Do you notify local LEOs?

[cincyhawthornes]

I just sent the following to my local sherrif department, and police department. Just curious if you think this will do any good.



Hi. My name is David Hxxxxxxxx. I just separated from my wife and moved to 17xx Cxxxxx Court (Apartment x.) I have multiple sclerosis and need to exercise as much as possible. My choice of exercise has become walking. I usually walk late at night. I usually walk from my apartment on Cxxxxx Court, down to Walmart and back, OR, from my apartment, down to Speedway and back.

Last night, as I was walking, I was thinking about carrying my handgun with me. I do NOT yet have a CCW license/permit. Until I do, I plan on using my right to open carry. I have done as much research on the laws regarding open carry as possible. I am also aware that law enforcement officers are not used to citizens exercising this right. This email is an attempt to communicate my intent to open carry so that if you spot me walking down the street with a firearm on my side, you won't be too surprised or concerned. I have a clean record, purchased the weapon from a licensed dealer, and have no problem if you want to contact me to discuss this. I will also offer my information so that you can do a background check if you see fit.

Thanks for your service, and if I do encounter any of you, I look forward to what I know will be a professional and polite encounter. I especially hope to hear from you if you DO have a problem with what I want to do, so that we can talk about it. I do not have an email address for the Pxxxxx Township police department, so please pass this along to someone there if you have an email contact for them. Thanks.

David C. Hxxxxxxxxx
(513) 3xx-xxxx
ssn: 2xx-xx-xxxx
dob: 7/31/1xxx
address: 17xx Cxxxx Court #x 4xxxx
Prev addr (still on license): xx west main street, axxxx, 4xxxx

[BB62]

1) Since you have chosen to do this (which I in no way endorse or suggest), you ought to confirm receipt of it with the head of each department you communicated with, and follow up with an e-mail confirming the confirmation. Then do a public records request on the communications.

2) Why ask a question AFTER you have done something??

[gmhiggins]

I just sent the following to my local sherrif department, and police department. Just curious if you think this will do any good.

It can't hurt, but I would personally have low expectations as to it being communicated through an entire department. And, as the Lorain Police Department told me when I advised them of 25+ of us gathering for an OC event - "We will respond to a call just to be sure".

Carry a recorder, make certain you understand the laws at the State and Federal level (since cities, political subdivisions and townships cannot make any law regarding possession, carrying, etc of firearms). Carry a copy of "Inducing Panic" and "Disorderly Conduct" with you - as those are the two "aha!" attempts most frequently used against OCers and understand and be prepared to exercise all of your rights.

If you are not suspected of committing or about to commit a crime, or a witness to a crime you do not legally have to identify yourself. If you are, you must provide your name, address and age (unless age is a part of the suspicion). You do not legally have to carry photo ID with you unless you are driving or have a CHL and are currently carrying concealed.
You should verbally state you do not consent to any searches. If they search you anyway (say, in a Terry Stop), repeat the refusal politely, but do not resist or try to evade. This will land you in huge trouble.
Keep your mouth shut. The Fifth Amemdment is beautiful.

Practice this line "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If you are not being detained, you are free to go and should. Remember, LEOs are professionals trained to get people to talk and (for lack of a better term) intimidate people into giving up their rights. They are also legally allowed to lie to you.

Resources and references -
http://www.flexyourrights.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... ording-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cop-reco ... 40863?mt=8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Smart phone recorder with upload option (Apple)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... cord&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Smart phone recorder with upload option (Android)

[glocksmith]

Like the above poster said, it can't hurt...but then again, it might not help either. If the local dispatcher gets a MWAG report from a citizen, they pretty much have to respond and check up on it. Most likely you will get stopped and end up having to explain yourself anyway. Now, on the other hand, if you live in a small municipality and you get stopped enough times, they'll then know you personally and probably won't hassle you after that. So, IMHO the letter to the department isn't going to change things.

[docachna]

Like the above poster said, it can't hurt...but then again, it might not help either. If the local dispatcher gets a MWAG report from a citizen, they pretty much have to respond and check up on it.....

This is only because of a fundamental lack of understanding at both the dispatcher and street cop level, as to the legality of Open Carry.

A well-trained and competent dispatcher who receives a call of "a guy with a gun on his hip" should immediately inquire "and what is he doing, ma'am ?". If the response is "he's just walking down the street", the dispatcher should discreetly inquire further to see if there are any other aggravating circumstances (possible intoxication, belligerent behavior, reckless handling of a firearm, etc.).

If he's doing nothing more than walking down the street strapped, the dispatcher should no more send an officer to respond to that report than they would send an officer to respond to a report of that same man DRIVING down the street, and doing nothing more. Both are engaged in acts which are lawful on their face, and absent some other RAS that they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime, LE has no right to even stop them. (Now, I understand very well that many departments will send somebody anyway - see the response from Lorain; and, they may very well stop them and conduct a field interview. I get that part. That doesn't mean they're acting within the law when they do it).

[glocksmith]

You're exactly right docachna. However, there is the ideal and there is the real. For the PM's well-being, he'd better stick to the real. I'll bet you $100 that if someone reports him to the dispatcher, the LEO's are going to show up. Ain't no use in arguing what the law states and how police should be respnding.

[docachna]

You're exactly right docachna. However, there is the ideal and there is the real. For the PM's well-being, he'd better stick to the real. I'll bet you $100 that if someone reports him to the dispatcher, the LEO's are going to show up. Ain't no use in arguing what the law states and how police should be respnding.

No argument from me. I'm simply saying it's a damned shame when a vehicle operator has the protection of law while they are legally minding their own business - while an OC'er.................

[Werz]

If the local dispatcher gets a MWAG report from a citizen, they pretty much have to respond and check up on it. Most likely you will get stopped and end up having to explain yourself anyway.

There is a proactive way of dealing with this. If there's a MWAG complaint called in against you on 9-1-1, after you have adequately explained yourself, you ask to speak with the CLEO or supervising officer. You don't ask to have the dispatcher or the officers disciplined; they're just doing their jobs. You do ask to have the officers investigate a case of 9-1-1 abuse under RC 4931.49(D) and (E). Tell them that you don't want the person arrested or charge; you just want that person questioned as to why he/she called 9-1-1 when you were not engaging in any type of illegal or threatening conduct. Tell them that it's only fair if they investigate both sides of the incident. When the hoplophobic Chicken Littles get done pooping their drawers because the cops came to their home and questioned them, the word will start to get around.

[docachna]

If the local dispatcher gets a MWAG report from a citizen, they pretty much have to respond and check up on it. Most likely you will get stopped and end up having to explain yourself anyway.

There is a proactive way of dealing with this. If there's a MWAG complaint called in against you on 9-1-1, after you have adequately explained yourself, you ask to speak with the CLEO or supervising officer. You don't ask to have the dispatcher or the officers disciplined; they're just doing their jobs. You do ask to have the officers investigate a case of 9-1-1 abuse under RC 4931.49(D) and (E).

I disagree.

A dispatcher is not doing his job when he doesn't bother to screen calls for service enough to determine whether any violation of law is even being committed, before he commits department resources to go on a wild goose chase. PD's aren't computers, programmed to respond at the press of a button. The fact that the mere report of a MWAG generates the assumption at dispatch that there MUST BE a criminal element involved is the whole problem we are facing.

Imagine the fuss if officers were dispatched to a report of a guy driving a car down a suburban street. Most dispatchers will immediately discern that the mere act of driving the car down a street is not a violation. They will ask the RP "is that all they're doing - driving ???". If no other conduct is implicated (speed, articulably suspicious behavior, etc.), then the dispatcher will likely say "Ma'am, he's breaking no law, and there's nothing suspicious about just driving up the street."

Dispatchers (and their headquarters supervisor officers, where they exist) should be trained sufficiently to KNOW that the mere open carry of a firearm IS NOT AN OFFENSE ! While there's absolutely nothing wrong with probing to find out what else the guy/gal may be doing who is carrying the gun, there simply no justification for sending officers on a MWAG call which has nothing else going for it.

Law enforcement can be excused for mistake of fact. They CANNOT be excused for mistake of law. That's their job - to know the law. I just don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to know the laws they enforce.

[Brian D.]

This topic always make me think of my scheme to educate some town that is really begging for it by having 'The Day of 100 Gun Carrier Sightings' within their boundaries.

[JediSkipdogg]

If the local dispatcher gets a MWAG report from a citizen, they pretty much have to respond and check up on it. Most likely you will get stopped and end up having to explain yourself anyway.

There is a proactive way of dealing with this. If there's a MWAG complaint called in against you on 9-1-1, after you have adequately explained yourself, you ask to speak with the CLEO or supervising officer. You don't ask to have the dispatcher or the officers disciplined; they're just doing their jobs. You do ask to have the officers investigate a case of 9-1-1 abuse under RC 4931.49(D) and (E).

I disagree.

A dispatcher is not doing his job when he doesn't bother to screen calls for service enough to determine whether any violation of law is even being committed, before he commits department resources to go on a wild goose chase. PD's aren't computers, programmed to respond at the press of a button. The fact that the mere report of a MWAG generates the assumption at dispatch that there MUST BE a criminal element involved is the whole problem we are facing.

Imagine the fuss if officers were dispatched to a report of a guy driving a car down a suburban street. Most dispatchers will immediately discern that the mere act of driving the car down a street is not a violation. They will ask the RP "is that all they're doing - driving ???". If no other conduct is implicated (speed, articulably suspicious behavior, etc.), then the dispatcher will likely say "Ma'am, he's breaking no law, and there's nothing suspicious about just driving up the street."

Dispatchers (and their headquarters supervisor officers, where they exist) should be trained sufficiently to KNOW that the mere open carry of a firearm IS NOT AN OFFENSE ! While there's absolutely nothing wrong with probing to find out what else the guy/gal may be doing who is carrying the gun, there simply no justification for sending officers on a MWAG call which has nothing else going for it.

Law enforcement can be excused for mistake of fact. They CANNOT be excused for mistake of law. That's their job - to know the law. I just don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to know the laws they enforce.

I disagree. Show me what state certification I have to know the laws? Show me my training on the laws? Dispatchers in the state of Ohio are not trained on ANY of the ORC unlike the police officers. We are to take the phone calls and dispatch an officer to determine if a violation has occurred.

30 minutes ago I took a phone call for a neighbor mowing his yard and putting his grass clippings in his neighbors driveway and refusing to clean them up. Parties had their verbal dispute and then went in their own house. What violation of the law is that? The homeowner requested one and one was sent. I do not have the authority to say, "Sorry Sir, no law has been broken, therefore we cannot send an officer to your house to ensure a peaceful resolution to no law being committed."

Now, you mention the car driving down the road. First of all, would never have a call like that. Why? SOCIETY is trained to accept that. MWAG, SOCIETY is not trained to accept it. Therefore, items society is not trained to accept will result in calls to police. If someone does call about a car driving down the street we will ask what is suspicious about it. If they say nothing, then we will ask why they called. I've never heard anyone just call saying they saw something that is "normal." Most likely they would say "it's 4:00 am and they are driving extremely slow down the street." Guess what, 99.9999% chance no crime, but....it's getting checked out. Whether the vehicle is stopped or not is another story, but that's up to the officer and not the dispatcher.

MWAG call's come in because society is not trained to accept them. The dispatcher will most likely ask what else is going on with the subject. However, I can say, 100% of the time an officer is going to be sent. If they want to observe, stop, etc, that is up to the officer and their policies and procedures. You'd be amazed the amount of info lost in a phone call. Three months ago (not my call or department) a woman called in ref. her husband was going crazy and had a gun. She out of her own said he just got back from a tour in Iraq and the caller and kids would be standing outside. The call was perfect, it was dispatched as a MWAG in a house. What do you think it was? The number of officers responding thought suicide, if not suicide by cop. However, it was a domestic, the gun never came out of the case, it was 100% verbal and the husband pulled the gun case out but never took the gun out. Who's wrong here? The calltaker/dispatcher? The caller? The responding officers? It was not a MWAG call, it was a domestic with a gun locked up.

The officers should drive by and check the subject out. If they see no signs of anything suspicious, continue on. However, anything suspiciuos such as the person ducks behind a bush, they run down the road, etc, how about a stop and talk.

That's my two cents and I don't know how you can say someone sitting behind a phone, translating a caller's vision, can 100% accurately dispatch something they can't see. If we charged everyone that called in something wrong with misuse of 911, half of America would be arrested.

The police need to be properly trained on the laws of a MWAG call. However, to stop the calls and make people only call if something truely suspicious is going on, then the public, aka society, needs to be educated. And well, very few take that task on. Not educating friends, family, coworkers doesn't help the cause. Too many carry and carry secretly. I conceal carry, but have no problem letting the world know I carry.

[Gaspode]

If the local dispatcher gets a MWAG report from a citizen, they pretty much have to respond and check up on it. Most likely you will get stopped and end up having to explain yourself anyway.

There is a proactive way of dealing with this. If there's a MWAG complaint called in against you on 9-1-1, after you have adequately explained yourself, you ask to speak with the CLEO or supervising officer. You don't ask to have the dispatcher or the officers disciplined; they're just doing their jobs. You do ask to have the officers investigate a case of 9-1-1 abuse under RC 4931.49(D) and (E).

I disagree.

A dispatcher is not doing his job when he doesn't bother to screen calls for service enough to determine whether any violation of law is even being committed, before he commits department resources to go on a wild goose chase. PD's aren't computers, programmed to respond at the press of a button. The fact that the mere report of a MWAG generates the assumption at dispatch that there MUST BE a criminal element involved is the whole problem we are facing.

Imagine the fuss if officers were dispatched to a report of a guy driving a car down a suburban street. Most dispatchers will immediately discern that the mere act of driving the car down a street is not a violation. They will ask the RP "is that all they're doing - driving ???". If no other conduct is implicated (speed, articulably suspicious behavior, etc.), then the dispatcher will likely say "Ma'am, he's breaking no law, and there's nothing suspicious about just driving up the street."

Dispatchers (and their headquarters supervisor officers, where they exist) should be trained sufficiently to KNOW that the mere open carry of a firearm IS NOT AN OFFENSE ! While there's absolutely nothing wrong with probing to find out what else the guy/gal may be doing who is carrying the gun, there simply no justification for sending officers on a MWAG call which has nothing else going for it.

Law enforcement can be excused for mistake of fact. They CANNOT be excused for mistake of law. That's their job - to know the law. I just don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to know the laws they enforce.

Lots of wrong in that whoooole statement.

[gmhiggins]

The stuff that Jedi said

I can tell you on the EMS side of 911, they are required to respond (while on duty). EMS may get there and it could be nothing, or it could be something. They cannot look at a call of say, a 14 year old with chest pains and say "It's just anxiety, have them just calm down and go to the hospital". No fault should be given to a dispatcher because they heard (perhaps on a bad line, or with someone short of breath) 14 and it was a 40 year old with chest pains.

It would be up to the responders to gauge the situation properly to determine the correct course of action.

[SMMAssociates]

Time was, some PD's used sworn Officers as dispatchers. (Sometimes as a way to keep 'em working after an injury.) Between that and a ride-along once in a while to keep current on new streets, etc., this probably is the way to go, and the dispatcher should have the authority to cancel a call or at least mitigate the response.

However, this isn't cost-effective, and the result is that many dispatchers have no street experience at all, may not know where problem areas are, and might even be in another city someplace. Some pretty hilarious things can result....

Anderson County SC's Sheriffs Department used to start a dispatch with "does anybody know where xxxx street is?" If somebody responded affirmatively, then it'd be "OK, you got the call...."

(In fairness to Anderson County, the map looked like somebody dipped a chicken's feet and let it walk on the paper . I once had to give a friend directions to find the plant - owned by the former day job - from the Mall, having done it hundreds of time myself, and realizing that it was nearly impossible to explain, even though most of it was on somewhat well-marked State highways....)

Short answer: I would expect an Officer to respond to an MWAG call.... If he/she sees nothing special, that should be the end of it....

Don't expect the Local PD guys to be aware, though.... At least not until they've stopped you once or twice, unless you're into bright blue hair or nudity....

(A former co-worker was a foreman at the former day job. At the time, the Township was about 100% white, and he was 100% Black. He worked at odd hours, putting him on the road at other than shift change times. EVERY time he bought a new car - usually a "work car" junker - practically everybody on the Township PD would stop him for DWB. I asked him if that was insulting, and he said that he didn't care. "I drive some seriously junk cars, and in an area where trying to knock on somebody's door to use a phone probably would get me shot. Having the PD guys around, and knowing me, is a great advantage." No cellphones in those days....)

Regards,

[stringygerm]

Good call with the proactive communication. My view is that is better than the surprise of no communication.