Do you notify local LEOs?

[cincyhawthornes]

Sorry for such a long delay in responding.

I recently had a LEO use a spotlight to scan the side of the road and sidewalks where I had just carried. I proactively (again!) contacted the local dispatch center and copied a chief deputy with the same sheriff department that overseas the dispatchers.

The dispatch supervisor (and subsequently the chief deputy) replied and informed me that if a MWAG report is made to 911, the operator has a duty to send a LEO. I asked (in an email) if I reported a black man walking down the street, would they have to send an officer simply because I felt threatened by that person. Both OC and being black are legal activities. The dispatch supervisor and chief deputy both replied that they are aware of the legal right to OC, but have an obligation to respond to MWAG reports. I then reminded them of /*Florida v. J.L.*/, 529 U.S. 266 (2000) where the US Supreme Court refused to allow a handgun exception to the Terry stop or RAS standard.

Text from a chief deputy with my local sheriff department:
In society officers must respond to citizens calls and check out all kind of information, many of which have a very reasonable and legal standing yet until they are checked out they remain suspicious to the public and require a look




I then told them that in spite of the fact that I disagreed with their opinions, I would respect any officer who stopped me, even if I felt the detainment to be illegal. I informed them that any encounters would be recorded.... Here's the text of my last email to them.. Enjoy or flame as you see fit.


Mr. xxxxx,

Thanks for the reply. It is sad, however, to hear that a high ranking member of the sheriff department believes that legal activity is suspicious and needs to be checked out. The US Supreme court in /*Florida v. J.L.*/, 529 U.S. 266 (2000) refused to allow a firearm exception to the Terry stop standards or RAS. Without REASON to believe that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is going to be committed, there exist no RAS for detaining a citizen simply because they have a firearm visible (in my opinion). There are a couple of good online forums that have direct links to ORC, reference to federal laws, and discuss this is great detail.

I hope you understand that in spite of the fact that I do not like your opinion, I understand it. Also, please make no mistake about my intentions. If I am detained by a LEO, even if I feel the detainment is unnecessary, I will obey any and all orders. I may remain silent (probably not though, since as you can tell I like to "discuss" issues), but I will respect the process. I just don't have to like it. I fully expect and hope any encounter to go something like this:

me: "By the way, I'm recording this conversation. What can I do for you officer? "
officer: "We had a report of a person with a gun."
me: "Understand. Why am I being detained?"
officer: "Because you are carrying a firearm."
me: "[silence**]"

** unless asked for name, dob, and address, even though I do not
believe RAS exist to ask for that information. ORC requires me to
give that information if the officer believes that I have committed,
am committing, or will commit a crime or have witnessed a felony.
etc. etc.. you probably know the law better than I do.


OR

me: "By the way, I'm recording this conversation. What can I do for you officer? "
officer: "We had a report of a person with a gun."
me: "Understand. Why am I being detained?"
officer: "You are not being detained."
me: "Have a good night officer."

Regards

David Hxxxxxxxx
(513) 3nn-nnnn

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...If I am detained by a LEO, even if I feel the detainment is unnecessary, I will obey any and all orders...

You could have just said this much and saved yourself some typing.

Not to be rude, but you really didn't bother to read many older posts here on OFCC, did you?

So you thought you would "do the right thing" and let the police know who you are and what you would be doing, and what, they would leave you alone?

How's that working out for you?

On another open carry topic:

Will you be able to attend the Meet & Greet picnic in Springfield Twp. on June 23rd?
Details: http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=61616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cincyhawthornes]

First of all, I have read some of your older posts. I have learned a lot from them.

Yes, I felt the right thing to do was to inform them. They HAVE left me alone. I have carried on a number of occasions since my first communication with them. On most, if not all of those occasions, I have been passed by multiple LEOs. Village police, State patrol, Sheriff and Township. They have not come close to trying to stop me. So it has worked out for me.

My only issue at this point is the fact that someone called 911 and a dispatch happened. The rules aren't different when they pass me in their vehicle and when a citizen calls them. That is what I do not currently agree with them on. They have not bothered me at all in the last month. Had the township officer arrived 2 minutes earlier the other night, they would have stopped me because of the 911 call. That's why I went out of my way (again) to inform them that doing so would have violated my rights since they would not have had RAS. I highly suspect that this second round of communications will give them pause if they receive another MWAG report. If not, well, you saw the email. Most of the local LEOs around here seem to be supportive except when it comes to their opinion regarding their obligations when a 911 call is made.

BTW. Made a request and just received this in email. Curious what the caller said and what questions the dispatcher asked. A copy of the call for service(computer aided dispatch record) and a copy of the audio of the phone call are ready for you to pick up. Just give the person answering door intercom, your name, and tell them you are here to pick up a public record request.

It can be picked up Monday-Friday between 8a.m and 4p.m. @
The Office of Technology, Communications and Security
2279 Clermont Center Drive
Batavia, Ohio 45103

The only thing I'm not clear on at this point is what my recourse would be, if any, in the event that I were to be detained without RAS.

PS. I WILL be attending the Meet & Greet. I just the post about it last night and added it to my calendar. It actually made me think about organizing an event here locally (in Amelia/Clermont County/Pierce Township.)

[cincyhawthornes]

Picked up copy of the report and recording of the call.

Caller said they saw a man with a gun in a holster on his hip walking down the road. Caller told the dispatcher that "I'm not sure if this is even legal or not. the guy looked shady." I was wearing a nice long sleeve t-shirt and khaki pants. I have very short (clean cut) hair. I have no beard. I'm not sure why the guy used the word "shady."

The dispatcher asked NO questions except for location and description. Here is my latest communication to the dispatch center supervisor (with heads of ALL local LEOs copied.)

Mr. Kxxxxx,

I received the 911 records that I requested in my original email.

I hereby request an investigation of 9-1-1 abuse under RC 4931.49(D) and (E). Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it! I understand that the 911 operator has no liability. The caller, however, is not allowed to use 9-1-1 for any purpose other than obtaining emergency service. I am making a complaint against the caller and demand an investigation.

Please notify me of the disposition of this investigation. Also, if an email is not a sufficient form of communicating an official complaint against a fellow citizen, tell me what the correct procedure is. I will go out of my way to make sure that my complaint is filed, investigated, and followed up on.

David Hxxxxxx
(513) 3nn-nnnn

PS. Unless you lied to me on the phone, I do expect to be notified as to why the dispatcher didn't ask any questions. "Black man walking down the street." is just as legal as "Man with a gun on hip walking down the street." One of those reports would warrant the dispatcher asking further questions. Why wouldn't the other?! Please answer this question.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4931.49" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(D) No person shall knowingly use the telephone number of a 9-1-1 system established under sections 4931.40 to 4931.70 of the Revised Code to report an emergency if the person knows that no emergency exists.

(E) No person shall knowingly use a 9-1-1 system for a purpose other than obtaining emergency service.

[cincyhawthornes]

Was notified that my complaint was forwarded to the prosecutor's office.

I followed up my email with another email full of pictures of me wearing the same clothes that I was wearing that night. The pictures even included my sidearm. I forwarded these pics to the dispatch director and the prosecutor's office. I also supplied them with my phone gps and "my tracks" information that I use every time I go out for a walk. It shows distance, time, pace, etc.. which would clearly show that there was no "lingering, loitering" or even slow walking.

I do NOT expect any investigation, let alone charges or interview. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy exercising my rights, and enjoy passionate discussion. And it certainly doesn't mean that I can't demand (request) an investigation. So don't start telling me to save my breath. If I don't complain and maintain dialog, I won't learn anything, educate anyone else (if possible), let alone get anywhere in furthering my cause. My favorite quote is from one of my favorite shows, 'Mythbusters', is "Failure is always an option."

I'll let this forum know if the prosecutor investigates my complaint against the caller for misusing the 9-1-1 system. Even if they don't, I'll let you know about their dismissal. If nothing else, I've made the dispatch center director and prosecutor's office know that at least one local citizen is trying to exercise his rights and learn the law.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Hey, far be it from me to tell you to save your breath.

This is entertaining. You have complained more about NOT being harassed than some people have when they were illegally detained!

If you can make waves and make something happen, I'll applaud your efforts.

BUT, I have NO PROBLEM with a LEO being dispatched to check out an unknown. If I make the call, I want them to show up. I will happily tell a LEO that I'm just out walking/shopping/fishing/etc. and minding my own business.

The citizen that called you in is only guilty of calling you "shady". He told the dispatcher that he "didn't know" if you were doing something "legal or not". That says he didn't "knowingly" abuse the 911 system.

You could provide the 911 office glossy 11x17 posters of your face and profile, provide them with a GPS tracking device for you, and call them with an update on your location every minute or two. There would STILL be no way to be certain a 911 caller was talking about you and would have to send out a patrol to check on things.

Also, what happens when you "snap". Oh, that's just David H. Don't mind him.

And then you flip out and kill multiple citizens, maybe a dog or two for good measure. How much liability insurance do you think the 911 system will need to cover them?

Maybe you won't flip out. But maybe someone else, that the 911 operators know and ignore, does? There are simply too many possibilities to say, "You guys don't need to check up on me. I'm a good guy!"

I won't tell you to save your breath, but it could sure be used in more win-able fights.

BTW: Were you in Hawaii back in '98 or '99?

[cincyhawthornes]

It's not about winning the fight. It's about the battle.

What happens if you drink too much, drive your car, kill someone? Should we close all bars? Ban motor vehicles? What a dumb argument. If a LEO stops me, finds that I am legally carrying a firearm, let's me go and I kill 15 people, are they liable? Of course not! If someone calls 9-1-1 and says there is a black man walking down the street and they don't feel comfortable about it, the dispatcher doesn't dispatch, or the LEO won't investigate, and that black man kills somebody, are they liable then?? Your argument just doesn't float.

It doesn't float because I'm not telling them "You guys don't need to check up on ME, I'm a good guy." I AM telling them, "You guys don't need to check up on a report of someone doing a LEGAL act."

I'm just as entertained as you are. I really haven't been complaining as much as I have been exercising rights and passionately pursuing what I consider to be justice and the desire for those in charge of ENFORCING the laws to do so in a lawful manner (i.e. with RAS.)

[cincyhawthornes]

PS. I have yet to be stopped. We'll see after I take a walk tonight. First walk since the recent email spree..

I'll keep you informed. (If you want me to.)

[cincyhawthornes]

Offense intended here: Learn how to read.

It's not about whether or not he knowingly abused the system. That's like saying if you shoot somebody thinking that it's self defense when it's not, you can't be convicted because you didn't knowingly break the law.

He told the dispatcher (I should have said this before) that he would have called the non-emergency number but didn't have it. This is on the tape.

If he knows that no emergency exists, he broke the law under section D. Not knowing if i'm breaking the law or not has nothing to do with whether or not he believed that an "EMERGENCY" existed.

He was not requesting "EMERGENCY" services for himself or anybody else. He broke the law under section E.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4931.49" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(D) No person shall knowingly use the telephone number of a 9-1-1 system established under sections 4931.40 to 4931.70 of the Revised Code to report an emergency if the person knows that no emergency exists.
(E) No person shall knowingly use a 9-1-1 system for a purpose other than obtaining emergency service.

Don't get me wrong. I don't expect them to take my complaint, let alone investigate, let alone interview the person. And even if they do, it's not my place, nor am I trying to imply that it is my place, to say whether or not he broke the law. That's for a jury or judge to decide. It IS my place to complain if I believe that a law has been broken or if an investigation needs to take place to determine whether or not a law has been broken.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

PS. I have yet to be stopped. We'll see after I take a walk tonight. First walk since the recent email spree..

I'll keep you informed. (If you want me to.)

Please do. We learn as you learn.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Offense intended here: Learn how to read.

It's not about whether or not he knowingly abused the system. That's like saying if you shoot somebody thinking that it's self defense when it's not, you can't be convicted because you didn't knowingly break the law.

I'm pretty sure I read your post correctly. If you read ORC 4931.49 (D) and (E), both use the word "knowingly". You won't find that word in most criminal statutes, especially ones where guns are involved (other than gunbuster signs).

This was to ensure that people using the system would not face charges if their call was made in good faith that an emergency "might" exist.

He told the dispatcher (I should have said this before) that he would have called the non-emergency number but didn't have it. This is on the tape.

Purposely offending me with a 'learn to read' comment and you didn't even put the full story in your post!? Wow. Duly noted.

If he knows that no emergency exists, he broke the law under section D. Not knowing if i'm breaking the law or not has nothing to do with whether or not he believed that an "EMERGENCY" existed.

He was not requesting "EMERGENCY" services for himself or anybody else. He broke the law under section E.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4931.49" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(D) No person shall knowingly use the telephone number of a 9-1-1 system established under sections 4931.40 to 4931.70 of the Revised Code to report an emergency if the person knows that no emergency exists.
(E) No person shall knowingly use a 9-1-1 system for a purpose other than obtaining emergency service.

The caller said:

...I'm not sure if this is even legal or not...

That tells me he didn't know if it was an emergency. He simply left it up to the dispatcher to decide. He did not violate 4931.49(D) and that would mean, in this case, he did not violate 4931.49(E)

Don't get me wrong. I don't expect them to take my complaint, let alone investigate, let alone interview the person. And even if they do, it's not my place, nor am I trying to imply that it is my place, to say whether or not he broke the law. That's for a jury or judge to decide. It IS my place to complain if I believe that a law has been broken or if an investigation needs to take place to determine whether or not a law has been broken.

I would hope that the prosecutor contacts the caller and lets them know that open carry is, indeed, a lawful activity. We agree that education of the sheep is important.

We can't forget that two things are involved in this issue that make it difficult to change the system into what it should be.

Those two things are humans and politics.

[Werz]

If you read ORC 4931.49 (D) and (E), both use the word "knowingly". You won't find that word in most criminal statutes, especially ones where guns are involved (other than gunbuster signs).

Whoa! I see a serious misperception here. There are four specific mens rea (culpable mental states) in Ohio criminal law: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligently. See RC 2901.22. Many are in the leading paragraph of the section or subsection where many people (including police officers) forget to read. Nearly all criminal statutes have them specifically stated. It one is not stated, "recklessly" is presumed. There are some strict liability offenses, but they are very few.

[cincyhawthornes]

Last post, then I promise to shut up.

Received a phone call from the local chief (who's officer responded to the MWAG report.) He said that he can't stop calls, have to respond if dispatched, but he said that he has already briefed his officers that there is a local citizen who walks in the area while carrying openly. He claimed that he notified them to make sure they have RAS if they choose to detain me (the person they see carrying.) He said that they will NOT stop without cause, even if they are dispatched on a call. He sounded sincere. Time will tell. I assured him that even if they do stop me, and I don't think they have cause, I will cooperate. I felt a warm/fuzzy after we talked.

It was a very cordial conversation. He even said "yeah, they'll probably see you and think 'that's that David guy who kept emailing us'"

MyWifeSaidYes: I am truly sorry that I was rude to you. I honestly respect your opinion each time I read one of your posts. I let myself type in anger. I was defensive and should have thought before I typed. Won't happen again. BTW, I WAS in Hawaii in 99. Why do you ask? Very interesting question. Also, I notice you own an I.T. company. I'm looking for work. I have 6 years app admin experience and 9 years .NET programming experience.

Forgot one comment:

You mentioned that the law is written to protect people who call in good faith. The US Supreme court has set a precedent that protects people from having the police search them simply because someone who is against guns, or doesn't like you personally calls. How is good faith established without an investigation. It doesn't need to be established every time, but since I complained, there exists an obligation to investigate. (in my humble opinion.)

[blah]

He claimed that he notified them to make sure they have RAS if they choose to detain me (the person they see carrying.)

anyone else find funny/sad this given they are supposed to detain people only if they have RAS anyways?

[Tourist]

He claimed that he notified them to make sure they have RAS if they choose to detain me (the person they see carrying.)

anyone else find funny/sad this given they are supposed to detain people only if they have RAS anyways?

I would read that as reinforcing the fact that having an openly carried gun is not RAS. It would make it clear to any officer who did not know, or was not sure.