Canton OH Police CCW Holder Encounter

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's also the question of whether the driver had to notify the officers of the gun under Ohio law since he was already stopped; i.e., was this a traffic stop for purposes of the Ohio concealed carry law. Anybody have a clue?
Click to expand...

According to present Ohio law, he did have to notify. Anytime you are stopped by a police officer for law enforcement purposes you are required to notify, whether in a motor vehicle or not. Violating this section is a first degree misdemeanor, with penalties handed down by the court, plus, one year suspension of your CCW license. No where does it say you are to be executed for failure to notify soon enough.

This is not nor has it been the question. The question is did he try hard enough and soon enough to notify. Those on one side say he did try repeadedly and was told to shut up. He was only able to notify when the opportunity given to him by the officer developed. Those on the other side say he could have just yelled it out.

The OFCC is working to remove the notify law completely and is gaining support. Unfortunately it's these types of things happening which in the end, help the concealed carry movement.
 
Last edited:
The officer was out of control. He did not follow proper procedure.

He is trained to ask for identification when he does a stop. At that time, when the driver handed him his identification he would, could, should have informed the officer he was a CCW holder. I personnally hand the officer a copy of my DL and CCW when asked for my ID.

The second question an officer ask when making a stop, Felony stop excluded (you remove all occupants at gun point), Do you have any weapons on you? This is the second oppurtunity the CCW holder has to inform the Officer.

The driver was not afforded either oppurtunity.

The Officers followed neither of these protocols.
 
I 100% agree with that. The fact that is partner is searching the car before this is done says one of a possible few things: the procedure was ridiculous, they didn't perceive the perp as a threat, they thought it was the cab driver's responsibility to 'clear' their situation, etc. Any choice doesn't favor them. Maybe that is one of the reasons they(or he) was so upset.

It's not comical but almost in a funny way when they have to come back to this guy and ask where his CCW is. He obviously had heard him by this point and still didn't realize it was IN HIS HAND the entire time(meanwhile they are searching the wallet and everywhere else). Why? so he could inform of course.
 
I lifted this quote to give you all an update and will post the link over to the site.

"The judge in the motion to dismiss and suppress evidence the judge wrote the following:"

"As noted by defense counsel at the evidentiary hearing, the video evidence contradicts the allegations of the complaint that Mr. Bartlett's weapon was not discovered until a pat down of his person was conducted. The video shows that Mr. Bartlett notified Officer Harless of the presence of the weapon before the pat down took place. This raises the issue of whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest, an issue which is premature for this court to address"

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54153&p=4034142#p4034142

the trial is coming up on 11/9

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56449

dc
 
The issue seems to have shifted from whether or not Bartlett notified officers in a timely manner or when he was supposed to whether or not he notified them before a pat-down was conducted.

My understanding of the law in Ohio is that you are to notify officers right away - or the first chance you get (something like that).

Otherwise people could get away with just telling the officer the second before the officer begins a pat-down.
 
The larger point is, the judge has noted that the story told by the officers does not match the video evidence. That can't possibly bode well for the city of Canton or the DA.
 
If you go back and watch the video again, you can see and hear Bartlett trying to notify and being repeatably told to shut up by Harless. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I would bet that video is going to be played in the courtroom and the defense attorney is going to show over and over again where each time Bartlett says "I have a ....." and he is told to shut up.

I doubt Harless is going to show up at this trial either. And if his partner gets on the stand again and is caught in "inconsistencies" again, concievably he possibly could be charge with perjury. Possibly, but you have to have an honest DA etc.

I do speculate on whether the defense attorney is going to show the other 2 tapes to further tear apart Harless' credibility as an LEO.

We do have to remember though that the entire honest, professional LEO community has been terribly tarnished by the actions of the dynamic duo there in Canton.
 
This guy may not be the brightest pea in the pod, but the cop was WAAAAYYY out of line in this incident. To put him on trial for simply shutting up when the bully cop told him to shut up is absolutely no crime even with the duty to report. I believe he tried to inform but the cop simply told him more than once to shut up. What are you supposed to do in that situation?
 
thanks for link(s)

yeah and 2-3 CCWs on the jury. Unless this prosecutor is the best of the best and the defense lawyer is horrible, he gets off.
 
Looks like charges were dismissed based on a motion by the defense.
Is there confirmation other than the blog to be seen yet?
 
It sounds like defense won on a Motion for Directed Verdict on the failure to inform charge. Good for them!

Interesting that Harless is on leave with a disciplinary hearing set for this and another traffic stop. I would not be entirely surprised if, over the next couple of years, he finds himself learning more about 42 U.S.C. §1983 than he ever really cared to know.
 
I am normally not one to say sue sue sue but this is probably one of the most serious cases of police misconduct I have seen recently. I hope this guy sues and wins a hefty sum; not only to get justice for himself but also as a warning to all police departments nation wide that lawful gun owners cannot be abused without consequence; that rogue cops will be punished. This sounds corny but the officers in the video IMO violated the public trust. Beyond that, many localities simply don't care if they are violating someones rights by harassing them over things like firearms ownership; the only way to punish them is through lawsuit. In the end though, the people end up paying the price in higher taxes and hopefully vote the politicians who let the causes of those suits go on out of office. This case is a distant #2 in my books as far as police abuse; behind that poor homeless guy who got beaten to death during an arrest in California a few months ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top