# two law enforcement questions



## hardwaterfan (Apr 6, 2004)

1. can you get pulled over, for no other reason, other than having "yellow plates"?

2. is there a minimum punishment (if any) for a felon who is caught with a handgun?

just curious, I figure someone here would know. thanks for your time.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Not law enforcement or a lawyer but a question.

Was the felon with the handgun stopped with the yellow plates?

In other words are your two questions linked? It _could_ have a big impact on the answer.


----------



## hardwaterfan (Apr 6, 2004)

driver (not a felon) is responsible for the yellow plates, felon was a passenger in the vehicle from what I understand. im not sure if the guns were on the passenger or the driver, or if they were just in the vehicle.


----------



## MIKE*A (Apr 12, 2009)

1.yes

2. Depends on what the felony is.....drug conviction or crime of violence then yes....


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

MIKE*A said:


> 1.yes


Are you sure? 

I find it hard to believe that the person was pulled over with out breaking any traffic laws. Perhaps they were going 36 in a 35, but I'm pretty positive that an officer needs a reason to stop someone. Perhaps that is waived when a person agrees to yellow plates.

Can you source your "Yes". I'm curious



MIKE*A said:


> 2. Depends on what the felony is.....drug conviction or crime of violence then yes....


If I understood correctly the felony was committed at an earlier date and not at the time of the stop. 

Whoever the OP is talking about should speak with a lawyer ASAP, they can answer all of the questions.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

I was pulled over twice - one missing license plate sticker.( It had fallen off or was stolen).
I was also pulled over for burned out license plate lightbulb. 

Both were warnings but I'm sure they ran the plates ajust to be sure I wasn't a bad guy.


----------



## Dovans (Nov 15, 2011)

I do not know factuals, I was always told by multiple people, if you have yellow plates, you are at the mercy of the police. they can pull you over at any time. Dont know if it is factual. Felons I always thought could not be even be in the same room as a firearm. Guy at a gun store told me they are not legally allowed to come in the store.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Assuming you are talking yellow Ohio plates then Yes, Ohio's "PARTY PLATES" allow the police to pull you over anytime, anywhere, for no reason other than the color of your plates. This isn't normally told to you when you get the plates, but it is lawful for the police to do so.
Depending on the jurisdiction it can result in many different sanctions.


EDIT: AFTER POSTING I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE ATTORNEY I ASKED. I DELETED MY EARLIER COMMENTS BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ACCURATELY ANSWER; AND THEREFORE ONLY GAVE INFORMATION ACCURATE IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE EXISTED.

The felony situation is dependant on many facts you didn't give. They could be ok and not in trouble so long as they were not in possession of the gun. Otherwise I would need more information about the underlying felony and where the gun was, as well as how it was found to help you.

Hope that helps! This is not intended to be legal advice, the person(s) should seek out an attorney that knows the system in the jurisdiction this happened in ASAP!


Mr. A


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

MLAROSA said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that the person was pulled over with out breaking any traffic laws. Perhaps they were going 36 in a 35, but I'm pretty positive that an officer needs a reason to stop someone. Perhaps that is waived when a person agrees to yellow plates.
> 
> Can you source your "Yes". I'm curious.


I asked my wife who is an attorney that deals with felonies and misdemeanors on a daily basis. 

If you want it in writing you'll have to search the Ohio Revised Code for your answers, she couldn't remember off the top of her head.

Mr. A


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

If you have the solid yellow party plates an officer does not need cause to pull you over. Not sure how many DUIs you need to be convicted of to recieve these plates. I think its a good idea because the driver is lucky to have a drivers licence at all. If an officer wants to pull over a standard plate driver they need to have some kind of cause. Like expired plates, one of your lights out, no turn signals, or some type of moving violation.


----------



## hardwaterfan (Apr 6, 2004)

thank you so much everyone for your posts. i really appreciate your thoughts. i dont know what the felony is from, actually i dont truly know who was driving, if they consented to a search of the vehicle, even if the vehicle was searched or if the guns were found while being patted down or what....

i really want to know if someone is lying to me (about being pulled over for no reason other than the yellow plates), and how much trouble the person with the felony coviction is in. 

me personally, i get harassed/checked out a lot by the police due to im kind of a shady looking character, but im the straightest arrow out there. kind funny and ironic really. i got pulled over a few months ago on a mountain bike. red/blue lights....spotlight, everything. right near my house. its just my appearance i guess. i dont blame the police for profiling me. they have a job to do. i always get checked out and let go. happened to me at least 6 times that i can think of. 

but this serious business here, jail, guns, felonies, bail, i have no experience with.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Mr. A said:


> I asked my wife who is an attorney that deals with felonies and misdemeanors on a daily basis.
> 
> If you want it in writing you'll have to search the Ohio Revised Code for your answers, she couldn't remember off the top of her head.
> 
> Mr. A


Thanks.

I'm not sure it would be in the ORC or if it would be a DMV regulation or some type of probation or other court appointed rule.

I don't really want to bore myself reading the ORC, I thought maybe since he answered with certainty he would know.

No big deal either way.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

MLAROSA said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that the person was pulled over with out breaking any traffic laws. Perhaps they were going 36 in a 35, but I'm pretty positive that an officer needs a reason to stop someone. Perhaps that is waived when a person agrees to yellow plates.
> 
> ...


Reasonable suspicion? If the person has been convicted enough times to be administered "party plates", then I'd say a police officer would have reasonable enough suspicion to pull them over to check. Could be wrong. OGF isn't really the place to seek legal advice btw...

Sorry, didn't read the other replies and just kinda barfed up the same stuff  No clue about the gun stuff.


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

I don't think you can drive a mile in the city without breaking some stupid law, but that gives LEO a reason to stop you, party plates or not. The gun offence is different the judge has full control of the sentence and I have handled hundreds of the cases for Columbus. For five years I handled every CCW case in Columbus. 120 days a year in court.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

This was bothering me and as I sat and thought more about it I asked the wife for help and she looked up the code. I don't mind being wrong and it turns out I was.

The party plates can be issued as a judge sees fit. I live in Delaware Ohio and the judges here do it to every OMVI they see. According to the code (and my wife) police must still have a reason other than the plates to pull you over. However, the officer is not held to the same standard when those plates are on the vehicle. For instance, if you are driving home late at night with others in the car, that would suffice enough for the officer to pull you over.

In the end, you are still at the mercy of the police because it doesn't take much to give them a reason. It's a very creative piece of writing, that's for sure!


Mr. A


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

Dovans said:


> I do not know factuals, I was always told by multiple people, if you have yellow plates, you are at the mercy of the police. they can pull you over at any time. Dont know if it is factual. Felons I always thought could not be even be in the same room as a firearm. Guy at a gun store told me they are not legally allowed to come in the store.


Pretty much exactly what I was going to reply.


----------



## Matt Hougan (Aug 19, 2008)

Being stopped for having yellow DUI plates is part of the provisions for getting driving privileges. In order to be issued those plates and back on the road you must submit to being stopped. They must also submit to field sobriety tests at any time by any law enforcement officer. Before you do any FST's you always pat the driver down. It's called a "Terry" pat down. Read Terry vs Ohio

A felon under disability cannot be in control of any type of firearm. 

If the firearms were found as a result of a legal traffic stop and a legal Terry pat then there are no grounds for firearms possession to be thrown out.

Sounds like a good stop and a good pinch.

The grey area comes when officers ask for ID from passengers.


----------



## hardwaterfan (Apr 6, 2004)

Again I thank everyone for their responses. Not looking for legal advice, just looking for facts and the truth. My point that I didnt quite make in my last post was that I have been stopped on foot, on bike, and while driving, for what are made-up, or extremely "off-the-wall yet technically legal" (i guess) excuses to pull me over or stop me, so I am no stranger to that. I guess I almost answer my own first post question. Sometimes there really is no way to tell. Good Lord if I ever had yellow plates on my truck I would be done. 

Thanks again guys, i appreciate it. Its very interesting to read what you guys have to say about this. 

What Im gathering is, 

yellow plates = can be stopped at any time, for any reason, or no reason. 

felon caught with handgun(s) = depends on circumstances, and reason for felony conviction. but it is not good.

so it is true that if you are a felon that you are NEVER allowed to have a handgun?


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

2923.13-Google it. It is weapons under disability which includes felonies, mental illness, drugs convictions etc. Common charge in Ohio since many criminals are frequent flyers. However not real sure why you would be asking these questions here. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

When you legally buy any gun you must fill out paperwork and sign it. One of the questions you must answer is have you ever been convicted of a felony? They aren't asking what kind of felony. Felon=no firearm


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Hardwater, a felony in itself will not bar you from owning a firearm. The felony must be a disqualifying felony. I.E. drug charges, violent crimes. Many "white-collar" crimes are not disqualifying at the felony stage. 

Also, like I posted earlier after looking up the code; with yellow plates, the police technically need a reason to pull you over, but the bar is so low that any reason will do.

Not sure what your post in it all is, but I hope it works out for you.

Mr. A


----------



## NoStringsAttached (Jun 4, 2013)

I've been pulled over more times than you would believe, mostly in my teens-mid 20's, and I will tell you this: police will straight up make up and/or lie about a 'reason' to pull you over. If they want to pull you over, they WILL pull you over; then cover it with some absurd 'reason' to justify their actions. So technically they DO need reason, but they really can make one up. It's your word against theirs, and guess who is gonna win? 

Also, I've consented to vehicle search 3 times, and never will again. I've got no criminal record, no reason for them to want to search my vehicle, but I thought I'd be 'cooperative'. Mistake-each and every time they absolutely TRASHED my car, found nothing, and just left. The least they could do is attempt to put things back where they found them.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

Mr. A said:


> Hardwater, a felony in itself will not bar you from owning a firearm. The felony must be a disqualifying felony. I.E. drug charges, violent crimes. Many "white-collar" crimes are not disqualifying at the felony stage.
> 
> Also, like I posted earlier after looking up the code; with yellow plates, the police technically need a reason to pull you over, but the bar is so low that any reason will do.
> 
> ...


 i just texted and asked a LEO friend of mine about 4 hrs ago. he told me yellow plates can be pulled over at will (at the LEO's discression), and it especially happens after hours.. and it is also a warning to other motorist that the vehicle/owner has had multiple OVI violations.

also 

http://people.howstuffworks.com/can-felon-own-gun-in-united-states.htm


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Mr. A said:


> Hardwater, a felony in itself will not bar you from owning a firearm.


I don't think this is true either. All felonies do bar one from owning a modern firearm. There is an exception that allows felons to possess black powder and other antique firearms.

Some felonies can be expunged from ones record and in the course of doing so one can apply for a restoration of all rights.



Mr. A said:


> The felony must be a disqualifying felony. I.E. drug charges, violent crimes. Many "white-collar" crimes are not disqualifying at the felony stage.


Are you mistaking misdemeanors? For a period of time if one was convicted of any drug charge they lost their right to possess a firearm in Ohio. I believe sometime in 2012 Ohio legislature passed a firearm restoration law that allowed those with misdemeanor drug convictions to apply to have their firearm rights restored. 

One can also lose their right to own a firearm due to a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

I do believe however that any felony disqualifies one from owning a firearm. This MAY even be a federal law.



Mr. A said:


> Also, like I posted earlier after looking up the code; with yellow plates, the police technically need a reason to pull you over, but the bar is so low that any reason will do.
> 
> Not sure what your post in it all is, but I hope it works out for you.
> 
> Mr. A


Thank you for rechecking with your wife on the plates. I believe that the traffic laws and regulations are intentionally difficult to understand to give officers the advantage, effectively allowing them to stop anyone anytime for any reason.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Reasonable suspicion? If the person has been convicted enough times to be administered "party plates", then I'd say a police officer would have reasonable enough suspicion to pull them over to check. Could be wrong. OGF isn't really the place to seek legal advice btw...


If you have been convicted of a crime and served your sentence you should be just as free as you were before you committed the crime - IMO.

Also, it is my understanding one can be issued "party plates" on a first conviction.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Matt Hougan said:


> It's called a "Terry" pat down. Read Terry vs Ohio


I'm not sure if you have read _Terry v Ohio_ or not, but you are mistaken. The court ruled that an officer can only stop and question, frisk or detain someone if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

MLAROSA said:


> I do believe however that any felony disqualifies one from owning a firearm. This MAY even be a federal law.


_*The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony* and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order *from possessing a firearm*. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."_

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01117.htm


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

hardwaterfan said:


> so it is true that if you are a felon that you are NEVER allowed to have a handgun?


No, that is not true. A convicted felon may have his civil rights restored with a pardon, expungement or apply for a restoration of civil rights - if the felony is a state crime and not a federal crime - Federal felonies only with a pardon or expungement.

Of course, the outcome of any of the above will be determined on a case by case basis. I suspect all violent crimes would be a denial for a pardon or restoration of civil rights case, for the simple fact that any Governor or Judge would have his name attached to the record. Either way, if I was a convicted felon I would apply to have my rights restored, even if the chances of doing so would be slim.

Federal Restoration of Civil Rights:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01435.htm

State of Ohio Restoration of Civil Rights:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2953.33


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

ezbite said:


> When you legally buy any gun you must fill out paperwork and sign it.


This only applies when you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. 

A person can legally purchase a firearm in a private party sale with out any paper work at all. This is the "gun show loophole" that you may have heard referenced. 

With out getting side tracked to much, it is only illegal for a person in a private sale to _knowingly_ sell a firearm to a felon. In other words, you have to know the person you are selling the firearm to is a felon in order for you to be charged with a crime. The seller is under no obligation to ask or find out if the buyer is a felon or not.


----------



## Matt Hougan (Aug 19, 2008)

MLAROSA said:


> I'm not sure if you have read _Terry v Ohio_ or not, but you are mistaken. The court ruled that an officer can only stop and question, frisk or detain someone if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.


12 years as a police officer in Ohio well versed in the 4th Amendment and have read Terry vs Ohio more times than I care to remember. BS from University of Cincinnati in Criminal Justice, Ohio State Patrol Academy 1999

In the case of pulling over a Yellow DUI plate as allowed by the ORC and the subsequent field sobriety tests officers are allowed, and should be required by department policy, to do a pat down for weapons for their safety. 

It seemed to me the OP or the participants were looking to invoke the exclusionary rule to get the weapons under disability charge thrown out. It was said that the people involved claimed they were pulled over for no reason. This is not true since they consented to being stopped by police officers and submitting to field sobriety tests as part of being issued the DUI plates. Other than the DUI plate there is no traffic stop. There is no violation of the drivers 4th Amendment rights here therefore no Exclusionary Rule.

The grey area here comes from the passengers that have not done anything wrong as far as we know. Its still not clear who had the gun and who was driving.

My guess is officers asked for consent and got it. I've never been rejected consent to search a vehicle.

So, if I have a "reasonable articulable suspicion" to think that you have or are about to commit a crime I may detain you for questioning. At that time I absolutely have the obligation to do a "Terry" pat for weapons....ONLY! But there are instances like the above where there are exceptions. In this case there is no "Reasonable articulable suspicion" to think a crime has or is about to take place.

Once an arrest has been made there are grounds for a more thorough search for things other than weapons. That is called search incident to lawful arrest. One of the few instances where a search can be performed without a warrant.

One interesting thing to think about here is at the time of the initial interview of the driver and the officer learns that the driver is not the owner of the vehicle and the DUI plates and there is no evidence to suggest a DUI or other violation, what powers does the officer have to question? I say none, traffic stop over.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Matt Hougan said:


> 12 years as a police officer in Ohio well versed in the 4th Amendment and have read Terry vs Ohio more times than I care to remember. BS from University of Cincinnati in Criminal Justice, Ohio State Patrol Academy 1999


Thank you for your service. The credentials were not needed but are appreciated as well.

Briefly, I, like you, do suspect that there was a reason for the traffic stop other than yellow plates.

You mention that you have never had anyone not consent to a search of the vehicle. 

First, what would you do if someone did not consent? I'm just curious here.

Second, the driver agrees to a search of the vehicle, how does that affect passengers in the car? In this case if the driver did consent to a search does that mean the passenger automatically consents to a pat down as well? What if the passenger says no to being pat down?


----------



## Matt Hougan (Aug 19, 2008)

MLAROSA said:


> Thank you for your service. The credentials were not needed but are appreciated as well.
> 
> Briefly, I, like you, do suspect that there was a reason for the traffic stop other than yellow plates.
> 
> ...


If I have no violation and no reasonable articulable suspicion and the driver refuses a search, that traffic stop is over. As a matter of fact it is was my practice to return any presented documents and identification and announce that the traffic stop was over before I asked to search a car. At that point they were free to go and not being coerced to submit to the search.

Once a driver gives consent all passengers must exit the vehicle. In a safe place they would be placed in the same formation as the seats they occupied in the car. Since the driver gave me consent the car is mine and I am now free due to Terry to pat all the occupants since they are now out of the car and now a potential threat to my safety. All occupants are now also identified and checked for warrants before the search begins. The driver is placed in sight of me searching the car and another officer posted nearby in case the driver decides to revoke his consent to search which he may do. I also had a consent form for them to sign before I entered the vehicle.

Anything found in the car was mine and I know where everyone was sitting.

It's worth noting that I never pulled a vehicle over soley because of the DUI plate. I know officers that did and I always thought was pretty chicken **** of them.....legal but chicken **** none the less. I also never used prior arrests on my computer screen as a basis for asking permission to search.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> each and every time they absolutely TRASHED my car


I've had that happen. The interior looked like cars I've seen in junkyards.

There used to be a lot of stories about that happening to houses, too. They'd ransack the place and do stuff like break open walls looking for whatever, no apologies and the owner has to pay for repairs. I haven't heard about much of that lately but I suppose it's still going on.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Matt Hougan said:


> If I have no violation and no reasonable articulable suspicion and the driver refuses a search, that traffic stop is over. As a matter of fact it is was my practice to return any presented documents and identification and announce that the traffic stop was over before I asked to search a car. At that point they were free to go and not being coerced to submit to the search.


I find it interesting that people would consent once the stop was over. I suppose the average Joe just goes a long with whatever an officer wants, which really isn't surprising I guess.



Matt Hougan said:


> Once a driver gives consent all passengers must exit the vehicle. In a safe place they would be placed in the same formation as the seats they occupied in the car. Since the driver gave me consent the car is mine and I am now free due to Terry to pat all the occupants since they are now out of the car and now a potential threat to my safety. All occupants are now also identified and checked for warrants before the search begins. The driver is placed in sight of me searching the car and another officer posted nearby in case the driver decides to revoke his consent to search which he may do. I also had a consent form for them to sign before I entered the vehicle.


Thank you for answering this. I really had no idea if the passengers of the vehicle maintained their individual rights or if the driver could essentially waive them for everyone on board.

I also never knew you could revoke your waiver. I was under the impression that once you waived your 4th and 5th amendment rights you were obligated to comply with the "investigation". For example in a court of law you can not testify in your defense and only answer questions from the defense attorney, you must also answer questions from the prosecuting attorney - or you can exercise your right to not testify at all. I guess I assumed that applied to road side searches as well. I can't really tell an officer that I consent to a search of my entire vehicle except the center console, glove box, trunk, under the seats, under the hood, etc - can I?



Matt Hougan said:


> It's worth noting that I never pulled a vehicle over soley because of the DUI plate. I know officers that did and I always thought was pretty chicken **** of them.....legal but chicken **** none the less. I also never used prior arrests on my computer screen as a basis for asking permission to search.


Once again, thank you for your service to the public as well as answering some questions.


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

Matt,
please don't take this the wrong way but everything you are saying is just as it is taught at osp. You are breaking down and quoting legal terms and wording as if you were back in college as well. A few years back the DUI offenses were changed and DUI is now reffered to as OVI.
You and I know (spoke to you at fall brawl awards) that stops are not all text book and perfect. Are usually fluid and changing.
Ultimately why the officer did what he did needs to be justified by the individual officer. 
Additionally, what charges are warranted is the decision of the prosecutors office and no one else. To be on here and saying this is done and my wife said this and my neighbors sons cop friend said this is really harmful to the perception of all parties involved. I can assure you Matt, that you working in the past in Cuyahoga county knew what prosecutors to get charges from and which one to avoid, if you did any county charging at all. So to say one attorney said this, well another attorney is one opinion. What one feel charges are warranted another will not even want to touch it.
Its great for internet debate but not much else. Not trying to offend anybody but the speculation of what is going through everyone's mind on this stop is crazy!!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

I have a traffic law question:

On a 5-lane road, two lanes each way and a center left-only lane, someone waiting to make a left turn from some parking lot entrance has a break in traffic coming from the left, but not from the right. So they make the left turn in the face of oncoming traffic from the right, and they use the center left turn lane like an entrance ramp. Or, they sit in the turn lane and wait for a chance to cut in to the traffic. Is that legal?


----------



## Matt Hougan (Aug 19, 2008)

ErieRider said:


> Matt,
> please don't take this the wrong way but everything you are saying is just as it is taught at osp. You are breaking down and quoting legal terms and wording as if you were back in college as well. A few years back the DUI offenses were changed and DUI is now reffered to as OVI.
> You and I know (spoke to you at fall brawl awards) that stops are not all text book and perfect. Are usually fluid and changing.
> Ultimately why the officer did what he did needs to be justified by the individual officer.
> ...


Im not offended, I really couldnt care less. Prosecutors make changes to what cases they will take and what evidence they will aceept all the time. They cannot however change the Constitution. Maybe since I retired in 2011 there has been some legislation to change things, but I'm prety sure the 4th Amendment or what ever they call it now is in tact.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/amendment.html


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

FOSR said:


> I have a traffic law question:
> 
> On a 5-lane road, two lanes each way and a center left-only lane, someone waiting to make a left turn from some parking lot entrance has a break in traffic coming from the left, but not from the right. So they make the left turn in the face of oncoming traffic from the right, and they use the center left turn lane like an entrance ramp. Or, they sit in the turn lane and wait for a chance to cut in to the traffic. Is that legal?


I do the second all the time on Mayfield Rd. You could wait hours for the traffic in both direcetions to clear to make a left turn. Seen Police do the same also from the same business.


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

In the State of Ohio, someone who is a convicted felon cannot knowingly possess a firearm. The convicted felon cannot be around firearms period regardless of who has one. 

Police officers need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle with a DUI plate. If you have a DUI plate that is reason enough to satisfy the legal requirement. They can willfully stop you to verify that you are not intoxicated. 

To the OP, if you are carrying a firearm and have been convicted of a felony, you will go to jail for a minimum of five years.


Under Ohio law, a person convicted of any felony offense of violence or any offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking of any drug of abuse is prohibited from knowingly acquiring, having, carrying, or using any firearm or dangerous ordnance. See Ohio Revised Code ' 2923.13(A)(2), (3). Similarly, under federal law, a person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term longer than one year is prohibited from knowingly acquiring, having, carrying, or using any firearm or ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. ' 921(g)(1). Federal law also prohibits firearm possession by persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. See 18 U.S.C. ' 922(g)(9). - See more at: http://www.fpd-ohn.org/thelaw/criminal_process/felony-conviction-disabilities#sthash.P53CNywc.dpuf


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

ShaneMC said:


> In the State of Ohio, someone who is a convicted felon cannot knowingly possess a firearm. The convicted felon cannot be around firearms period regardless of who has one.
> 
> Police officers need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle with a DUI plate. If you have a DUI plate that is reason enough to satisfy the legal requirement. They can willfully stop you to verify that you are not intoxicated.
> 
> To the OP, if you are carrying a firearm and have been convicted of a felony, you will go to jail for a minimum of five years.


With the exception of you comments regarding the party plates and a felon (with a felony disability) having a gun on them I'm not sure your information is accurate since you don't have additional information about the OP's situation. He's also posted he does not know all the details; but 5 year minimum regardless of circumstance, as well as felons not being able to be around guns "regardless of who has one" is certainly incorrect.

For instance, A weapons under disability (WUD)carries 6mo to 5 years in prison depending on circumstance; a gun spec added to felony charges IS mandatory time, but between 1 and 3 years concurrent prison time AND depending on prior felonies as well as if the gun was brandished during the commission of the immediate offense. At least that has been my experiences when dealing with those situations.

Not trying to bust your balls but there is way to much wrong information believed by the police and the public already.

Also, If I'm carrying and have my CCW and my passenger is a convicted felon (even if his felony is disabling) he would not be in any trouble if the police found my gun on me. They can most certainly be around them but they may not possess or have unrestricted access to them. There are a lot of gray areas with this, but the fact remains that just being around them won't get them in trouble.


Mr. A


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

I would definitely hope Mr. Matt Hougan, will chime in on this with his 12 years Law enforcement experience. 


Mr. A, I appreciate your opinion and perspective on the matter. But, we will agree to disagree. 

- will retract my statement of felons not being around others with firearms.

But everything else is verified by a criminal defense attorney. Not an OGF internet attorney. 












Mr. A said:


> With the exception of you comments regarding the party plates and a felon (with a felony disability) having a gun on them I'm not sure your information is accurate since you don't have additional information about the OP's situation. He's also posted he does not know all the details; but 5 year minimum regardless of circumstance, as well as felons not being able to be around guns "regardless of who has one" is certainly incorrect.
> 
> For instance, A weapons under disability (WUD)carries 6mo to 5 years in prison depending on circumstance; a gun spec added to felony charges IS mandatory time, but between 1 and 3 years concurrent prison time AND depending on prior felonies as well as if the gun was brandished during the commission of the immediate offense. At least that has been my experiences when dealing with those situations.
> 
> ...


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

FOSR said:


> I've had that happen. The interior looked like cars I've seen in junkyards.


There used to be a lot of stories about that happening to houses, too. They'd ransack the place and do stuff like break open walls looking for whatever, no apologies and the owner has to pay for repairs. I haven't heard about much of that lately but I suppose it's still going on.

Oh, yeah! My buddy's uncle had his house ripped off big time! Now, a crime was committed in the house. Seems that the uncle's son found his girlfriend hanging out with some guys at a local watering hole, yanked her out of there by the hair, forced her into his car, and took her to the house where a huge fight ensued and he killed her. The uncle and his wife were on vacation, someone got a hold of them, and they beat feet for home. Once they got there they weren't allowed in the house. "Crime scene" investigation and all that. They weren't even allowed to stay in their car in the driveway to keep an eye on things. They had to go get a motel room! By the time they were allowed in the house, all the guys long guns and pistols had been ripped off! 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to paint all cops as bad guys, but you can't deny that they exist. In fact, Matt Hougan sounds like my kind of cop. One who is cognizant of the law, but also informed as to the state of most of us "regular" people. 

BTW, do you know why, at a traffic stop, the first words out of a cop's mouth are, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" They are looking for you to INCRIMINATE YOURSELF!! The proper response is always, "Why, no, officer! I have no idea why you pulled me over!"


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

Matt Hougan said:


> Im not offended, I really couldnt care less. Prosecutors make changes to what cases they will take and what evidence they will aceept all the time. They cannot however change the Constitution. Maybe since I retired in 2011 there has been some legislation to change things, but I'm prety sure the 4th Amendment or what ever they call it now is in tact.
> 
> http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/amendment.html


OK. Don't need the link. A little condescending but its all good. 4th amend...Unreasonable search and seizure, correct....yes??? Ultimately who decides if the case goes forward? Which ever prosecutor you sit before. Not me not you or anybody else on here. Me you or any one else is not in a place to give legal briefings or procedural quarterbacking from either view in the case. Sorry and good day

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Matt Hougan (Aug 19, 2008)

ErieRider said:


> OK. Don't need the link. A little condescending but its all good. 4th amend...Unreasonable search and seizure, correct....yes??? Ultimately who decides if the case goes forward? Which ever prosecutor you sit before. Not me not you or anybody else on here. Me you or any one else is not in a place to give legal briefings or procedural quarterbacking from either view in the case. Sorry and good day
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Actually the link wasn't intended for you, so there was no condescension intended. 

And I don't sit before an attorney. Prosecutors have a lot of authority on which cases they take. But that's not what's being argued here. They also have a lot of authority in how police go about things and even as far as police department policy. The issue here was whether the police acted appropriately.

your right though, there seems to be tons of misinformation. Heck, some people still think game wardens have more authority than police officers....


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

Matt I totally get and do apologize if I was taking it the wrong way. Which appears that I did. My honest opinion is that if it was me I would have never asked the question on an outdoor site in the first place. That is what I was getting at some of the stuff people think the police and or public can/can't do is scary. I am not a legal eagle who reads the orc every night but some of the comments were eye opening and will leave it at that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

ShaneMC said:


> I would definitely hope Mr. Matt Hougan, will chime in on this with his 12 years Law enforcement experience.
> 
> 
> Mr. A, I appreciate your opinion and perspective on the matter. But, we will agree to disagree.
> ...


Sure thing. Not sure what else you're talking about? Oh, by the way, my wife is also a criminal defense attorney and I'm a criminal defense investigator. So I'll assume the "OGF internet attorney" remark was for someone else. Maybe the guy with less training and experience then me? Who knows.....doesn't matter anymore.

That being said, I'm done here. I was trying to help the OP, then got side tracked defending myself and ultimately getting caught up in a passive aggressive flame war. Not gonna be that guy, I'll stay quiet and let those that like to argue ruin the site for others. And since I talked with the OP privately the reason I initially posted ceases to exist; any further infighting on this thread is trolling. And since we ain't actually fishing, y'all have fun with it.

Mr. A


----------



## Knopper76 (Jul 20, 2008)

Okayyyy, I just saved 15% by switching my car insurance to Geico!!!...How about them bears???....Moving on!!!


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

ErieRider said:


> OK. Don't need the link. A little condescending but its all good. 4th amend...Unreasonable search and seizure, correct....yes??? Ultimately who decides if the case goes forward? *Which ever prosecutor you sit before. Not me not you or anybody else on here*. Me you or any one else is not in a place to give legal briefings or procedural quarterbacking from either view in the case. Sorry and good day
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Not really true. If you are on a grand jury you can decide that the police and prosecutor are blowing smoke and decide they don't have a strong enough case to go to trial.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Snakecharmer said:


> Not really true. If you are on a grand jury you can decide that the police and prosecutor are blowing smoke and decide they don't have a strong enough case to go to trial.


Grand Juries almost always indict. They only hear one side (the states) of the story. It is pretty rare that grand juries do not indict.

I don't know the exact percentage but if I had to guess, grand juries will indict 99% of the time.

For example here is an article that claims in Greenville SC in the year 2006 the grand jury returned 12,000 indictments and only one case that they would not indict.

_More than 12,000 &#8220;true bills&#8221; of indictment were returned by the grand jury in 2006. During that same period, the grand jury rejected, that is returned a &#8220;no bill,&#8221; in only one case._

http://www.sjhlaw.com/2012/01/29/state-judges-should-slow-indictment-train/


----------



## chevyjay (Oct 6, 2012)

when multiple offences for dui/ovi was mentioned, did this mean 2 -3 or 5 or more? with multiple offenses there is usually an extended suspension of driving rights and the plates wouldn't even be needed. in my younger days i had a car that screamed "hey cops look at me" (a 78 caprice classic, ugly 2 tone green) and i was pulled over a few times more than i cared for. i once was stopped at a dui/sobriety checkpoint by the coliseum and the lying richfield cop claimed he saw me drinking and told me to confess. i agreed to let him search just to get the stop over with so i could get to the concert. nothing againgst police, most are honest hard working people.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)




----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

MLAROSA said:


> D.U.I. checkpoint Cleveland 420 {how to get get through em] - YouTube


Is this why they have to notify the traveling public when and where a DUI checkpoint is being set up beforehand?..or can anyone roll into a DUI checkpoint and say this?


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Shad Rap said:


> Is this why they have to notify the traveling public when and where a DUI checkpoint is being set up beforehand?..or can anyone roll into a DUI checkpoint and say this?


I don't know why they notify when and where a check point will be.

Regardless, anyone can say this. But you need to do your own due diligence and be prepared for a hostile encounter. Basically, it is my understanding that if you do not answer any questions they have to let you go but if you answer so much as "How are you tonight" by saying "I'm good" you have now made the stop consensual and have opened yourself up to further questioning, which I believe is one reason nearly all encounters begin with a question. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" no matter how you answer you agreed to the stop and thus opened the door to allow an "investigation" at the officers discretion. 

If you are going to play, you better DYODD though.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Shad Rap said:


> Is this why they have to notify the traveling public when and where a DUI checkpoint is being set up beforehand?..or can anyone roll into a DUI checkpoint and say this?


There are even more extremes which may apply to the OP.

You actually have a _Right to Travel_, with out a license or a vehicle registration. Most people including law enforcement and even attorney's don't realize it until you point them in the right direction.

A motor vehicle is defined as a vehicle used for commerce. So if you are not conducting business in your automobile you are not obligated to follow motor vehicle laws.

We have all heard of _common law marriages_ but there is much more to _common law_ than marriage.

If I was the OP I would be researching this or at minimum pointing it out to a lawyer.

As always, you are responsible for yourself and you should do your own due diligence.


----------



## hardwaterfan (Apr 6, 2004)

I want to thank everyone for participating in this thread. It has been fascinating reading what everyone has to say. I want to say that I am NOT in trouble, I was not in the vehicle, and I am not looking for legal advice. I have said everything that I know. Its all third-hand info to me. I thought I was asking two pretty simple and straightforward questions . As far as the amount of DUIs involved to get the yellow plates, I think its 3. The reason I asked this on a fishing site is because this is my favorite site, one of really only two sites that I regularly frequent, I have no one else to ask. Im not hiring a lawyer to ask a few of what I thought were very simple questions.

I was just trying to educate myself. You have all been very helpful and its been interesting reading what you all have to say. 

Thanks again everyone


----------



## Runuv (May 23, 2008)

U can not own a weapon or live in a house with a weapon if convicted for a domestic violence offence. Domestic violence does't have to be a felony it can be a misdemeanor for this to hold true. Also black powder guns can still be owned from my understanding. That is what ATF told me a few yrs ago.


----------



## rizzman (Oct 25, 2007)

MLAROSA said:


> There are even more extremes which may apply to the OP.
> 
> You actually have a _Right to Travel_, with out a license or a vehicle registration. Most people including law enforcement and even attorney's don't realize it until you point them in the right direction.
> 
> ...


 Once saw a attorney try this one for his client, he was almost laughed out of the courtroom, also, Ohio is not a common law state


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

Wow....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

rizzman said:


> Once saw a attorney try this one for his client, he was almost laughed out of the courtroom, also, Ohio is not a common law state


I have no doubt.

If your ducks are not in a row and you do not know for certain what you are talking about you will look like a fool and be laughed out of court.

However, if you know exactly what you are doing and the laws and cases to support your actions, you can be the one laughing.

You have a constitutional right to travel. 

Knowledge is power.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml


----------



## hang_loose (Apr 2, 2008)

Great thread and info guys... I'm going to re-read the whole post again later on today.


----------



## rizzman (Oct 25, 2007)

MLAROSA said:


> I have no doubt.
> 
> If your ducks are not in a row and you do not know for certain what you are talking about you will look like a fool and be laughed out of court.
> 
> ...


Lawfulpath.com. Really, Come on guy, stop trying to mislead these people that are looking for helpful advice.


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

rizzman said:


> Lawfulpath.com. Really, Come on guy, stop trying to mislead these people that are looking for helpful advice.


Not trying to mislead anyone. I made that clear but stating people should do their own due diligence multiple times. It is up to individuals to educate themselves, make their own decisions and live their lives accordingly.

It certainly is something that should be looked in to.

And while you may not appreciate the source, the link provides a multitude of case law as well as legal definitions that are sourced appropriately. There are many other sources.

I find it an interesting subject, if you do not, so be it.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

MLAROSA said:


> I don't know why they notify when and where a check point will be.
> 
> Regardless, anyone can say this. But you need to do your own due diligence and be prepared for a hostile encounter. Basically, it is my understanding that if you do not answer any questions they have to let you go but if you answer so much as "How are you tonight" by saying "I'm good" you have now made the stop consensual and have opened yourself up to further questioning, which I believe is one reason nearly all encounters begin with a question. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" no matter how you answer you agreed to the stop and thus opened the door to allow an "investigation" at the officers discretion.
> 
> If you are going to play, you better DYODD though.


You can actually find the supreme court deliberations to listen to online.



> Being subjected to perform this test is not prohibited by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution if the law enforcement entity posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location; law enforcement agencies often post a sign in a small road or street during the weekdays when it is only seen by local residents and not by those attending a special event or those that only travel in that area of the city during the weekend to patronize local bars and clubs. These announcements are also sometimes printed in news papers. Numerous websites host a database of check points that are to occur based on information found in news papers, the internet and tips from visitors of such sites.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

I'd have to look again for the SCOTUS deliberations, but they are available online. The decision hinged on them being minimally intrusive to law abiding citizens and them being somewhat effective since they do net arrests. Heres a text version of excerpts of Renqhuists opinion:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/u...-decision-upholding-sobriety-checkpoints.html


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

This thread appears to be getting dangerous. 

Mr. A


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

bajuski said:


> Not looking for legal advice at all, she has counsel for that. Many of us ogf members are gun owners and may find this post interesting and who knows, maybe even learn something. Sorry if you don't agree!
> She was pulled over because the officer thought that her passenger had an outstanding warrant issued on him. This was not true, he had served his time for marijuana possession. They yanked them both out of the car and proceeded to search the vehicle without permission and found two pistols and a shotgun on the floor of the back seat and out of reach of the driver or passenger.
> All of the guns were unloaded and were legally owned by the driver and were in their plastic cases clasped closed with proof of purchase receipts in their respective containers with the guns. These guns were also placed in a gym bag, which is the way she stores them at home and the cops claim makes it concealed and she is being charged with that. The thing is, this incident could turn her into a felon when she really thought she was legal!


Let us know how this turns out,


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Mr. A said:


> This thread appears to be getting dangerous.
> 
> Mr. A


Please review:

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757

Zobel v Williams 1982

Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489

As well as The Privileges and Immunities Clause in the U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

I look forward to your honest unbiased opinion.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

MLAROSA said:


> Please review:
> 
> United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757
> 
> ...


What are you trying to convey? I didn't say much but you quoted it which tells me you believe I disagree with something. Tell me what that is and I'll give you an unbiased opinion.

Mr. A


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Mr. A said:


> What are you trying to convey? I didn't say much but you quoted it which tells me you believe I disagree with something.


So, are you saying you do agree with the bits of information I have posted?

I don't understand what is "dangerous".

I suppose, I don't understand your post at all.



Mr. A said:


> Tell me what that is and I'll give you an unbiased opinion.
> 
> Mr. A


They look like court cases with written opinions to me. Ask your wife, maybe she will tell us.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

MLAROSA said:


> So, are you saying you do agree with the bits of information I have posted?
> 
> I don't understand what is "dangerous".
> 
> ...


Ok, I didn't, and still don't, get why you quoted me when I posted "this is getting dangerous." It had little if anything to do with you. It appears that because my post happened to be after what you posted, you believe I was talking about your post, is that about right? Next time, before you have a knee jerk reaction just ask me, I don't mind telling anyone if I was talking about their post; hence the reason I quote people when I post direct responses; to remove the doubt.

You did a good job of confusing yourself when you split my quote up too, BTW. In 3rd grade I learned that each paragraph should deal with one idea/thought. Should you change topics or ideas you start a new paragraph. Using that logic and a tad of common sense you would have known that when I wrote " tell me what that is" I was still referring to the point you were trying to make.

Your last post started out asking if I agreed with your posted information then proceeded passive aggressively insulting my intelligence. Considering the source I am still willing to hold up my end of the bargain and give you the unbiased opinion you asked for as soon as you tell me what your point is (that I would assume you cited cases to back up).



Mr. A


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Well, that was an enlightening experience.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

MLAROSA said:


> Please review:
> 
> United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757
> 
> ...


Ok, I re-read you statements and tried to figure out what you point could be; starting with your posted video. Here is my honest, unbiased opinion of what your posts lead me to believe your point is:

The case law you stated deals with the same constitutional rights with regard to DUI check point. NONE of your case law is on point, you're comparing Apples to Oranges.

Now for the biased opinion:

I don't agree with you on this subject because you argument is not supported by your case law, nor the actual Ohio law with regard DUI checkpoints. 

In summation, if you wish to inform yourself on this subject please refer to the current case State v. Goines (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 168. I will leave you with that as it appears that your beliefs are less about what the law is and more about flaming another member. And YouTube is even worse that OGF for legal advice....Just sayin'

If I am mistaken about my guess as to what you point is/was please feel free to explain it with better clarity and I will reevaluate my opinion at that time.

P.S. No, I did not have to ask my wife to help me with this but I appreciate your recognition that she probably knows more than us about the subject!


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm really confused now!


----------



## MLAROSA (May 20, 2004)

Mr. A said:


> NONE of your case law is on point, you're comparing Apples to Oranges.


Your response leads me to believe that you selectively read earlier posts and did not read any of the cases I provided.

If you wish to continue please PM me and we will get on the same page before going further.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Mr. A said:


> Ok, I re-read you statements and tried to figure out what you point could be; starting with your posted video. Here is my honest, unbiased opinion of what your posts lead me to believe your point is:
> 
> The case law you stated deals with the same constitutional rights with regard to DUI check point. NONE of your case law is on point, you're comparing Apples to Oranges.
> 
> ...


Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

Here's the ruling and the opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=444

Theres audio of the proceedings floating somewhere around the internets. I doubt many would actually want to listen, but I thought it was kinda neat personally to listen to a bit of it. I'll try to find it.

We're kinda off topic though..


----------



## Lawman60 (May 17, 2010)

hardwaterfan said:


> 1. can you get pulled over, for no other reason, other than having "yellow plates"?
> 
> 2. is there a minimum punishment (if any) for a felon who is caught with a handgun?
> 
> just curious, I figure someone here would know. thanks for your time.


Okay, this is what I know. 
Yes, it is legal for a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle with the DUI yellow plates, for the purpose of checking the operators driving restrictions. These plates are most often issued to repeat offenders, and come with driving restrictions such as only to be driving to and from work, etc.

As to the gun charge, Ohio has a 5 year minimal incarceration law for any felon who is in position of a firearm during the crime. I believe that this also applies to a convicted felon in position of a firearm after release. This would mean that a judge would issue a 5 year sentence, plus he could add any tag time that the felon had left from his original sentence. For example, if the original sentence was a term or 5-15 years, and the offender was paroled after serving only a portion of the original sentence, the time remaining would then be added to the gun possession time. However, just because a firearm was found in a vehicle in which the felon was riding, does not 
necessarily mean that it is in his position. He may be charged with that, but it would be up to the court to decide if he was in possession or aware that the firearm was even in the vehicle. Here's where a good lawyer would be recommended!


----------

