| Author | Post |
|---|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 05:38 am |
|
The Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District, has issued a new ruling regarding refusing to provide ID during a consensual police encounter, Ohio vs White.
See the second case down from the top as of today.
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
Here is a link to ruling itself. See paragraph eleven.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-5557.pdf
I do not understand how Ohio's courts are organized, so I do not know how broadly this opinion applies.
Pay particular attention to the blogger's comment/concern at the end of the blog post.
Edited to address SuperAdmin complaints.
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 12:31 am by Citizen
|
IxionDeece
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Piqua, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
So what is the layman's terms of all of this?
|
smn
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 09:55 pm |
|
IxionDeece wrote: So what is the layman's terms of all of this?
Edited because I replied with info about a different case.
Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:19 pm by smn
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:20 pm |
|
IxionDeece wrote: So what is the layman's terms of all of this?
The relevance to OCer-police encounters has to do with the thread sub-title about consensual encounters and refusing ID. The applicable part is in paragraph eleven:
On appeal, White (the defendant making the appeal) argues that Haines (the cop)violated his Fourth Amendment rights (against search and seizure) when he asked for identification. He (Mr. White) claims that once Haines ascertained that White was all right, Haines should have ended the inquiry. But according to Bostick (an earlier court opinion), a law enforcement officer may ask for identification during a consensual encounter. White bore the burden to end the consensual encounter by refusing to provide identification. (parenthesis and bold added by Citizen).
The question asked by the blogger is basically, "how does the citizen know it is a consensual encounter where he can safely refuse to provide ID?"
Another question the blogger asks is, "who really believes he can refuse a cop's ID request?" (of the general population--lawyers, OCers, activists like the FlexYourRights folks, and so forth excepted).
The opinion says White should have ended the consensual encounter by refusing to provide ID. I am of the opinion White should have ended the encounter by refusing consent to the encounter. The court was addressing the ID aspect of the appeal, the thing it was supposed to address. It would have been nice if the court had just said White was under no obligation to provide ID, or that he could have just refused consent to the encounter itself. (Assuming these are legally true in Ohio.)
|
JSlack7851
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 06:35 pm |
|
Under Ohio Law you are not 'required' to inform you are carrying during a casual encounter with a LEO. Granted with a green leafy substance on the seat, I'm sure White couldn't / wouldn't of suggested the LEO leave and Leo actually leave. White and most other citizens have no idea that all you have to supply LEO with is 'name' and "Birthdate",or "address". Since White wasn't observed operating the motor vehicle, I'm not sure if he could of denied the officers request for ID and ended the casual encounter there.
|
color of law
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 02:59 pm |
|
The above case points out one simple thing----- KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!!!!!
Other than that it does not effect gun rights in any way.
The below case does offer a lot of good advice.
Taking defendant in for fingerprinting was unreasonable, so the search of her purse in transit was unreasonable. State v. Byrd, 2009 Ohio 5606, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4717 (2d Dist. October 23, 2009)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-5606.pdf
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: See the second case down from the top as of today.
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
Here is a link to ruling itself.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-5557.pdf
I do not understand how Ohio's courts are organized, so I do not know how broadly this opinion applies.
Pay particular attention to the blogger's comment/concern at the end of the post.
What is the point of this post - a short summary please - bottom line up front.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:11 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Citizen wrote: See the second case down from the top as of today.
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
Here is a link to ruling itself.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-5557.pdf
I do not understand how Ohio's courts are organized, so I do not know how broadly this opinion applies.
Pay particular attention to the blogger's comment/concern at the end of the post.
What is the point of this post - a short summary please - bottom line up front.
BLUF - This is a great 4th A training manual.
Gun Rghts Activists Lessons Learned:
1) Assert your 4th A rights. Immediately and often.
2) Get a voice recorder and use it.
3) Carry a card that states that you do not concent to any searches.
4) STFU. I repeat STFU. Do not talk to Police.
5) Lawyer up immediately.
6) Name address and birth date only where required by law.
7) Don't fly solo if you can fly with a wingman.
Probably more, but I don't want to bash the police.
|
color of law
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:25 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: Mike wrote: Citizen wrote: See the second case down from the top as of today.
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
Here is a link to ruling itself.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-5557.pdf
I do not understand how Ohio's courts are organized, so I do not know how broadly this opinion applies.
Pay particular attention to the blogger's comment/concern at the end of the post.
What is the point of this post - a short summary please - bottom line up front.
BLUF - This is a great 4th A training manual.
Gun Rghts Activists Lessons Learned:
1) Assert your 4th A rights. Immediately and often.
2) Get a voice recorder and use it.
3) Carry a card that states that you do not concent to any searches.
4) STFU. I repeat STFU. Do not talk to Police.
5) Lawyer up immediately.
6) Name address and birth date only where required by law.
7) Don't fly solo if you can fly with a wingman.
Probably more, but I don't want to bash the police.
Number 6 - give name only. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Citizen wrote: See the second case down from the top as of today.
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
Here is a link to ruling itself.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-5557.pdf
I do not understand how Ohio's courts are organized, so I do not know how broadly this opinion applies.
Pay particular attention to the blogger's comment/concern at the end of the post.
What is the point of this post - a short summary please - bottom line up front.
Mike, no offense (well maybe just a little), you and John are great guys for hosting the forum, and for the legal pointers you have and do give, but sometimes you can be a little bit annoying.
The point of the post was to alert the Ohio members that there was a new ruling regarding ID and consensual encounters. The intention was to let the Ohio boys sort through it and see how it affected them, taking into account any Ohio statutory law.
At the time I came across it, I had no time to fully read, digest, and consider the implications of the ruling. An entire 4th Amendment court ruling. Come on.
So, no. No short summary up front. I'm not wrong for alerting the Ohio forum to the existence of the ruling and letting them do their own "sort it out." Discussion is part of what threads are for, no?
Just for perspective, you are the law student. You are in an even better position to read, digest, evaluate, and write a short summary than I am. If you didn't have time to do it, I'm not sure I understand why you, or anybody, expects me to do it.
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 10:26 pm by Citizen
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:00 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: The point of the post was to alert the Ohio members that there was a new ruling regarding ID and consensual encounters. The intention was to let the Ohio boys sort through it and see how it affected them, taking into account any Ohio statutory law.
Your post did not even note that the links related to "regarding ID and consensual encounters."
Posts starting threads should have some clue as to what they are about and not just send people to look at links.
And the titles of the threads should be informative and read like headlines. See OCDO Rule 1.
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:02 pm by Mike
|
Current time is 12:57 am | |
|
