Lawsuit filed for illegal open carry stop of forum member RCall

[color of law]

So the "or" argument remains untested.

Well, in a round and about way they have.

State v. Harrison, 2013-Ohio-1235 (March, 2013)

{¶14} The “intrusion” that occurred in the case before us was reasonably warranted. Officer Hawley observed Harrison commit two violations of law, and properly obtained and checked Harrison’s identification. “t is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop.” Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada,Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 187, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004). In Hiibel, the United States Supreme Court also stressed that:

Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Id. at 186-187.

 

[eye95]

It still sounds like only Hiibel is providing protection from giving only one's name. The "or" argument didn't play into your cite.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

It still sounds like only Hiibel is providing protection from giving only one's name. The "or" argument didn't play into your cite.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

It most certainly did. If the term "or" means "and" then the section is unconstitutional. Being required to give all three would violate Hiibel. If the term "or" means "or" then giving just your address (for example) would mean you are totally compliant with the statute. The cop would be unhappy, but you would be compliant with the statute.

State v. Harrison, 2013-Ohio-1235, doesn't even touch on 2921.29 because courts will avoid addressing Constitutional issues at all costs.

 

[eye95]

I did not see the word "or" being brought up or considered at all. Please show me where it entered into the argument or the judgment. It still appears that Hiibel was the only consideration. You may have gotten the same result had the "or" argument been made, but it sure doesn't look like it entered into the case at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

I did not see the word "or" being brought up or considered at all. Please show me where it entered into the argument or the judgment. It still appears that Hiibel was the only consideration. You may have gotten the same result had the "or" argument been made, but it sure doesn't look like it entered into the case at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

It does not have to. The fact they pointed to Hiibel destroys "or" meaning "and." As I said, courts will avoid addressing Constitutional issues at all costs. I can tell you from many years of reading cases from the lower courts all the way through the appeal process the appeals courts will leave a lot out. I have read lower cases and the appeal briefs and then read the decision of the appeals court and you would say to yourself what case did they read.

 

[eye95]

I would disagree. That they pointed to Hiibel means that they will enforce the requirement in the law to give one's name, but not hold a defendant liable for not providing address or birth date, because to require those extra two parts would be unconstitutional, not because the conjunction was an "or."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

I would disagree. That they pointed to Hiibel means that they will enforce the requirement in the law to give one's name, but not hold a defendant liable for not providing address or birth date, because to require those extra two parts would be unconstitutional, not because the conjunction was an "or."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

So, what happens if I only give my date of birth?

 

[eye95]

So, what happens if I only give my date of birth?

Then the court would have to consider your "or" argument. Let me know if and when that happens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[BB62]

OMG! Do we really have to go back and forth, and back and forth about "or" and "and" and Hiibel?? (again!!)

How about people we get some people talking about the letters they've written to contributors to stories, or members of media who have put out somewhat or largely inaccurate reporting on the Call matter so far?

How about some people informing us of the contacts they've made with the leadership (or "leadership") of Ohio's gun rights (or "rights") organizations regarding what, if anything, they're doing to put a stop to more Roy Call's? (Same for the AG's office and your elected officials)

How about some people informing us of the records requests they've made of Riverside regarding the truthfulness of the statements they've made to the media - and the results received?

IMHO, this stuff is not going to stop unless we apply pressure all around, and debating about the applicability and/or the construct of Ohio's "Stop and ID" law gets us nowhere. Going along with it didn't help Michael Porschien in Youngstown, and it had nothing to do with Roy Call's stop - unless you believe the self-serving fairy tale (aka "police report") that Sgt. Jones constructed.

I really feel that THIS CASE can have a huge impact on the BS charges and harassment of open carriers, IF pressure is applied at many levels. A settlement in Roy Call's favor is certainly due, and I think it will come about, but in the meanwhile we've got a whole summer to go through.

Who is going to be the next victim, and what can be done now to lessen the number of them?

 

[eye95]

No. YOU don't have to join the back-and-forth if you don't want to. Hell, you don't even have to read the posts.

However, they are decidedly on the topic of Roy's case as he was charged because he would not identify himself. That, and some of us want to have a good handle on the law before we end up fighting it. So, quicherbitchin' and just write about what you think is important. If it is on the topic of this arrest and lawsuit, I promise I won't criticize you for it.

Ridiculous.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

OMG! Do we really have to go back and forth, and back and forth about "or" and "and" and Hiibel?? (again!!)

Yes.

 

[BB62]

Yes.

No.

 

[eye95]

Yes.

Yes. It is a reasonable discussion. We should get a good handle on the law, and back-and-forths with COL are very helpful.

It is also on-topic for Roy's case. So...

Yes.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

It's gonna' be a loooong summer.

 

[Makarov]

Channel 7 Reports video on Roy Call lawsuit

I just posted the home made video of the Channel 7 Report on YouTube. Watch it at


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_kucFou7vI

 

[BB62]

Wow. Thanks Makarov!

It's a totally different take than the text form of the "news" story - and a lot more bias.

Can I hire you to record the newest Star Trek movie? ;-)

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

This news station can't get anything right...even the I-Team story hotline phone number at the end!

 

[Werz]

Yes. It is a reasonable discussion. We should get a good handle on the law, and back-and-forths with COL are very helpful.

It is also on-topic for Roy's case. So...

Yes.

Well, then, I might as well join in and help to frustrate CoL ...

First, let's review a statutory provision which he conveniently failed to mention:

As used in the Revised Code, unless the context otherwise requires: *** "And" may be read "or," and "or" may be read "and" if the sense requires it. R.C. 1.02(F).

Hey, it's the second statutory code section in the whole Ohio Revised Code, so that's pretty fundamental, don't you think?

Also, Hiibel upheld the Nevada statute which required a person to "identify" himself if the police officer had sufficient cause for a Terry stop. Since the statute required reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, it did not violate Brown v. Texas. Because it did not require "credible and reliable" identification like a photo ID, it did not violate Kolender v. Lawson. So why did the United States Supreme Court limit its analysis to name only? Because the Nevada Supreme Court had already held that their statute required only a name for sufficient identification! Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Humboldt, 59 P.3d 1201, 1206, 118 Nev. 868, 875 (2002). Name-only identification was the only issue before the United States Supreme Court, and as a general rule, the high court does not decide issues which are not presented.

Therefore, Hiibel does not resolve the constitutionality of R.C. 2921.29, even if that Ohio statute requires name and address and date of birth.

Quod erat demonstrandum

 

[color of law]

I have always found it wise to read what someone posts before commenting. It usually avoids embarrassment.

Also, in the Hiibel Syllabus the Court stated: “The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.”

The Court did not say Nevada, the court said a State.

 

[eye95]

Again, the ruling wasn't touching on whether a State can (or whether the ORC does) also require address and DOB, that question remains unanswered by the decision. Therefore, unless one plans on testing your theory in court (I do not), one should assume that the ORC on identification is constitutional. My money is on it being found so.

I suspect that the court was merely stating that since the general rule (from another decision) is that any State can require the name during a Terry stop, so (as was being found this ruling in specific) can Nevada. In no way were they excluding the requirement for anything else (not that they never would).

(I find it interesting that the SC capitalizes State, much like I do. I wonder if they do it for the same reasons I do.)