From the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals decision today in Northrup v. Toledo Police Dept.: <\/p>\n
On a midsummer evening, Shawn and Denise Northrup went for a neighborhood walk with their daughter, grandson, and dog. Apparently in a happy-go-lucky mood, Shawn wore a t-shirt reading, This Is The Shirt I Wear When I Dont Care. Shawn carried a cell phone, which he holstered on his hip next to a black semiautomatic handgun. <\/p>\n
A passing motorcyclist stopped to complain about Shawns visible firearm. The stranger, Alan Rose, yelled, [Y]ou cant walk around with a gun like that! But [O]pen carry is legal in Ohio! Denise responded. As the Northrups walked away, Denise and Rose exchanged increasingly unprintable words until he was out of view (and earshot). <\/p>\n
Rose called 911, reporting that a guy walking down the street with his dog was carrying a gun out in the open. <\/p>\n
The police eventually arrived, ordered Northrup to stop, demanded that he turn over the gun, handcuffed him, and kept him handcuffed in a police car for 30 minutes. Eventually, they let him go, and all charges were dropped. Northrup sued, and the Sixth Circuit allowed the case to go forward: <\/p>\n
While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment by detaining every gunman who lawfully possesses a firearm. And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district courts conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrups favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed. <\/p>\n
The police had also initially suggested that Northrup was guilty of the Ohio crime of causing panic, but the court pointed out this wasnt so (at least under Northrups version of the facts). Indeed, the Ohio causing panic statute provides, <\/p>\n
No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following: <\/p>\n
(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false; <\/p>\n
(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence; <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more: From the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals decision today in Northrup v. Toledo Police Dept.: On a midsummer evening, Shawn and Denise Northrup went for a neighborhood walk with their daughter, grandson, and dog. Apparently in a happy-go-lucky mood, Shawn wore a t-shirt reading, This Is The Shirt I Wear When I Dont Care Continue reading
\nThe Fourth Amendment and open carry of guns (where such ...<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"