Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t

Shawn and Denise were walking with their daughter, grandson, and dog. Shawn carried a cell phone, holstered on his hip, next to a semiautomatic handgun. A motorcyclist, Rose, stopped to complain about Shawn’s visible firearm. After a heated exchange, Rose called 911. The dispatcher stated that the weapon was legal with a concealed-carry weapon permit. Rose stated: “I’m not going to call a crew out if it’s legal.” The department nonetheless dispatched Officer Bright, who claims that Shawn pulled out his cell phone, then “moved his hands back toward his weapon.” Bright told Shawn to put his hands over his head. Rather than comply, Shawn asked why Bright was there. Bright took possession of Shawn’s firearm. Shawn claims that Bright walked up, “his hand on his firearm,” announced that if Shawn “go[es] for the weapon, he’s going to shoot,” and refused to answer questions. Bright demanded Shawn’s driver’s license and concealed-carry permit. Shawn gave Bright his license, but Denise told Bright to look up the permit. Bright threatened to arrest Shawn for inducing panic and placed Shawn in handcuffs. Bright discovered that Shawn had a permit and released Shawn with a citation for “failure to disclose personal information,” a charge later dropped. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted Bright partial summary judgment, rejecting First and Second Amendment claims, but permitted Fourth Amendment and state-law claims to go to trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed. View "Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep't" on Justia Law