Mail Call Mondays Season 2 #19 – Concealed vs. Open Carry, Riverside, OH incident.

Below I have copied the complete narrative as written by Sgt.Jones. The complete incident report is public record, but I did not feel it necessary to include all parties personal information. While the narrative states that a summons was issued, charges for “Obstruction of Official Business” were dismissed by the state.

On August 28, 2012 at approximately 04:28 I was sitting in the Speedway lot at Valley and Harshman speaking with a female about a stop I had just completed on a family member of hers. I observed a white male who later came to be known to me as Roy Call enter the Speedway on foot after parking his car on the side by Stebbins High School.

He was wearing a black semi automatic handgun on his right side as he entered the store. He was not wearing a uniform of any kind, nor did he display a badge or law enforcement ID, and the female I was with was alarmed at his armed presence. She left quickly upon seeing him, apparently from fear and what might be about to happen.

It was late at night, and was obviously a convenience store. My cruiser is a slick top cruiser with no lights and he could have easily missed seeing the police car due to the females car blocking his view had he been someone intending to rob the store or commit a crime. She actually became frightened that was what was going to happen and left the lot hurriedly saying something about she was “getting out of there.”

I called out on the radio that I had a male at Speedway and he was wearing a gun. Officer Jackson arrived shortly thereafter to assist me. I approached the male as he was at the counter. I motioned for him to come speak to me. He exited the door as I could not enter due to a lack of handles on the outside of the door. He approached me and I asked who he was and why he was wearing a handgun out in the open?

I needed to make sure he had no ill intentions, and was not a convicted felon with a record. This was my reasoning for the question of his identity.

He refused to answer me. He said “I do not consent” I informed him I was a uniformed police officer on duty, he was in a convenience store, during late hours, he was wearing a gun in the open, and a female had been scared and alarmed at his presence. I informed him this was technically Disorderly Conduct. I informed him I was investigating that crime for now and to please cooperate. I asked again for his identification? I asked again who he was. He stared at me and asked if he was under arrest? I said no. I again said I was investigating the matter at hand. He would not identify himself nor would he explain the reason for weapon. He only stared but clearly heard me or he would not have answered even with a question. I did not know his intentions. I asked if he had any identification. No answer again.

He eventually said he had no identification with him. This was actually a lie as his identification was approximately 50 feet away in his truck along with his CCW card. This was not found for several minutes. He told me he was exercising his second amendment rights to openly carry a gun. He would still not tell me his name or reason for the gun when I expressed my concerns for who he was and how he had alarmed the other female.

I asked if he had a CCW permit or any kind of identification. I made every effort to find out who he was, if he could legally carry, and to afford him his rights, but he was very uncooperative. He said his gun was not concealed and he didn’t need identification, and he still would not offer any form of name. I asked him to remove his arms and hands from the area of the gun, and I removed it from his waist holster so I could at least secure it until I knew his identity, and if he could legally carry a weapon. He did allow this to happen without resistance.

I asked if he belonged to any group that might make him refuse to identify himself to police and or carry a gun? It is common behavior for a group known as “Soverign Citizens” to refuse to give identification and who do not recognize official government or police authority. They have been known to kill police officers and there is a current video out of them killing two officers in recent months. They typically do not carry any form of state ID. He denied membership in any group.

I secured him in handcuffs for my personal protection as I had the gun free from him, yet he was still refusing to identify himself and I had not had a chance for a continued weapon search yet. The gun appeared to be Springfield Armory 9mm or 40 caliber semi automatic XDM semi automatic pistol. It was loaded with one in the chamber and a full magazine of ammunition.

I secured it in my car as I did him also. Once he was in the car he finally told me his name was Roy Call and he did not want to talk to me. This took about 12 to fifteen minutes before we verified his identifiers. Since he was now officially detained his Miranda warnings were immediately read. He still refused to answer detailed questions and they were stopped. We intended to check his vehicle for his
identification and anyone else who might be with him but he refused to tell us specifically which car was
his. It was eventually found by the registration number.

His presenting a handgun on his person at the late hour did alarm a citizen present on the business property. His doing so did present a situation of annoyance alarm and inconvenience in my presence. I tried to investigate this action by asking his name and purpose for the weapon, as most people do not carry firearms out in the open at this time of night into a convenience store.

His refusal to identify himself during a simple discussion with police while engaged in the “Disorderly Conduct” act further gave rise to suspicion as well as his sole broken responses of “I do not consent,” I am exercising my second amendment rights,” etc as opposed to simply giving his name and identifiers

for the purpose of checking his potential criminal record to verify he could carry the gun. Furthermore we as police were investigating the Disorderly Conduct charge as stated above.

When I explained the disorderly conduct charge he was engaged in to him, he still refused to offer to
put the gun away in the car, nor did he offer to return to the vehicle and cover it up, nor did he ever offer his identification or name until such time as he was in the back of the police car. I asked if he had a simple ID or license we could see and he flatly denied having one multiple times. In fact he did have
one in his car he could have shown but he refused. His only answer was he belongs to the NRA
(National Rifle Association) Once inside the car he did tell us where he worked, however he refused to tell us which car in the Speedway lot was his so we could check for officer safety to make sure no other persons were in a car with a weapon behind our back, or where we could not see them. We did eventually find his car parked as described above. No one was in it.

His actions and refusal to give any identifiers hindered and obstructed myself and other officers from quickly calming the matter down and verifying his right to open carry. It further continued to give rise to suspicion as most prudent people would have simply identified themselves to police particularly after being told they were causing some alarm.

I told him he should try to understand our position for trying to verify someone who had scared a citizen by wearing a gun. I asked why he responded the way he did to police and he only smiled. He said he had never had a bad run in with Riverside Police. He gave no other explanation. He appeared amused and simply sat and smiled at me through the cruiser window most of the time for the stop.

He had a friend stop by the same store on his way to work and as he walked in past the cruiser, the suspect and myself. Mr. Call told the friend he would still “be at work and laughed.” I asked the friend if he carried a gun there as well and were they allowed to do so, and he (the Friend) said they could “carry in the lot if they so desired.”

I was checking to see if Mr. Call was some sort of security there as he was withholding as much information as he possibly could. The friend did not stick around long after smiling and appearing to shake his head at the suspect Mr. Call. He was asked no more questions nor was he given any detailed information about the incident. He was only on scene about one minute.

As Ohio is an open carry state, and he had not actually done anything illegal with the gun beyond scaring the female customer, I did return his weapon to him, unloaded for safety reasons. No gun charge has been filed.

As part of the investigation on this matter it was discovered in the Dayton Police Field Interview system that Mr. Call apparently has a history of getting the police to confront him about his open carry with the gun. He then likes to place them on YouTube on the internet after he films or records the encounter. Apparently this has happened multiple times in the immediate area. He apparently has a second person film it for entertainment purposes. No second person was observed tonight other than the man who stopped and kept going. They apparently both work at Mullins Rubber on Valley Street in Riverside.

His car was also released to him after it was inventoried for identification and potential tow if he was incarcerated. He was not jailed as he later decided to give his identifiers to police, and it was determined he has a valid CCW indicating no criminal record to prohibit the open carry. No other information could be found to prohibit the carry of the weapon and as stated it was released back to him.

He also was released with all his property we took from him when he was cuffed for officer safety, after it was checked and found to not be a smaller version of a 22 caliber handgun. Officers have often seen training films where small hand held devices such as recorders, cell phones, etc can be small caliber one shot weapons particularly of the 22 caliber. He had a small handheld recording device in his pocket that he had tried to apparently power on. It was given back to him as it was found.

Once he was out of the car and given his summons for “Obstruction of Official Business” (2921.31) he told officers he apologized. He never explained why and we did not ask as he said he did not want to answer questions. He then checked his weapon to make sure it was in the same condition it was in when it was seized (in accordance with the ORC) and he agreed it was in the same condition he had it in before the encounter.

He was handed the ammunition separate and out of the magazine to avoid him loading it as he had everyone fairly tense and concerned over his behavior with the vague evasive answers he was giving as well as his evasive refusal to give any answers most of the time he was stopped.

He left the area with his weapon and vehicle. He was summonsed into court for his actions. His total time physically detained was approximately 20 minutes before he was uncuffed, summonsed, and released. The clerks did say they saw and heard nothing of the encounter with Mr. Call and officers, but one clerk said she has seen him in the store with the gun on before. No other witnesses or suspects could be found.

REPORTING OFFICER: Jones, Harold ‘BADGE NO.: 992 ‘DATE: 08/28/2012 22:33

3 thoughts on “Mail Call Mondays Season 2 #19 – Concealed vs. Open Carry, Riverside, OH incident.”

  1. U.S. vs Black
    The officer in question did not appear to have RS for stop, although, I would have been glad to talk with ANYONE to who asks (that’s me). I do not believe in causing problems, but at the same time, I would have a problem of turning over my weapon just for a consensual stop. If it’s NOT a consensual stop, then the officer needs to have more than the weapon for RS to be established.

Leave a Reply