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.
Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5756
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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:
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
- Mr. Glock
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 8965
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: NE Ohio
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
That is an interesting turn of phrase. And technically correct.
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
- JustaShooter
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5805
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
- Location: Akron/Canton Area
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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!
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!
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5756
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
Feel free. I threw it out there so people would know. Just don't rely too heavily on it at this point.JustaShooter wrote:schmieg do you mind if I post your take on this decision on our Facebook page and group?
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
- MyWifeSaidYes
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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' )
Will a different court try to muddy that which is clear? Almost certainly. I just hope they don't succeed.
MyWifeSaidYes
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5756
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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..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' )
Will a different court try to muddy that which is clear? Almost certainly. I just hope they don't succeed.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
- evan price
- Forum Janitor
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
- Location: Westfield, Ohio
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
And that's the best kind of correct!Mr. Glock wrote:That is an interesting turn of phrase. And technically 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.
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.
- djthomas
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
Hopefully because a change in the law obviates the need for it to do so.schmieg wrote:Personally, I love the decision. I just suspect that it won't survive long as precedent.
- Chuck
- OFCC Director
- Posts: 4753
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
- Location: Licking County
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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)
"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)
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5756
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
You can try this one. If it doesn't work, I can file attach it to you.Chuck wrote:Is there a link to this decision?
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/do ... o-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
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
- dc3dog
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 8:37 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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.
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.
Cogito, ergo sum armatus.
Molon labe.
-
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
- Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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.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.
Notification can cause all kind of problems. Check out our ongoing discussions here.....
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87752" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
-
- Posts: 2175
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
- Location: Mount Juliet TN
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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.
It's not so much the duty to notify, as it is the poorly written and vague statute, and the inconsistent application.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
-
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
- Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
[quote="docachna"]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.[/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.
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".
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm
Re: Stopped for Law Enforcement Purpose
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.