Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

neginfluence04

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
3
Location
Norman
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.

Call’s 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. Call’s refusal to identify himself was a Constitutional right.

After watching the video, what’s 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
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
25,340
Reaction score
34,093
Location
Edmond
While he was within his rights he showed an incredible amount of stupidity. In this day and age of terrorist attacks, armed robberies, etc, etc. the police were within their rights and responsibilities to try and find out if he was legal to carry. If he had not been and committed a crime after being let go someone would have tried to sue the police for that.

There has to be a reasonable balance of the police being allowed to check while still protecting the citizens rights.
 

neginfluence04

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
3
Location
Norman
While he was within his rights he showed an incredible amount of stupidity. In this day and age of terrorist attacks, armed robberies, etc, etc. the police were within their rights and responsibilities to try and find out if he was legal to carry. If he had not been and committed a crime after being let go someone would have tried to sue the police for that.

There has to be a reasonable balance of the police being allowed to check while still protecting the citizens rights.


then the state law should change to reflect the equal ground between the police and the citizen.
 

Commander Keen

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
87
Location
Edmond
When was the last time anyone heard of a gang-banger or terrorist in the US openly carrying a handgun in a belt holster? And I didn't think Ohio required a permit to open carry.
 

DFarcher

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
282
Reaction score
1
Location
Lincoln County
Strange situation because police officers actually responding to a call need to be able to gather information but according to Ohio law as stated it appears they were wrong to even ask his name. Frivolous lawsuits are a huge issue in this country and affect all of us in a huge way. The cops were wrong, a 3.6 million dollar lawsuit is moronic.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom