Lawsuit filed for illegal open carry stop of forum member RCall

[BB62]

Looking at item 17, there is expanded detail of something mentioned in the original complaint.

I have the following thoughts:

Roy Call's citation for Obstructing Official Business was issued by the esteemed Sgt. Jones of Riverside on 8/28/12.

There evidently exists some sort of "background information" database maintained by Dayton, Ohio, into which police officers can put information - information which, if incorrect, could result in physical and legal risk/harm to an officer or citizen. There are at least two entries in this database related to Roy Call: #1) an entry dated 3/28/12, input by an unidentified party related to Roy's stop in Vandalia (in a Kroger parking lot, I believe, when an officer saw Roy OCing there), and #2) an entry dated 5/24/12 by Officer Adam Colon of Riverside.

While the court documents do not spell out what the 3/28 entry was (although it would be VERY interesting to know its contents), Colon's entry on 5/24 reads as follows: "BEWARE---LIKES TO OPEN CARRY HIS PISTOL IN PUBLIC. ALSO LIKES POLICE TO CONFRONT HIM AND PUT THEM ON YOUTUBE, I WAS WISE TO HIS GAME AND KNEW HE HAD VALID CCW AND TECNICALLY NOT BREAKING THE LAW. GOOGLE OPEN CARRY OHIO AND U SEE HIM". (sic)

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Call posted has posted ONE video, an in-car video taken by a Vandalia cruiser-cam, taken while Mr. Call was parading around, I mean walking to his car in a Kroger parking lot. No doubt the posting of the video and subsequent follow-up was meant to show what a he-man Mr. Call was, rather than make apparent a) the poor training of Vandalia's officers and b) the lack of a connection between one having been issued a CHL and the right to openly carry. I guess those elements went right over Officer Colon's head.

One also can't help but wonder a few things, not the least of which is "What possessed Officer Colon to make the entry?", and secondly "Are we to believe that Officer Colon didn't tell his fellow officers about this dastardly individual?"

I'm sure there are *lots* of open carriers in Riverside, so maybe Mr. Call wasn't recognized when he was observed OCing three months later at the convenience store... Or was he?

See the next post.

 

[BB62]

Central to the falsified report written by Sgt. Jones, and the apparent basis for the bogus charge was that Mr. Call repeatedly refused to identify himself, right? If that's what you think, I suggest that you re-listen to the OFCC videotape, specifically from 1:08 (one minute, 8 seconds) to 1:32. At any point do you hear Mr. Call identify himself? Then how is it that at 1:32 Sgt. Jones magically addresses him as MR. CALL???

Video of stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA

 

[davidmcbeth]

In case anyone is wondering, the RCall case is still going forward.

Here are some items of interest from the case docket:

Docket item 9
Docket item 9 attachment "Maynard v. City of Englewood"
Docket item 11
Docket item 13
Docket item 14
Docket item 17
Docket item 17-exhibit1

Likely forgot conspiracy to tamper with evidence ... but rest looks good .. simple complaint.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Folks

Did RC give the leos his SS# when asked? If yes, why? Remain silent is the proper step. Anyway just wondering about the SS# question.

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[BB62]

Folks

Did RC give the leos his SS# when asked? If yes, why? Remain silent is the proper step. Anyway just wondering about the SS# question.

Best regards.

CCJ

Yes, eventually - right after the Sgt. addressed him as "Mr. Call", after repeatedly asking him for his name/ID (as if he didn't know his name all along).

Watch the tape link.

 

[Primus]

Central to the falsified report written by Sgt. Jones, and the apparent basis for the bogus charge was that Mr. Call repeatedly refused to identify himself, right? If that's what you think, I suggest that you re-listen to the OFCC videotape, specifically from 1:08 (one minute, 8 seconds) to 1:32. At any point do you hear Mr. Call identify himself? Then how is it that at 1:32 Sgt. Jones magically addresses him as MR. CALL???

Video of stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA

Does the statute say if they know you, you don't have to ID yourself? If you have a link to relevant statute I'll check myself.

Most statutes don't say that. Meaning even if the officer knows you on first name basis you may still need to provide ID or info depending if its stop, arrest, etc. Etc.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Does the statute say if they know you, you don't have to ID yourself? If you have a link to relevant statute I'll check myself.

Yes, why don't you do just that, Primus. You said "the statute" so we can assume you are aware of it, can't we? If you say the law mandates that one state their name, then I believe it's incumbent upon you to cite to said authority.

 

[BB62]

Does the statute say if they know you, you don't have to ID yourself? If you have a link to relevant statute I'll check myself.

Most statutes don't say that. Meaning even if the officer knows you on first name basis you may still need to provide ID or info depending if its stop, arrest, etc. Etc.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Rather than obsessing over what the "statute" says, I suggest that you read the police report, compare it to the video, and while using your common sense, come to a conclusion about whether or not Mr. Call's alleged failure to comply with the law was the actual foundation for the "obstruction" charge.

Next, read the entirety of this thread.

Finally, read the lawsuit and later filings and see if your conclusion is changed or reaffirmed.

Personally, I look forward to reading your conclusions.

(hint: this matter has nothing to do with failure to ID, and everything to do with a dirty cop enforcing his biases)

 

[Primus]

Central to the falsified report written by Sgt. Jones, and the apparent basis for the bogus charge was that Mr. Call repeatedly refused to identify himself, right? If that's what you think, I suggest that you re-listen to the OFCC videotape, specifically from 1:08 (one minute, 8 seconds) to 1:32. At any point do you hear Mr. Call identify himself? Then how is it that at 1:32 Sgt. Jones magically addresses him as MR. CALL???

Video of stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA

Yes, eventually - right after the Sgt. addressed him as "Mr. Call", after repeatedly asking him for his name/ID (as if he didn't know his name all along).

Watch the tape link.

Rather than obsessing over what the "statute" says, I suggest that you read the police report, compare it to the video, and while using your common sense, come to a conclusion about whether or not Mr. Call's alleged failure to comply with the law was the actual foundation for the "obstruction" charge.

Next, read the entirety of this thread.

Finally, read the lawsuit and later filings and see if your conclusion is changed or reaffirmed.

Personally, I look forward to reading your conclusions.

(hint: this matter has nothing to do with failure to ID, and everything to do with a dirty cop enforcing his biases)

I'm confused.... in the above posts you put emphasis on whether the officer knew Mr call or not. You even highlighted in blew the fact the officer called him by his name after asking for ID.

Why emphasis if what your saying has nothing to do with him IDing himself?

After you put two posts in a row emphasizing the officers knew who he was I addressed THAT portion...... with a question about what statute was used.

Somehow a straight forward question is being construed to being something it isn't. Go figure....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Chuck!]

Somehow a straight forward question is being construed to being something it isn't. Go figure....

I feel your pain, Brother
There's something they want to communicate to us, but they want to take us the long way around the barn to get there, instead of just saying their message in plain and simple English
And if while trying to figure it out, you take a different path or ask a different question, you're branded with unflattering terms, or worse

Therefore I am content to mostly read and follow the case quietly, knowing that it ought to all come out in the end.

 

[color of law]

Does the statute say if they know you, you don't have to ID yourself? If you have a link to relevant statute I'll check myself.

Most statutes don't say that. Meaning even if the officer knows you on first name basis you may still need to provide ID or info depending if its stop, arrest, etc. Etc.

Here in Ohio to have to ID verbally (excluding traffic stops) you must be in a public place, 2921.29. A public place is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space. But, Ohio statutory law does not generally define "public place." Roy Call was on private property open to the public. So was he required to ID?

Also, Ohio law (R.C. 2921.29) that requires ID requires the officer to have RAS, the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

Roy Call was charged with R.C. 2921.31 Obstructing official business. To prove the crime of obstructing official business, there must be proof of an affirmative or overt act that hampered or impeded the performance of the lawful duties of a public official.

Parma v. Campbell, 8th Dist. Nos. 79041 and 79042, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4907 (Nov. 1, 2001).

“One cannot be guilty of obstructing official business by doing nothing because the text of R.C. 2921.31 specifically requires an offender to act.”

Roy Call was legally open carrying.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

From the officer's report - -

His presenting a handgun on his person at the late hour did alarm a citizen present on the business
property. His doing so did present a situation of annoyance alarm and inconvenience in my presence. I
tried to investigate this action by asking his name and purpose for the weapon, as most people do not
carry firearms out in the open at this time of night into a convenience store.

Ohio Revised Code - -
2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.​

Mr. Call was not (1) fighting or threatening harm, (2) making an unreasonable noise, (3) insulting or challenging anyone, (4) hindering or preventing the movements of others, or (5) creating a physically offensive condition.

It would appear the officer had absolutely no reason to stop Mr. Call except for "annoying a cop" as Officer Jones noted in his report.

 

[BB62]

...It would appear the officer had absolutely no reason to stop Mr. Call except for "annoying a cop" as Officer Jones noted in his report.

Exactly.

Thanks for doing some basic reading and not asking a question that has been asked and answered previously on this thread.

 

[Baked on Grease]

From the officer's report - -


Ohio Revised Code - -
2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.​

Mr. Call was not (1) fighting or threatening harm, (2) making an unreasonable noise, (3) insulting or challenging anyone, (4) hindering or preventing the movements of others, or (5) creating a physically offensive condition.

It would appear the officer had absolutely no reason to stop Mr. Call except for "annoying a cop" as Officer Jones noted in his report.

I came to the conclusion a while back that bad cops merely read the Title of the laws and never bother to learn the actual application of them. Title says Obstruction? 'Well he is hindering my investigation with non compliance so he must be "obstructing" and therefore i can arrest him.' >. <

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

^^QFT^^ Very insightful observation. It seems that the plain reading of the statutes is irrelevant.

The title of a law is all a cop could need to subject a citizen to the ride. Judges are not smart enough to hold cops to account. Juries are intentionally mis-instructed by judges. All because a nitwit prosecutor let a thug cop get away with placing the city in legal peril due to his thuggery.

ra·tio·nal·ize - verb \ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\

: to think about or describe something (such as bad behavior) in a way that explains it and makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc

 

[color of law]

????Settlement ????

Is there a settlement?????
View attachment Riverside thursday-july-3-2014-council-packet.pdf

 

[smellslikemichigan]

good question. let's hope so. the only thing is, the resolution for the settlement isn't dated, so we might have to wait until the minutes are published. is anyone in contact with mr call?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

5K, with 30% to his lawyer. The city likely spends more than that mowing the grass every year. "Nickle and dime" change to make this go away.

 

[color of law]

5K, with 30% to his lawyer. The city likely spends more than that mowing the grass every year. "Nickle and dime" change to make this go away.

I think that is their deductible on their insurance policy.

If you read their meeting minutes it's pretty clear this city is seriously strapped for cash.

 

[BB62]

Is there a settlement?????
View attachment 11784

There's not a settlement until it's filed in court. The agenda of the meeting indicates a) no responsibility is being accepted by the city, and b) no training is required.

What B.S.

On the other hand, I have full confidence that Mr. Call did the best he could considering the circumstances - that being you can't trust courts to deliver justice.