Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

[notalawyer]

Strawman argument. In the quoted post, I didn't say the OPer was detained. I said the cops obtained consent with a lie. He didn't "encourage" a continuation of the encounter by asking "what's this about", he aquiesced.

Moreover, the cops refused to recognize the OPers refused consent. Rather accept his refusal, "No, I'm busy with my laundry", the cop lied twice in two sentences in order to obtain his consent. Clear demonstration of little regard for rights.

I said the cops obtained consent with a lie. He didn't "encourage" a continuation of the encounter by asking "what's this about", he aquiesced.

Semantics. He did not object in a manner that a court would recognize.

Rather accept his refusal, "No, I'm busy with my laundry", the cop lied twice in two sentences in order to obtain his consent.

Correct.

Clear demonstration of little regard for rights.

That is an assumption of the LEOs state of mind.

Nothing close to actionable occurred here, IMO, based on the OP's transcript.

 

[BriKuz]

My whole GOAL was to lessen the chance of any actionable actions being taken by any party in this encounter. My GOAL was NOT to start a war with the police department. My goal was to, through my responses, determine what the patrolman's state of mind was, determine if we could minimize the chance of having to pursue a civil rights battle later... I do NOT agree with all of the way I handled this situation 100% I believe I should have shut my yap after I said "Not right now, I'm doing laundry"

Truthfully, had I been alone, I would have responded differently... BUT, I WAS under the belief that there was a strong possibility that fully asserting my rights could have led to my children being in CPS custody because my wife and I were both in police custody... Believe you me, had I felt that the police were acting like it was a detention, i would have clarified, and things would have gone different... But, since they were just fishing, and I feel that I have enough wits about me to deflect or ignore a question i don't feel needs answering, I chose to express a little goodwill in the hopes of NOT ending up with an actionable situation.

PS: I KNEW the officer was lying... I took it with a grain of salt, as I'm used to nearly ALL "public servants" lying to the people they're nominally serving.

 

[Werz]

... I'm used to nearly ALL "public servants" lying to the people they're nominally serving.

But would you prefer that to a public servant telling you the truth that you don't want to hear? :lol:

 

[BriKuz]

Depends on which "truth" you're speaking of... ;-) I DON'T want to hear how ugly I am, for example... i own a mirror

 

[BB62]

Have you put together your records request yet?

IMHO your time would be much better spent at this point reading the links provided to you, asking how to do so if you're unsure, or just creating the request rather than explaining yourself here over and over again, or exploring how to best respond to an endless number of possible interactions with LEOs.

 

[Citizen]

Semantics. He did not object in a manner that a court would recognize.

Let me make sure I understand this. You mischaracterize an aspect of the conversation. I pull it back to something more accurate. Then you accuse me of semantics. Then you resort to whether the historical abuser of rights--government--would recognize it?

 

[notalawyer]

Let me make sure I understand this. You mischaracterize an aspect of the conversation. I pull it back to something more accurate. Then you accuse me of semantics. Then you resort to whether the historical abuser of rights--government--would recognize it?

The OP, clearly, voluntarily participated in the conversation. Use what ever words you want to describe it, does not change that fact.

Then I explained the fact of what every court in the US would decide if some action was brought. No seizure occurred, period.

Of course this is simply my opinion. It is still however a correct representation of the facts under discussion here.

 

[Citizen]

The OP, clearly, voluntarily participated in the conversation. Use what ever words you want to describe it, does not change that fact.

Then I explained the fact of what every court in the US would decide if some action was brought. No seizure occurred, period.

Of course this is simply my opinion. It is still however a correct representation of the facts under discussion here.

Its a correct representation of the facts that omits to weigh that the cop lied in order to obtain consent that was clearly a refused initially.

And, omits to consider the OPer's interim statements that he waived his rights because he wanted to avoid trouble for his children's sake from an institution known to abuse its power, and then cover it up under a doctrine called The Blue Wall of Silence.

And, depends on government for expressions of rights and legitimacy--an institution with a very long history of abuse, infringement, diminishment, and refusal of rights.

And, mischaracterizes the OPer's decision to talk to the police as encouraging the encounter.

Other than those things, yes, it seems a correct representation of the facts under discussion here.

 

[notalawyer]

Its a correct representation of the facts that omits to weigh that the cop lied in order to obtain consent that was clearly a refused initially.

And, omits to consider the OPer's interim statements that he waived his rights because he wanted to avoid trouble for his children's sake from an institution known to abuse its power, and then cover it up under a doctrine called The Blue Wall of Silence.

And, depends on government for expressions of rights and legitimacy--an institution with a very long history of abuse, infringement, diminishment, and refusal of rights.

And, mischaracterizes the OPer's decision to talk to the police as encouraging the encounter.

Other than those things, yes, it seems a correct representation of the facts under discussion here.

That's what I said. I discussed the facts. You are talking about your opinion of why the OP did what he did, your opinion on why the LEOs did what they did.

Also, make no mistake, I agree with you here:

an institution with a very long history of abuse, infringement, diminishment, and refusal of rights

But none of the facts presented suggest any of this took place.

 

[Werz]

Have you put together your records request yet?

IMHO your time would be much better spent at this point reading the links provided to you, asking how to do so if you're unsure, or just creating the request rather than explaining yourself here over and over again, or exploring how to best respond to an endless number of possible interactions with LEOs.

I agree that the request should be made promptly. We shouldn't say, "Here, read this book." We should provide a form:

Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Request) please remit the following information related to the police inquiry of patrons at [describe laundromat location] on [date] at approximately [time], hereinafter referred to as the "INCIDENT".

In order to comply with Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 in a timely manner, please ensure that this public records request is fulfilled prior to the destruction of any 9-1-1 call recordings, vehicle camera video recordings, personal camera video recordings, or any other related records until this request has been satisfied:

1. A copy of any or all 9-1-1 recordings, including any citizen complaints, related to or regarding the INCIDENT.
2. A copy of any or all recordings of telephone calls to your police department at telephone numbers other than 9-1-1, including any citizen complaints, related to or regarding the INCIDENT.
3. The name and address of any person making 9-1-1 calls or other telephone calls pertaining to the INCIDENT.
4. A copy of any or all vehicle camera video recordings, personal camera video recordings, or audio recordings made by police officers during the INCIDENT.
5. A copy of any or all dispatch recordings of communications made to and from police officers during the INCIDENT.
6. The name and badge numbers of all police officers responding to the INCIDENT.
7. A copy of any written reports, including call-for-service reports and narrative supplements, made by police officers as a result of the INCIDENT.

In the event that any of this information is denied, please cite the provision of Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 which would authorize the respondent to deny or redact the requested information. If any of this information cannot be provided to me electronically via [your email address] please contact me directly at [your telephone number]. I will pay all reasonable fees authorized by Ohio law for duplication; however, please contact me if that cost is expected to exceed $25.00.

Normally, I would recommend that BriKuz use his name and his wife's name in the request, but since they refused to identify themselves, it would be much too easy for the police to deny knowing who those people are.

 

[Citizen]

That's what I said. I discussed the facts. You are talking about your opinion of why the OP did what he did, your opinion on why the LEOs did what they did.

Also, make no mistake, I agree with you here:

But none of the facts presented suggest any of this took place.

So, you admit you are trying to avoid wider discussion and analysis by sticking strictly to facts and government's assertions? That is to say, actively trying to undermine wider discussion and analysis?

 

[BB62]

I agree that the request should be made promptly. We shouldn't say, "Here, read this book." We should provide a form:...

I believe in teaching a man to fish, not fishing for him.

IF the OP is not interested enough in pursuing the matter to read a book (actually a portion of it), in order to create some semblance of a records request which he could post here for advice and learning, then IMHO too bad. Given the considerable time he's spent here and elsewhere posting about the matter, answering and asking questions, I think it's more than reasonable to expect such an effort from him regarding a records request.

However, since you've done the heavy lifting, I look forward to hearing of the response from the PD/dispatch center.

 

[BriKuz]

Hmmm... sounds like BB just called me lazy... :-O he's right! lmao I am in the process of formulating a plan to get said records... but who/how do I deliver the request?

 

[BB62]

Hmmm... sounds like BB just called me lazy... :-O he's right! lmao I am in the process of formulating a plan to get said records... but who/how do I deliver the request?

Read the book, or wait until Werz answers the question.

 

[Citizen]

Hmmm... sounds like BB just called me lazy... :-O he's right! lmao I am in the process of formulating a plan to get said records... but who/how do I deliver the request?

Many states have their FOI statutes online. And, if they don't, many states have FOI advocacy groups who have websites. Some states call the law Sunshine laws, some states call them Open Records laws, some call them Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

Usually, you send the FOI request to the custodian of the record sought. In this case the PD. You can just title it "Keeper of Records" or "Custodian of Records". You can even send it to the Chief of Police. They'll figure it out and forward it to the correct person unless he's in a whole different department or bureau. In which case they might return the request to you, telling you the correct custodian. Or, you can just call the PD non-emergency number and ask.


If an advocacy group in your state has a website , read up on their advices.

One thing we've learned is to put not one hint of hostility in the request. For example, you might ask for, "Audio recordings of radio transmission from dispatch to Officer so-and-so related to (your incident). Do not phrase it adversarily, "Audio recording proving RAS for detaining me..." The FOI statutes usually have an exception for personnel investigations, and if you send an adversarial FOI request, police have been known to immediately launch an internal affairs investigation (a personnel investigation). That the cops sometimes never completed the internal affairs investigation proved the internal investigation was merely a pretext to stymie the FOI request.

 

[BB62]

Hmmm... sounds like BB just called me lazy... :-O he's right! lmao I am in the process of formulating a plan to get said records... but who/how do I deliver the request?

Read the book, or wait until Werz answers the question.

Actually, a reading of a mere 25 pages (out of 100) will both answer your question and enlighten you greatly about open records requests.

 

[BriKuz]

Damn! there's no pictures in those pages!!! (Well, none that tell me what to do...

I'm swinging by the Sheriff's office in a few to pick up dispatch records, and Ashland PD for police reports... hopefuly, I'll have some more info after lunch. (I'm really NOT that lazy... but I TRY to be!)

 

[BriKuz]

Looks like it was NOT the guy I thought it was... it was the lady who was jabbering with my wife! (And the call was about my wife, not me!)

http://www.kuzawa.com/incidents/201306271309.pdf

Waiting on call audio from Ashland County... should be in my e-mail before the weekend. I'll get a link as soon as I find it.

Officer in the reception area (NOT one of the two who responded) said they probably didn't take any notes, because there was nothing to take notes about... we did nothing wrong.

 

[Citizen]

Good job, BriKuz. Well done on the follow up.

Good to know they will criminally investigate a citizen merely exercising the fundament human right of self-defense, including fishing for felon-in-possession from an obvious family with small children.


For myself, I would write a formal complaint. You see, I have a problem with that encounter, now that we know the information the cop had--a female with a holstered gun unconcealed. By investigating you and your wife, the police revealed their attitude that exercising enumerated right is worthy of criminal suspicion. No! No! NO!!

Any moment now, Werz, and perhaps a couple other statists, will come along and say that what the police did was legal. So what? We're only allowed to complain about illegal conduct? Meaning, we have to wait around for them to pass all sorts of laws boxing us in against which we cannot complain as the noose gets tighter and tighter? Rubbish. The First Amendent right to petition government for redress of grievances (complain) says nothing about complaining only of illegal actions by government.

The police could have just observed from a distance without contact.

A formal written complaint will have the additional effect of letting the PD know what the standard is--our standard, not theirs--and will let them know we're willing to make later trouble for any cops who actually do overstep the legal line.

 

[carolina guy]

My whole GOAL was to lessen the chance of any actionable actions being taken by any party in this encounter. My GOAL was NOT to start a war with the police department. My goal was to, through my responses, determine what the patrolman's state of mind was, determine if we could minimize the chance of having to pursue a civil rights battle later... I do NOT agree with all of the way I handled this situation 100% I believe I should have shut my yap after I said "Not right now, I'm doing laundry"

Truthfully, had I been alone, I would have responded differently... BUT, I WAS under the belief that there was a strong possibility that fully asserting my rights could have led to my children being in CPS custody because my wife and I were both in police custody... Believe you me, had I felt that the police were acting like it was a detention, i would have clarified, and things would have gone different... But, since they were just fishing, and I feel that I have enough wits about me to deflect or ignore a question i don't feel needs answering, I chose to express a little goodwill in the hopes of NOT ending up with an actionable situation.

PS: I KNEW the officer was lying... I took it with a grain of salt, as I'm used to nearly ALL "public servants" lying to the people they're nominally serving.

+1

I have 4 young kids, and sounds to me that you two did just fine!