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
dcludwig
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by dcludwig »

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. Honestly, I didn't realize I had to inform the BMV of a change of address - "stupid tax" me for that. I wonder how many other people either do not realize they are required to notify or forget to do so in all the hassle of moving. I DO know I'm required notify the SO of my change, so my CHL info can be updated.

Two weeks later, I get pulled over, screamed at (oh yeah, no video - he said/she said :roll: , my child left in a running vehicle with firearm in the center console, then my firearm confiscated, never to return. The cop keeps it? Not remotely possible? I don't agree with that. I think it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY, as he would be jeopardizing his career over a pretty cheap handgun. But it's not that such thing never, ever happen. Cops screaming at a LAC? Never happen - well, of course there's that darned Harless video. It IS the reality that without video/audio proof, the LEO's word will be taken over ours, so we have to accept that. Not that it matters to have video. I emailed a copy of the video I posted on YouTube to the post commander, showing the officers accusations to me in that video, so the commander saw the encounter. Not a peep back from him. Sent a copy to city commissioner who was responsive and asked if I'd like to meet with her about it. I decided at that point to go no further, as I had been told "you'll gonna get a target on your back from Dayton cops!". LOL, I didn't really think it would go that far.... but, wasn't worth pushing it. Really just wanted an apology for the officer for falsely accusing me of a breaking a law he didn't know himself and was too lazy to even spend 30 seconds confirming it before making an accusation.


Deanimator is very right. The burden is on us to defend ourselves. If you watch my video on YouTube in HD mode you will see it is crystal clear and the audio very good. It cost me $70 at the time and is very convenient and portable. Usually it watches the road, but it was easy enough to turn to the drivers window in my case. There are some good ones out there, worth getting, IMNSHO.

I had to read this thread over again to keep the full context of it in my head. I believe: 1) The driver should have been more diligent in keeping BMV updated when necessary. We ALL should. 2) The consequences of her "crime" far out-weighed the "crime" itself. 3) There are good cops and bad cops out there. Most are good cops, but prepare yourself for a run-in with a bad one. Documents on hand, hands on the wheel. Notifying in milliseconds, even if it means talking over the cop. 4) Get a GOOD audio or audio/video recorder. You will rarely, if ever, win a he said/she said dispute with a cop in court if there is no documentation or credible witnesses to support your side.

Lastly, I do get that drivers should be required to provide proof of insurance when pulled over or involved in an accident. But I deliberately avoid driving through certain parts of Dayton where I believe a great number, if not the majority of the drivers in that area don't have insurance. What happens when they are caught driving without insurance or caause at-fault damage to another vehicle? Their hands are slapped and they go on driving without insurance (or a suspended license) the very next day. WE get to pay with higher insurance rates.

LAC's are the easy targets. When a normally LAC, because of a governmental snafu, or an honest mental lapse, are suddenly (and unknowing) driving under suspension and pulled over, they are truly at the mercy of that LEO. I am/was notorious for forgetting to renew my DL. I think back in the 80's I did it three times in a row, and TWICE was pulled over for speeding (lead-lined shoes in those days) ONE day after the expiration . A TN state trooper chuckled at simply said, please take care of that as soon as you can. The OH trooper, on the other hand, the that opportunity to chew me out waaaay more than was warranted and of course, he ticketed me. One of the more important tool that an officer's can use - is discretion. Some do, many don't. If I break the law, how can I complain about the consequences? Well, I have complaint about how it is administered. It the case of the OP (if her account if valid), I don't think it was administered very well at all and I think any chance of discretion being used was out the window from the start with the officer. Respect is earned - not just for an individual, but for a group as well. When dealing with the companies customers, I know that my interaction will be part of the total in the public's view of my company in a very, very competitive market. PD's are not in a competitive market, if they were, maybe the bad cops would be weeded out more thoroughly and bad behavior towards a LAC who made an honest mistake would be less tolerated. Okay, maybe a little simplified, but hopefully you see my point.

ETA: I don't accept the reason for no audio/video as merely cost. Sure, they can be expensive. But because a 60" 3D TV costs $20k, doesn't mean you don't own a 42 inch without all the bells and whistles for about 1/10 the cost of a high end. For the LEO, yeah, the video & features may not be star trek worthy, but I cannot believe there are not systems out there for 1/10 the cost. If nothing else, record the audio for the good of the LEO as well as the LAC. None of really care for cameras in our workplace, but if they could protect in my work to validate an arrest or such, wouldn't even a low-end model be better than nothing at all?
U.S. Army 1968 - 1971
5th SFGA, 1st SF
Republic of Vietnam, March 1969 to May 1971

ALWAYS be aware of the letter of the law, because THEY may not be! --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLxPC6YKlA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by djthomas »

dcludwig wrote:ETA: I don't accept the reason for no audio/video as merely cost. Sure, they can be expensive. But because a 60" 3D TV costs $20k, doesn't mean you don't own a 42 inch without all the bells and whistles for about 1/10 the cost of a high end. For the LEO, yeah, the video & features may not be star trek worthy, but I cannot believe there are not systems out there for 1/10 the cost. If nothing else, record the audio for the good of the LEO as well as the LAC. None of really care for cameras in our workplace, but if they could protect in my work to validate an arrest or such, wouldn't even a low-end model be better than nothing at all?
Not necessarily. Since this information is being gathered for the purpose of eventual admission as evidence there's all sorts of things around chain of custody, retention, archival, destruction, activation controls (e.g. when the lights come on) and the like. Sure a $200 camera suction cupped to the windshield will capture something but what assurances are there that it will capture everything (e.g. from the 60 seconds prior to the stop) and how do we know that it hasn't been altered in some fashion before being turned over? A lot of additional factors come in to play.

Truth is like many things in the LEO market there's a relatively small segment of credible vendors out there and they charge accordingly. One of the big makers of digital cruiser dash, VisionHawk, went out of business not too long ago. So departments who invested multiple 10s of thousands of dollars on their systems are now sitting without support and no way to get spare parts when things break. For many reasons an unreliable system can be worse than no system at all. I know of one nearby city that opted to disable their VisionHawk system because they had so many problems and they were tired of explaining to judges and attorneys why they have a dash cam system but it wasn't working properly on that particular stop.
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 »

tbrew85 wrote:...Absent any video or audio of the incident, from either party involved, it is literally he said/she said. Could have been worse I guess.
Well, at least it's on the record.

If you hear of other citizens who were treated poorly by the officer, urge them to make formal complaints. If there's a pattern, it will be much more difficult for the officer and/or the department to dismiss them.
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
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 »

djthomas wrote:Truth is like many things in the LEO market there's a relatively small segment of credible vendors out there and they charge accordingly. One of the big makers of digital cruiser dash, VisionHawk, went out of business not too long ago. So departments who invested multiple 10s of thousands of dollars on their systems are now sitting without support and no way to get spare parts when things break. For many reasons an unreliable system can be worse than no system at all. I know of one nearby city that opted to disable their VisionHawk system because they had so many problems and they were tired of explaining to judges and attorneys why they have a dash cam system but it wasn't working properly on that particular stop.
At times, the law enforcement technology market borders upon being a total scam. Despite the fact that much of the technology is readily available on the civilian market, the vendors will convince CLEOs that their product, chock full of "proprietary security features" (which assures that nobody else can use their product without their permissions, equipment and software), is somehow of greater integrity than that which is readily available elsewhere, and thus, that's why it costs several times as much. And those CLEOs will listen to slick salesmen, instead listening to us. We usually tell them that readily available technology can be made adequately secure and is simple to authenticate under the Rules of Evidence, and our main concern is that the product be easily usable by anyone. However, once vendors have "a foot in the door," other agencies will pick up their highly proprietary product because "that's what the other guys have."

By the same token, how many people in these forums buy specific brands and calibers of firearms "because that's what the cops have"? It's always good to consider how all that starts.
"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.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by Brian D. »

Werz wrote: At times, the law enforcement technology market borders upon being a total scam. Despite the fact that much of the technology is readily available on the civilian market, the vendors will convince CLEOs that their product, chock full of "proprietary security features" (which assures that nobody else can use their product without their permissions, equipment and software), is somehow of greater integrity than that which is readily available elsewhere, and thus, that's why it costs several times as much. And those CLEOs will listen to slick salesmen, instead listening to us. We usually tell them that readily available technology can be made adequately secure and is simple to authenticate under the Rules of Evidence, and our main concern is that the product be easily usable by anyone. However, once vendors have "a foot in the door," other agencies will pick up their highly proprietary product because "that's what the other guys have."
Sort of the same thing in the Fire/EMS racket. I had a short-lived gig as the guy who decided what equipment to buy for our squads. Not having any contracts with particular vendors I was free to have different companies send out their salespeople. After a couple months of hearing the b.s. from most of them about what was wrong with their competitor's similar products I started scheduling two or more of them to show up on the same day at the same time when we needed something, especially if it was a new-to-us item. They hated me for that but it sure was easier to figure out which brand of thingamajig was actually the best bang for the buck. Plus they had to tone down the rhetoric all the way around lest they start bickering with each other right in front of me.

I got away with treating the salesmen like salesmen until my chief was slyly convinced* by one of the peddlers to make me start playing the game a little nicer. But I'd been getting better deals and equipment that held up better than some things we'd unwisely bought before my tenure, which was my intention in the first place.

In other words, we in the public sector are often not diligent in matters like this as we should strive to be, because we're not directly fiscally responsible for poor decisions in those regards. It can be easy to be swayed by sellers who seem to be saying the right things.

*Free lunches at a place with, um, tableside entertainment have a way of being slyly convincing, I have heard.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
dcludwig
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by dcludwig »

Werz wrote:
djthomas wrote:Truth is like many things in the LEO market there's a relatively small segment of credible vendors out there and they charge accordingly. One of the big makers of digital cruiser dash, VisionHawk, went out of business not too long ago. So departments who invested multiple 10s of thousands of dollars on their systems are now sitting without support and no way to get spare parts when things break. For many reasons an unreliable system can be worse than no system at all. I know of one nearby city that opted to disable their VisionHawk system because they had so many problems and they were tired of explaining to judges and attorneys why they have a dash cam system but it wasn't working properly on that particular stop.
At times, the law enforcement technology market borders upon being a total scam. Despite the fact that much of the technology is readily available on the civilian market, the vendors will convince CLEOs that their product, chock full of "proprietary security features" (which assures that nobody else can use their product without their permissions, equipment and software), is somehow of greater integrity than that which is readily available elsewhere, and thus, that's why it costs several times as much. And those CLEOs will listen to slick salesmen, instead listening to us. We usually tell them that readily available technology can be made adequately secure and is simple to authenticate under the Rules of Evidence, and our main concern is that the product be easily usable by anyone. However, once vendors have "a foot in the door," other agencies will pick up their highly proprietary product because "that's what the other guys have."

By the same token, how many people in these forums buy specific brands and calibers of firearms "because that's what the cops have"? It's always good to consider how all that starts.
Yep and yep. Government agencies are notorious for buying high-priced/low quality goods. Goods that have the same, if not better, technologies can be had in the private sector for often half the price or less. And, yeah, I know people who buy firearms/equipment because they "heard such good things about it on such-and-such forum". That is not to say that info you get on any firearm related forum is not without some validity. I personally have purchased a holster, sight-unseen, from a guy solely based on more than a dozen recommendations from the 642 thread on The High Road. And, I am extremely happy with it. Government agencies, on the other hand, have a different rationale in their purchases. Maybe the Mayor or Police Chief want to be state-of-the-art to make sure they keep up with this or that city. I still believe that a decent audio/video system can be had for far less than what most agencies are paying for them, if such costs are near what has been quoted on here: $10 - 12k.

Many townships DO have budget problems. Cities/townships across Ohio have seen reduction in workforce, so throwing out 10/12k for a dash-cam system is hard to justify to the citizens of those communities. There are huge benefits to your LEO's having a decent audio/video system. Again, it protects both the officers and the citizens. If your community cannot afford some dollars, can they afford a $200,000 lawsuit that could have been won if a video system was in place? Penny-wise/pound-foolish.
U.S. Army 1968 - 1971
5th SFGA, 1st SF
Republic of Vietnam, March 1969 to May 1971

ALWAYS be aware of the letter of the law, because THEY may not be! --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLxPC6YKlA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
dcludwig
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by dcludwig »

Brian D. wrote: In other words, we in the public sector are often not diligent in matters like this as we should strive to be, because we're not directly fiscally responsible for poor decisions in those regards. It can be easy to be swayed by sellers who seem to be saying the right things.

*Free lunches at a place with, um, tableside entertainment have a way of being slyly convincing, I have heard.
Oh, it happens quite often in the private sector, too. Our company paid a LOT of money for this company to come through our network and do an inventory on our active power systems. The rep I had to escort through my sites bragged how efficient it would be and we would all receive a DVD that would tell us EXACTLY what each sites power requirements were and current power systems availability in the blink of an eye. None of us in the field ever saw one DVD. In fact, after they left (and were paid) we never heard from them again. However, this got back to a VP who took steps to make sure such did not happen again. The public sector is far less accountable, hence the high cost of surveillance equipment.

The worst thing, I think, is that those who purchase equipment never consult those who will actually be using such goods.
U.S. Army 1968 - 1971
5th SFGA, 1st SF
Republic of Vietnam, March 1969 to May 1971

ALWAYS be aware of the letter of the law, because THEY may not be! --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLxPC6YKlA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 »

dcludwig wrote:If your community cannot afford some dollars, can they afford a $200,000 lawsuit that could have been won if a video system was in place? Penny-wise/pound-foolish.
And on the other side, can they now afford the $200,000 lawsuit that the camera will now verify against the department. Cameras work both ways in terms of lawsuits.

There is some high price type scamming in the cruiser cam industry, but look at all the features they have. Ours link into the vehicle and obtain the speed, and automatically turn on if an officer hits a designated speed. They also separately link into the light bar switch so they can record when the lights are turned on. Both of those record prior to the initiating trigger. I don't think your home versions will do that one? And since the patrol cars are in and out all the time, including some take home (K-9s) we have now gone to wireless downloading so when the cruisers pull into their parking spots the video is automatically downloaded. That requires another server inside the PD (more $$$) along with a secure wi-fi set up. Keep in mind, a good wi-fi is not a home Netgear router for $50....try a Cisco router for probably $1000.

Anyone can view the data in the PD, all the data is secure, downloading is quick, and it records prior to most incidents to tell us why something happened.

Are all of those gimmicks? Sure, some are. But why not add more features if you can since the expensive part is just purchasing the system to begin with? But your home system that you or I can buy is going to have to be manually activated among many disadvantages.
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
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 »

JediSkipdogg wrote:And since the patrol cars are in and out all the time, including some take home (K-9s) we have now gone to wireless downloading so when the cruisers pull into their parking spots the video is automatically downloaded. That requires another server inside the PD (more $$$) along with a secure wi-fi set up. Keep in mind, a good wi-fi is not a home Netgear router for $50....try a Cisco router for probably $1000.
As long as the video doesn't automatically get deleted after six months to save server space. "Oh, you needed that?"

Of course, the private sector is worse. People are learning that there are security cameras everywhere these days, but they don't realize that, in some cases, if you don't go looking for the video within 72 hours, it's gone.
"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:
JediSkipdogg wrote:And since the patrol cars are in and out all the time, including some take home (K-9s) we have now gone to wireless downloading so when the cruisers pull into their parking spots the video is automatically downloaded. That requires another server inside the PD (more $$$) along with a secure wi-fi set up. Keep in mind, a good wi-fi is not a home Netgear router for $50....try a Cisco router for probably $1000.
As long as the video doesn't automatically get deleted after six months to save server space. "Oh, you needed that?"

Of course, the private sector is worse. People are learning that there are security cameras everywhere these days, but they don't realize that, in some cases, if you don't go looking for the video within 72 hours, it's gone.
What's wrong with six months? I'd even say what's wrong with 30 days? If the police are using the video as evidence of the charge, they need to hold it for themselves as evidence for the affidavit and warrant. If the defense wants it on an arrest, then the second they are called as an attorney they should file a motion to preserve all evidence (I am drawing a blank if there's a legal term or not.) I'm in charge of our on station video system that holds about six months of video and get letters from both the defense and prosecution all the time to preserve station video. I download it, put it on DVDs, and submit it for evidence until we get a request for discovery and then we release it that way.

And we've been told as long as our records retention policy states how long our servers hold video, we are safe for re-writing over the video. The problem comes if your record retention says you hold six months and they come to find out the oldest video is three months.
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
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 »

JediSkipdogg wrote:What's wrong with six months? I'd even say what's wrong with 30 days?
Crappy report writing (officers not mentioning there are relevant events on audio/video) or officer's who don't take action to preserve those videos themselves. If we are to assume that there's always video, then it's simple enough to issue a pro forma preservation order, but that doesn't help you much; it just creates unnecessary work. What I hate is officers telling me, "Oh, yeah, it's all on video!" ... eight months after the incident and right before trial. And yeah, that's happened more than once.

As I have mentioned before, when it comes to "unavailable evidence," don't ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by laziness or incompetence.
"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:
JediSkipdogg wrote:What's wrong with six months? I'd even say what's wrong with 30 days?
Crappy report writing (officers not mentioning there are relevant events on audio/video) or officer's who don't take action to preserve those videos themselves. If we are to assume that there's always video, then it's simple enough to issue a pro forma preservation order, but that doesn't help you much; it just creates unnecessary work. What I hate is officers telling me, "Oh, yeah, it's all on video!" ... eight months after the incident and right before trial. And yeah, that's happened more than once.

As I have mentioned before, when it comes to "unavailable evidence," don't ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by laziness or incompetence.
I guess I'm use to the standard preservation and discovery letter which basically says preserve everything then lists...witness statements, paperwork, audio, video, evidence, etc. Then in the reply it's either yes, here it is, or no, it doesn't exist and why. Not sure how it's unnecessary work when all the ones I see (both prosecution and defense) all seem to be a standard form letter like they got it from the Supreme Court Common Document Request website or something (yes, I made that last part up.....unless one really exists.)
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.
xpd54
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Dayton Area

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by xpd54 »

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.
".....in the end we must still slosh our way through the factbound morass of reasonableness."
- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Scott v. Harris

The views expressed in this post are my own. They have not been reviewed or approved by my employer.

My Blog
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

WTF ?!?!?!?

PLEASE tell me this is going back to the supremes !!!

A dashcam video of a citizen stopped in a PUBLIC place by a PUBLIC employee is NOT a PUBLIC record?

OMG !!!
MyWifeSaidYes
docachna
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Mount Juliet TN

Re: Gun confiscated. Failure to notify.

Post by docachna »

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.....
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Post Reply