imported post
Ohio Definition of Concealment: A weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernible by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed, who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life, but absolute invisibility is not required because ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of a suspicion that contraband, which is not visible by ordinary observation, may in actuality be present. In order to prove the charge of weapon concealment, the State has the burden of proving by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the location and the situation of the gun meet the test thus set forth. State v. Pettit, 20 Ohio App. 2d 170 (motion for leave to appeal overruled (69-828) September 24, 1970). Excerpt of State v. Isaacs:
In order to prove the charge of weapon concealment here the State has the burden of proving by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the location and the situation of the [weapon] met the test [above]. The only proof of concealment offered by the State on the concealed weapon charge was the testimony of the two witnesses, adverse to defendant, involved in the episode in which the shotgun was used by the defendant, namely a Mr. Place and a Mr. Hartwell. .... Mr. Hartwell testified on direct examination that at the time he approached the defendant's car and at the time he was talking with the defendant who was sitting in the middle of the front seat of the car he did not see any weapon, and that the defendant "reached around and grabbed a gun," and further testified on cross-examination that he did not see the shotgun lying on the backseat, nor did he look on the backseat until the defendant "raised it up," to some point "in between the seats." ...
It was not up to the defendant to present any evidence that it was not ... concealed until the State first presented evidence of probative value that it was so concealed. Nevertheless, the defendant did present evidence, which in legal effect was unrebutted, that as to ordinary observation it was in plain view on the back seat of the station wagon. There being a complete failure of proof as to concealment of the shotgun the trial court ...[should have found the defendant not guilty on the concealed weapon charge].
State v. Isaacs, 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 14940
Sorry I was wrong it was case law not ORC but im pretty sure there is something state wide that says the same thing. And really it helps in the oppsite fashion like say a bg has a BB gun with no orange tip and you or I shoot him because we think that it is real and he is pointing it at someone and can cause harm.
I guess my point is,if a cop can have reasonable suspision that the Military issue Berreta 9mil and the holster it came in is a gun,it is one period.
