An Ohio man has slapped local government with a $3.6 million lawsuit after policemen allegedly violated his Constitutional rights. Police detained Ray Call and confiscated his weapon because he openly carried his firearm into a store.
According to reports, Call entered a store late one night with his gun openly on display. The authorities were alerted, and fairly soon two policemen arrived on the scene. The police officers held Call in the back of the police car, took his weapon, and demanded that he identify himself.
Call refused to identify himself. According to Ohio Revised Code, an individual is not obligated to identify himself to a police officer unless the officer reasonably suspects that the individual is involved in a crime.
When police didn't get any answers out of Call, they threatened to charge him with reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics intimidated Call into revealing his name, at which point police discovered that he had a CCW permit. Police returned his weapon and sent him on his way.
They also charged Call with obstruction of justice but later dropped those charges.
You can watch the video below and form your own opinions.
Call then filed a lawsuit asking for $600,000 in compensatory damages for emotional trauma and another $3 million in punitive damage for the willful, callous and malicious conduct of the police officers.
Calls lawyer, Charles E. McFarland, said, I normally do not comment on ongoing cases to the media, but believe that the complaint speaks for itself.
It appears that Call has a solid case. Police cannot detain citizens and demand identification with no good reason. Call was well within his rights and Ohio laws clearly backed him up. Police could not have taken action against Call unless it appeared that he was about to commit a crime, and the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute suspicion.
Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss argued, Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two.
Technically that is true, but the only problem is that Call was under no legal obligation to pacify the police officers. Calls refusal to identify himself was a Constitutional right.
After watching the video, whats your take? Who was in the right during this late-night confrontation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...rks-3m-lawsuit
According to reports, Call entered a store late one night with his gun openly on display. The authorities were alerted, and fairly soon two policemen arrived on the scene. The police officers held Call in the back of the police car, took his weapon, and demanded that he identify himself.
Call refused to identify himself. According to Ohio Revised Code, an individual is not obligated to identify himself to a police officer unless the officer reasonably suspects that the individual is involved in a crime.
When police didn't get any answers out of Call, they threatened to charge him with reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics intimidated Call into revealing his name, at which point police discovered that he had a CCW permit. Police returned his weapon and sent him on his way.
They also charged Call with obstruction of justice but later dropped those charges.
You can watch the video below and form your own opinions.
Call then filed a lawsuit asking for $600,000 in compensatory damages for emotional trauma and another $3 million in punitive damage for the willful, callous and malicious conduct of the police officers.
Calls lawyer, Charles E. McFarland, said, I normally do not comment on ongoing cases to the media, but believe that the complaint speaks for itself.
It appears that Call has a solid case. Police cannot detain citizens and demand identification with no good reason. Call was well within his rights and Ohio laws clearly backed him up. Police could not have taken action against Call unless it appeared that he was about to commit a crime, and the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute suspicion.
Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss argued, Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two.
Technically that is true, but the only problem is that Call was under no legal obligation to pacify the police officers. Calls refusal to identify himself was a Constitutional right.
After watching the video, whats your take? Who was in the right during this late-night confrontation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...rks-3m-lawsuit
