Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby schmieg » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:24 pm

The 8th District has issued a decision on what this means. Please note that this was a 2-1 decision and may be addressed differently in other districts or it might be changed by the Ohio Supreme Court. While I like the decision, I personally feel that the courts will decide that "law enforcement purpose" extends beyond this decision and will be overridden down the road. The case is Strongsville v. Johnson, 2017-Ohio-7066, and the pertinent portion is:

IV. Carrying a Concealed Weapon
{¶14}
Although Johnson had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the city charged him with carrying a concealed weapon under R.C. 2923.12(B)(1). That section requires a person “stopped for law enforcement purposes and who is carrying a concealed handgun” to “promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a concealed handgun license and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun.” Johnson argues that he was not stopped for a law enforcement purpose because he had in fact been stopped before the police arrived because his vehicle ran out of gasoline.

{¶15}
The Revised Code does not define the phrase “law enforcement purpose,” but this case does not require us to provide its meaning in any definitive way. The police testified that their encounter with Johnson did not occur because they were enforcing any laws. They saw a stranded vehicle and claimed to be offering assistance. In fact, one of the officers conceded in his testimony that at the time he approached Johnson’s stranded vehicle, there was “no law” that he was intending to enforce. But even if we were to construe the phrase “law enforcement purpose” broadly to encompass situations like this one where the police approach a vehicle for safety reasons, Johnson was not “stopped” by the police. The statute is clear. R.C. 2923.12(B)(1) only requires an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun, has a license to do so, and who is “stopped for law enforcement purposes” to promptly inform an officer who approaches after the person has been stopped of the existence of the handgun.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby Mr. Glock » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:01 pm

That is an interesting turn of phrase. And technically correct.
“Without dignity there is no liberty, without justice there is no dignity, and without independence there are no free men.”
- Patrice Lumumba
OFCC Patron, NRA Benefactor Life, NRA Golden Eagles, NRA-ILA, Appleseed & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 8503
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby JustaShooter » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:59 pm

schmieg do you mind if I post your take on this decision on our Facebook page and group?
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby schmieg » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:06 pm

JustaShooter wrote:schmieg do you mind if I post your take on this decision on our Facebook page and group?

Feel free. I threw it out there so people would know. Just don't rely too heavily on it at this point.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby MyWifeSaidYes » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:40 pm

Johnson was not “stopped” by the police. The statute is clear.


THIS is the part I like best.

You haven't 'stopped' me if I'm already stopped (regardless of your 'law enforcement purpose' :wink: )

Will a different court try to muddy that which is clear? Almost certainly. I just hope they don't succeed.
MyWifeSaidYes

OFCC Endorses Jon Husted for Governor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLspj1rD_Lc
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5376
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby schmieg » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:53 pm

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
Johnson was not “stopped” by the police. The statute is clear.


THIS is the part I like best.

You haven't 'stopped' me if I'm already stopped (regardless of your 'law enforcement purpose' :wink: )

Will a different court try to muddy that which is clear? Almost certainly. I just hope they don't succeed.

Personally, I love the decision. I just suspect that it won't survive long as precedent. For that matter, it's only the law now in the 8th District. Of course, the 8th District is where a lot of the harassment of licensees occurs. Had this guy given the cops his drivers' license in the first place, he would have skated on all charges from this decision. As it is, this decision reversed his convictions of the CCW, resisting arrest and obstruction of justice, so he should be thankful to just be found guilty of failing to produce his drivers' license..
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby evan price » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:53 am

Mr. Glock wrote:That is an interesting turn of phrase. And technically correct.


And that's the best kind of correct!
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
 
Posts: 8795
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby djthomas » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:41 am

schmieg wrote:Personally, I love the decision. I just suspect that it won't survive long as precedent.

Hopefully because a change in the law obviates the need for it to do so.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5723
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby Chuck » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:58 am

Is there a link to this decision?
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4273
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby schmieg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:54 am

Chuck wrote:Is there a link to this decision?

You can try this one. If it doesn't work, I can file attach it to you.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2017/2017-Ohio-7066.pdf
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby dc3dog » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:36 am

My permit instructor explained it this way, if the office is conducting an investigation then you must inform them promptly. If as in this case the office is offering to provide assistance then they would be investigating "why a motor vehicle is in need of assistance". As I see it the failure to provide a drivers license is a moot point. As soon as the officer approached the vehicle, before the office spoke, the defendant in this case should have made the office aware he had a permit. At least that is my understanding of this law. I welcome others opinions on this point.

The problem I have with this law to promptly inform is that it takes away my right to privacy. In my hypothetical scenario, lets say I am a passenger in my coworkers vehicle when they are stopped by law enforcement. Now I am forced by law to give up my privacy and inform the officer (and my coworker) 1) that I have a permit and 2) that I have a firearm with me (or not). Obviously this is not my coworkers business but sure as the sun will come up tomorrow they will be telling everyone "back at the office" about my personal business before the day is out.

I for one would like to see this law changed. Ohio is one of only a few states with this requirement. Please let me know what you think and I thank you for your opinion even if you disagree with me.
NRA Endowment Life Member.
Cogito, ergo sum armatus.
Molon labe.
User avatar
dc3dog
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 8:37 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby 3FULLMAGS+1 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:07 pm

dc3dog wrote:My permit instructor explained it this way, if the office is conducting an investigation then you must inform them promptly. If as in this case the office is offering to provide assistance then they would be investigating "why a motor vehicle is in need of assistance". As I see it the failure to provide a drivers license is a moot point. As soon as the officer approached the vehicle, before the office spoke, the defendant in this case should have made the office aware he had a permit. At least that is my understanding of this law. I welcome others opinions on this point.

The problem I have with this law to promptly inform is that it takes away my right to privacy. In my hypothetical scenario, lets say I am a passenger in my coworkers vehicle when they are stopped by law enforcement. Now I am forced by law to give up my privacy and inform the officer (and my coworker) 1) that I have a permit and 2) that I have a firearm with me (or not). Obviously this is not my coworkers business but sure as the sun will come up tomorrow they will be telling everyone "back at the office" about my personal business before the day is out.

I for one would like to see this law changed. Ohio is one of only a few states with this requirement. Please let me know what you think and I thank you for your opinion even if you disagree with me.


Getting rid of notification COMPLETELY is at the top of OFCC's priority list, along with fixing other issues with our carry laws in Ohio.

Notification can cause all kind of problems. Check out our ongoing discussions here.....

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87752
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby docachna » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:30 pm

Next time you make a run at repealing it, get some affirmation from LEO in states like TN, where the affirmative duty to notify is not shifted to a CHL holder UNTIL an LEO asks if he has any weapons on him. Seems to work down here --- and in a number of other states, as I understand.

It's not so much the duty to notify, as it is the poorly written and vague statute, and the inconsistent application.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
docachna
 
Posts: 1929
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Mount Juliet TN

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby 3FULLMAGS+1 » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:09 am

[quote="docachna"]Next time you make a run at repealing it, [color=#FF0000]get some affirmation from LEO[/color] in states like TN, where the affirmative duty to notify is not shifted to a CHL holder UNTIL an LEO asks if he has any weapons on him. Seems to work down here --- and in a number of other states, as I understand.

It's not so much the duty to notify, as it is the poorly written and vague statute, and the inconsistent application.[/quote]

(1) We ARE "making another run at it".....it' hb 142

(2) I think we have testimony from two officers at the present time. Problem is, officers work "under" someone else like their chief or sheriff and sometimes wont speak up.

(3) Yes, it does work with no problems at all, in the other 39 states or so.

(4) Yes, the law as is, is poorly written AND vague. We are trying to get the law changed from what it is now "to" notifying if and when we are asked by LE "first". As far as being inconsistent, again yes, it is , because of the vagueness of the word "promptly" in there AND that there are LE that don't like us carrying that will use that against us, and they have.
And add the fact that just about every law enforcement association almost always speaks out against any changes to our laws regarding carry.
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose

Postby qmti » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:25 am

Maybe I went about this wrong but I was interested about the movement of this bill and sent a email to Rep. Scott Wiggans who I believe sponsored the bill on Sunday 8/28/17. Received the automated response back on Monday that email was received. No further response from his office yet.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Next

Return to Ohio Concealed Carry Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests