immunity from all public officials and be able to hold them fully accountable for their actions.