FZRMatt

Little over 18,000

FZRMatt... you hit the nail on the head. That officer never asked permission to search that vehicle.

The bigger issue is the seizure of his person/body. The officer had full legal right to stop them, and a case can be made for searching the back seat. However, he seized his body and slated him for what will be argued as unjust cause. I think the driver has a better than average chance of coming out on top and with a fat pocket to boot!

I see MANY problems with what happened, but that doesn't mean that the driver is entitled to damages.

What has he lost? How has he suffered?

Punitive damages aside, civil suits are supposed to make the victim whole again. If nothing has been taken, there is nothing to return.

If everyone is so sure this guy can sue, tell me what he's going to list in his complaint.

Here is what he is going to sue for:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't want to take sides, because what was done was just plain wrong. However, I understand how the interaction happened. When it is found that the officers actions were improper in court, the charges against the "suspect" will be dropped. When that happens, it will be wide open for a violation of his 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. I don't know that there is a more serious offense in this country!

I would say that it is not that easy. If you have a "medical condition" that requires 5% window tint, someone is probably going to fill out the paperwork for the BMV requiring you to have a re-test for a possible medical license suspension. You have to be tested by their doctor, and if they say you're done driving, you're done driving.

Seriously, some necropostiac sh*t right there.

Dunno what tint I have on my car - was tinted when I bought it. How can i get it measured without the officer saying; "Yeah, it's too dark, here's your ticket..."

If they stop you for it, they will check it with a tint meter before issuing a ticket. If there is a question, I would take it to a place that installs tint and have them check it.

Got nailed this morning by OSHP for tint on front windows and too far down on windshield, and for tinted plate cover on the back AND no front plate....

Already peeled the window tint off, gotta get the windshield tint professionally trimmed, got the plate cover off and got the front plate mounted up....

I'm going to take pics of it, and try to have a cop? inspect it and make sure its all legal and sign the pics...THEN go tell the judge how the car came from florida and I bought it that way and its all legal now....which is 100% truth.

does the above sound like a good plan? worthwhile input welcome.

if I just pay it its $260 and I got trivial crap on my record.

From now on I'm keeping the front plate on and put on lighter tint this isn't worth it.

Where did it happen? If you have the windows re-tinted and windshield trimmed professionally, keep the receipt and take it with you when you go to court. Take the pictures of the removed plate cover also. In Franklin Co. they are very good about dropping charges if you pay court costs in a case like this. Good luck. If a trooper wrote you, your tickets were under state code and the court/county does not get the money if you are convicted. The court does get the court costs however. So, as long as they get their money they don't mind dropping the charges. Good luck.

Sorry, just read the rest of the post and found it is a year old. WTF is wrong with you people bringing these threads back from the dead?! LOL

I know that at one time the government threatened to take away federal money if they lowered the speed limit. Wonder if that still applies?!

If this is your actual intent' date=' then I want to offer my thanks for being a swell public servant. However, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.. it's nothing personal. I'm sure you're a super cool guy and an excellent COP. I don't take issue with police officers who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the public. It's the officers that are more than willing to be the junkyard dogs the state would love them to be that ruffle my feathers.[/quote']

I am a dick at work when I need to be a dick. Treat me like a human being, and I will do the same. I didn't take this job to take people to jail. To be honest, I don’t enjoy it all that much (unless it is someone who truly deserves it.

Would these be the "hood rats" you were referring to earlier? :)

No, a turd is still a turd. I am referring to the person who gets caught shop lifting to feed his family when he is out of work. I may have to take him to jail if the "victim" wants to prosecute, but I can't fault him for doing what I or anyone else on here would do if the situation became that dire. Or maybe someone who has been arrested for a traffic violation. While still an arrrstible offense, it's not the crime of the century. This is what I mean by "just because a person has been arrested doesn't make them a bad person". These aren't the only examples, but you get the idea.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you walk up someone's porch steps?

To talk/be friendly, get to know people, check on people I have arrested in the past. You know, be human. Just because someone has been arrested, doesn't make them a bad person. People make mistakes.

You're splitting hairs' date=' and you know it. How about an officer be more proactive where citizens' rights are concerned and just wave to the man as he drives by? There was zero reason to even consider confronting "Jeremy". Your job is not to interview someone that isn't breaking any laws.

How's that famous COP phrase go?? "Move along, there's nothing to see here."[/quote']

Every interaction with between an officer and the public involves the citizen's rights. I stop and talk to people all of the time. Sometimes I even get out of my car and walk up onto the porch of a "hood rat" to talk. Sometimes they tell me to pound salt up my ass and get off of their porch, sometimes they offer a soft drink and a chair/piece of railing to sit and talk. I will usually pull up a piece of railing and chat for a while, but I usually keep a soft drink in my hand so I don’t have to decline the hospitality (they are hood rats after all, who don’t like me just because of my job and given the right circumstances would kill or hurt me without thinking twice).

So' date=' you're telling me that the screening system is broken, and my rights were violated for no decent reason. Pretty sure I'm not cool with that. Ohio can shove their notify law up their ass. It needs to go away.[/quote']

If you don’t like the law, do more than bitch about it on a motorcycle forum to get it changed.

The 2A might be subjective' date=' but open carry legality isn't. "Jeremy" should not have been approached by any officer, so long as he wasn't breaking any laws. It appears in his video that he was being questioned for the gun. That's an unlawful stop. (at least it is in Ohio)[/quote']

That stop is not illegal Ohio. An officer can have a consentual interaction with anyone on the street. "Jeremy" could have walked away at any time, which he did after he found out that he wasn't going to get sensational video that he was expecting. The officer didn't throw a fit when he didn't identify himself because that is exactly the type of interaction they were having. He was free to leave at any time.

Some states/countries have assault and menacing merged into a single charge whereby threats are an "assault". However I readily defer to your more informed position on Ohio law.

It is strange how much laws vary from state to state.

The press release that Ben posted earlier had been commented more times that I could count - and it was all negative that I saw.

This officer should be criminally charged with one count of assault for every time he threatened any kind of violence (that was not legitimately in line with his duties)

I believe that an assault charge deos NOT require physcial touching, just that you put the victim in reasonable for of voilence. Any officers or lawyers care to back me up or prove me wrong?

I think a menacing or aggregated menacing charge is more what you are looking for. Assault is cause or attempt to cause physical harm. He did neither.

I agree with you. We should be held to a higher level of accountability, but what a lot of people forget is that officers are still only human and are still going to make mistakes. I would be lying if I said that I have never mother-fucked someone on duty or in cuffs for that matter. The heat of the battle sometimes brings out the worst in you. I don’t think there is a single officer on here that can say they have never done the same, and I don’t fault them for that.

I want to clarify my "I don’t fault them" comment. I am not referring to the knuckle-head in this video. As I said before, this was handled incorrectly from the start. His comments were not delivered after the heat of battle. This guy is pisses that he got caught with his pants down (tactically) by a person with a gun. If he chooses to vent afterwards, that's on him. However, there is absolutely no justification EVER for a comment like the "execution" comment.

For the record, I'm not anti-cop in any way, I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

How man CCW permit holders, motorcycle riders, bank tellers, etc threatened to execute you while restrained in the back of a car?

My point here is when you're given a firearm and the duty to protect the public, I believe you should be held to a higher level of accountability and higher standards of professionalism. The bad apples should be dealt with swiftly. That would greatly help resolve this negative perception of police officers (which is EVERYWHERE, not just on Ohio Riders). I believe the same is true of politicians, teachers, etc. Not all officers are bad, not even a majority. It's a small fraction of the police force. Not all of the teachers in Atlanta helped their students cheat on tests to advance to the next grade. Not all politicians are lying, two-faced fucksticks. Unfortunately the few bad make the whole look bad. If a pie is sliced into eight slices, and you find a worm in one, you probably won't eat any of the other seven pieces of pie.

I agree with you. We should be held to a higher level of accountability, but what a lot of people forget is that officers are still only human and are still going to make mistakes. I would be lying if I said that I have never mother-fucked someone on duty or in cuffs for that matter. The heat of the battle sometimes brings out the worst in you. I don’t think there is a single officer on here that can say they have never done the same, and I don’t fault them for that.

Uhm, if DNA linked him to the guns, the witness testimony wouldn't have mattered.

That is why he is the one still on jail awaiting his murder trial. I was referring to a couple of different cases. Sorry for the confusion.

just to put this into perspective, how many permit holders have you come across? i.e. 6 out of X

You are correct, I come across a lot of them, and this is an example of only 6. That being said, the statement was that a "legal" CCW permit holder does not pose a threat to officers. I stand by my statement of bullshit.

I'm not looking to start an argument, but I would like to reverse your logic and ask how many officers are there in Ohio compared to asshole interactions you have had with them? There are bad cops! Every department has them, however, there are bad CCW permit holders, motorcycle riders, bank tellers,....etc. My frustration comes in with the generalization of "all cops are bad", which is a frequent theme with Ohio Riders (patrons). Most of the people who have had one of these negative interactions need to keep on mind that, had you been operating your vehicle within the law, you never would have been in the position to have that negative interaction to begin with.

(John, that was not necessarily directed toward you, it just fit).

just to put this into perspective, how many permit holders have you come across? i.e. 6 out of X

You are correct, I come across a lot of them, and this is an example of only 6. That being said, the statement was that a "legal" CCW permit holder does not pose a threat to officers. I stand by my statement of bullshit.

I'm not looking to start an argument, but I would like to reverse your logic and ask how many officers are there in Ohio compared to asshole interactions you have had with them? There are bad cops! Every department has them, however, there are bad CCW permit holders, motorcycle riders, bank tellers,....etc. My frustration comes in with the generalization of "all cops are bad", which is a frequent theme with Ohio Riders (patrons). Most of the people who have had one of these negative interactions need to keep on mind that, had you been operating your vehicle within the law, you never would have been in the position to have that negative interaction to begin with.

(John, that was not necessarily directed toward you, it just fit).

Officer safety? A law-abiding CHL holder isn't a threat to a police officer. The notify law needs to go... and so does that shitbag COP.

How many other states don't have a notify law' date=' but have a surplus of COPS shot by CHL holders? I'll give you one guess.[/quote']

I will admit that this is a bad situation that was handled completely incorrectly from the start. However, the statement that a legal CCW permit holder is not a threat to an officer is crap. I have run across several "legal permit holders", 6 to be exact, who are gang members and have been charged with multiple violent crimes (including murder). They have been able to obtain their CCW permits because the charges have been dropped due to the witnesses disappearing after some serious witness intimidation. The last one was a "shooter" for the Crips. He was a permit holder because he didn't run with the gang, he kept his nose clean, to the extent that he didn't even have a ticket on his record. He was given up by "friends" and linked to the guns through DNA (he left them behind).

I understand what you are saying.

I guess what I am looking at, is the severity could have been prevented.

- Yes, if she would have not been drinking, this probably would not have happened.

- Yes, if he would have worn a helmet, he probably would not be dead and it would not be homicide.

If everybody would take responsibility for their lifes, all of this could be prevented.

I don't get why there is a seatbelt law, but not a helmet law. It makes NO sense to me. They are both meant to prevent the severity of injuries in case of an accident!

The accident was survivable without a helmet (wife survived without one), so his choice not to wear one has very limited impact. My guess is that he died from massive trauma which was a result of being struck by the car. So, had shed not been impaired on the road, the collision between her vehicle and his more than likely never would have happened and he would probably still be alive. She CHOSE to get drunk, she CHOSE to get behind the wheel, and she killed someone as a direct result of her poor choices.

I actually wrote a paper in college advocating for the death penalty for intoxicated drivers that kill people while driving. They knew they were going to drink when they went out, so they should haven taken appropriate measures to keep everyone safe. If they didn't know they were going to drink, they surely knew that they drove. The culpible mental state is knowingly. In my opinion, she knew exactly what she was doing from the time she left her home until the minute she chose to get in her car to leave the bar. She knew what she was doing, and she absolutely should have been charged and convicted!

My first bike was an '81 CB 900 Custom. It was a great bike!

The most enjoyable thing I have found on youtube are the videos of street stunters crashing their bikes. However, I find stunting extremely interesting when it is done in a closed environment and not on an open road. Stunting takes a level of skill that I have no desire to master, but enjoy watching in a controlled environment. On the street however, it brings out road rage from deep inside me. I remember when I lived in Cleveland ('97-'99) having 4 Star Boys riding wheelies in the lane next to me (e/b Rt. 8 toward Akron) and just staring at me as they rode parallel to me. It was all I could do to resist the urge to yank the wheel to the left and wipe all 4 out. Good luck and keep it where it belongs (off the street).

forget the funeral for now. what about a stopped school bus on a 4 lane road?

I watch people going the opposite way stop all the time and it drives me crazy. I don't act a fool and make a scene by blowing my horn or gunning it around them, but they don't have to stop and I shake my head.

I remember when I was in college in Toledo traveling E/B Airport Highway and passing a W/B stopped schoolbus on a 5 lane portion of road. As the kids (early elementary school kids) were boarding the bus, the adult crossing guard yelled "HEY YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! YOU HAVE TO STOP FOR A STOPPED FUCKING BUS!" The kids didn't need to go to school that day, they got their vocabulary lesson at the bus stop at 7:30 AM.

Thinking back, I wish a LEO would have been around for a family members funeral a few years ago. We were on a limited access highway, taking the off-ramp when another car cuts into the procession. Very disrespectful, and from what I've read here THAT would be illegal. I don't wish vengeance on them, just for them to have been stopped and "encouraged" to think about what they had done.

To be honest, I had never read the law until I just posted that. However, it has always pissed me off to see people blow by processions or not move over. I grew up in a small town, and that is just what you did. You pulled over and stopped until the last car passed.

In English officer?

To me, that doesn't really clarify the discussion at hand, other than to say that it's not clearly stated in the ORC for the situations we're discussing.

Yielding the right of way does not mean getting off the road or not passing someone. It means yielding to them.

If you were to get a ticket for failure to yield, you would have received a ticket for not allowing another vehicle to pass you unrestricted. The vehicle that you are yielding to (getting out of the way of) has the right of way.