Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by Werz »

xpd54 wrote:Since this is turning into a cruiser cam thread, I'll drop this here:

12th District Appeals Court (Clermont Co.) rules cruiser cam video is not public record, but work product under the confidential LE enforcement investigatory records exemption.....https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/d ... o-2244.pdf

I'm guessing this gets appealed.
Yep. I saw that the other day. However, it is important to note:
  • The dash cam video will still be discoverable under Criminal Rule 16.
  • With the new Criminal Rule 16 encouraging open and mutual disclosure by both parties, the courts are discouraging attempts to circumvent reciprocal discovery by public records requests. See State v. Athon, 136 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-1956.
  • The dash cam video will lose its exemption from public record status after all "trials," "actions" and/or "proceedings" have been fully completed. See State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 432 (1994).
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by JediSkipdogg »

Werz wrote:[*] With the new Criminal Rule 16 encouraging open and mutual disclosure by both parties, the courts are discouraging attempts to circumvent reciprocal discovery by public records requests. See State v. Athon, 136 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-1956.
I enjoyed denying a defense attorneys request of a record the other day on that. I told him I could release it under public records (but that seems like I could withhold it after reading this case) but I would have to notify the prosecutor that said documents were obtained outside of discovery. He was none to happy with me. :lol:
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by color of law »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
Werz wrote:[*] With the new Criminal Rule 16 encouraging open and mutual disclosure by both parties, the courts are discouraging attempts to circumvent reciprocal discovery by public records requests. See State v. Athon, 136 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-1956.
I enjoyed denying a defense attorneys request of a record the other day on that. I told him I could release it under public records (but that seems like I could withhold it after reading this case) but I would have to notify the prosecutor that said documents were obtained outside of discovery. He was none to happy with me. :lol:
Was the document requested through a subpoena in which he is counsel? And what specific record did he/s request. Not all records are law enforcement work product. You did pass this denial by your supervisor prior to refusal, did you not?
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by JediSkipdogg »

color of law wrote:Was the document requested through a subpoena in which he is counsel? And what specific record did he/s request. Not all records are law enforcement work product. You did pass this denial by your supervisor prior to refusal, did you not?
Denied via phone for video. No reason to pass it on. And I didn't really deny it, just told him if he wanted it I would notify the prosecutor on said case that it wasn't done properly through discovery.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by color of law »

I think Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2014-Ohio-2244 is bad case law.

Cruiser Video is kept in the normal course of business, it is not an investigatory tool.

The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Athon, 136 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-1956 stated:
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
1. Although R.C. 149.43 provides an independent basis for obtaining information potentially relevant to a criminal proceeding, it is not a substitute for and does not supersede the requirements of criminal discovery pursuant to Crim.R. 16.
2. Neither R.C. 149.43 nor Crim.R. 16 precludes an accused from obtaining public records from law enforcement agencies, but Crim.R. 16 is specific to the procedure in criminal cases and therefore is the preferred mechanism to obtain discovery from the state.
3. When an accused directly or indirectly makes a public records request for information that could have been obtained from the state though discovery, that public records request is the equivalent of a demand for discovery, and a reciprocal duty of disclosure arises in accordance with Crim.R. 16.
I hope COAST appeals Miller.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by BB62 »

xpd54 wrote:Since this is turning into a cruiser cam thread, I'll drop this here:

12th District Appeals Court (Clermont Co.) rules cruiser cam video is not public record, but work product under the confidential LE enforcement investigatory records exemption.....https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/d ... o-2244.pdf

I'm guessing this gets appealed.
VERY interesting and VERY, VERY disturbing.

What is OFCC's position on the matter?

It seems like OFCC's representatives, rather than commenting on how a public records might have been denied based on the outcome of the above referenced case, ought to a) state OFCC's vehement opposition to the court's interpretation, and b) work to spread the word far and wide, especially to the media and the legislature, about how this court decision serves to drastically reduce public employee accountability.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
Splat!!
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:43 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by Splat!! »

docachna wrote:
dcludwig wrote:I order my plates/stickers online (2 years worth each time), so I get notified and I have to validate my address with each order. However, one year the sticker was sent to the wrong address. They admitted that and apologized. Who is to say that a notification of requirement of proof of insurance might also be miss sent, if the computer mistake has not been corrected? Then subsequently, I don't reply with the random request for POI (which I think is BS) and thus, my DL is suspended.....
The highlighted portion above raises an OT subject that galled me a few years back, before I moved out of Ohio. I got one of those "random requests for proof of insurance". Well, the car they inquired about was tagged, all right, but it was being stored in a friend's barn 6-7 months out of the year (my "mid-life crisis" car), and was not being driven for that period. I did not carry liability insurance on it for the period where it was not being driven.

Now, granted, I just went back and got a copy of the declarations page that was issued before the period of inactivity, and that was accepted by BMV, as they had no way of knowing the liability coverage had since been dropped, but it was frustrating having to prove liability insurance on a car, despite the fact that I wasn't driving it, and therefore, it appeared no violation of statute had occurred, as the statute only requires liability coverage on a car that is "operated" within the state - not "registered" within the state. So, I went to the O.R.C.:
4509.101 Operating of motor vehicle without proof of financial responsibility.
(A)

(1) No person shall operate, or permit the operation of, a motor vehicle in this state, unless proof of financial responsibility is maintained continuously throughout the registration period with respect to that vehicle, or, in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to that driver's operation of that vehicle....

(3) A person to whom this state has issued a certificate of registration for a motor vehicle or a license to operate a motor vehicle or who is determined to have operated any motor vehicle or permitted the operation in this state of a motor vehicle owned by the person shall be required to verify the existence of proof of financial responsibility covering the operation of the motor vehicle or the person's operation of the motor vehicle under any of the following circumstances:

(a) The person or a motor vehicle owned by the person is involved in a traffic accident that requires the filing of an accident report under section 4509.06 of the Revised Code.

(b) The person receives a traffic ticket indicating that proof of the maintenance of financial responsibility was not produced upon the request of a peace officer or state highway patrol trooper made in accordance with division (D)(2) of this section.

(c) Whenever, in accordance with rules adopted by the registrar, the person is randomly selected by the registrar and requested to provide such verification.
So, in short, Ohio law requires you to carry liability insurance on a motor vehicle only if you "operate, or permit the operation of, a motor vehicle in this state", unless you are "randomly selected" by the registrar to prove that you insured that vehicle that was never operated - and if you didn't insure it, your DL is suspended for failing to purchase liability coverage that state law does not require, since the vehicle was never operated !!!

Talk about Catch-22.....
I believe they only randomly check those with valid tags.....I have had customers who has received the letter while their vehicle was down for repair or sitting at my shop. I wrote a letter on company letterhead and sent in the estimate to document the repair.
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Post Reply