On duty black police officer held at gunpoint by racist security guard

[strongyp]

Of course the Toledo PD/Prosecutor's office is going to side with the cop; just because they arrested the Security Officer doesn't mean he was wrong. The cop violated federal law. And why the fuck are so many officers doing their personal business "on duty"?

since he never got into the IRS suite and the building itself is not a federal building the guard surely left any juristiction behind when he left the suite.

[Jotaux]

it actually lists the federal buildings on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_building#Ohio this particular building is not listed.

https://www.eyde.com/commercial-prop...e/four-seagate

you can rent a suite yourself, if the Police Department, Secret Service and CIA rented a suite what happens then?

i would think that guards juristiction ends at the suite entrance if any.

It lists the notable federal buildings.

I do think it probably does not qualify as a federal building, maybe the suite itself. I don't recall does the security guard (or the company he works for) work for the building or the IRS?

[Citizen T]

(1)The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.


Just the office for the IRS was all that was necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

since he never got into the IRS suite and the building itself is not a federal building the guard surely left any juristiction behind when he left the suite.

Except the original article states that he entered the IRS office.

[strongyp]

Except the original article states that he entered the IRS office.

it says he couldnt not go in unless he left his weapon behind he then left.

who gets priority if you put cia, secret service and fbi in the building as well then ?

as for building jurisition, an embassy only covers land up to the gates they have to rely on local police after that why would 1 suite in a public building be any different

[Jotaux]

so who gets priority if you put multiple federal agencies in the same building then ?

I imagine if you are a federal agent you are allowed to have your firearm with you inside the building. So if there was a police station inside (I don't know how they divide up police jurisdiction. state? County?) they would be out of luck, I suppose.

[Ghostpanther]

(1)The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.


Just the office for the IRS was all that was necessary.

- - - Updated - - -



Except the original article states that he entered the IRS office.

I think you are correct on the legal terms and how it applies to this situation. You are absolutely right about people carrying firearms needing to know where they can take them and their use. And officers should also. But I also think this case could have been handled better in way it would have never made the news.

[cubby]

I think you are correct on the legal terms and how it applies to this situation. You are absolutely right about people carrying firearms needing to know where they can take them and their use. And officers should also. But I also think this case could have been handled better in way it would have never made the news.

Certainly more information and knowledge for all involved would have made the situation not as explosive. But the security officer was 100% in the wrong. He should know the rules for non-federal LEO's entering a building and how to address them appropriately. The Deputy Sheriff was right in his actions. I'm not sure what the rule is when a non-federal LEO enters a federal government building. Surrendering your firearm is a big no-no.

Ironically, and mildly hysterically, there is probably a form for this somewhere in the federal government.

[Captain N]

Certainly more information and knowledge for all involved would have made the situation not as explosive. But the security officer was 100% in the wrong. He should know the rules for non-federal LEO's entering a building and how to address them appropriately. The Deputy Sheriff was right in his actions. I'm not sure what the rule is when a non-federal LEO enters a federal government building. Surrendering your firearm is a big no-no.

Ironically, and mildly hysterically, there is probably a form for this somewhere in the federal government.

That's the thing that was pointed out by strongyp and verified by me. The building in question isn't a Federal Building. The Four Seagate Building in Toledo, Ohio is considered a Local Government/Public Use Building. The only 2 Federal offices in the place are the IRS Building that Gaston was stopped at and a Social Security Office. Walking in the doors allows Gaston to have his service pistol, Eklund asking him to disarm is reasonable before entering the IRS Office, after Gaston says it would be in violation (which is accurate as the building is not entirely federal property) to disarm and turns around to leave is where the shit happens.

[cubby]

That's the thing that was pointed out by strongyp and verified by me. The building in question isn't a Federal Building. The Four Seagate Building in Toledo, Ohio is considered a Local Government/Public Use Building. The only 2 Federal offices in the place are the IRS Building that Gaston was stopped at and a Social Security Office. Walking in the doors allows Gaston to have his service pistol, Eklund asking him to disarm is reasonable before entering the IRS Office, after Gaston says it would be in violation (which is accurate as the building is not entirely federal property) to disarm and turns around to leave is where the shit happens.

Ah, well then. Eklund is entirely fucked it seems.

In regards to a fully federal building, I'm guessing that there is an exception to Gaston's requirement to always be armed if asked by federal authorities to disarm when entering a building. I mean, there are almost always exceptions to the "must always have firearm on person while on duty" rule. IIRC, everyone entering the White House is required to disarm (outside Secret Service personnel). Entering a prison I'm guessing is another example of the exception to the rule.

(i'm just thought exercising on this federal building tangent)

[Captain N]

Ah, well then. Eklund is entirely fucked it seems.

In regards to a fully federal building, I'm guessing that there is an exception to Gaston's requirement to always be armed if asked by federal authorities to disarm when entering a building. I mean, there are almost always exceptions to the "must always have firearm on person while on duty" rule. IIRC, everyone entering the White House is required to disarm (outside Secret Service personnel). Entering a prison I'm guessing is another example of the exception to the rule.

(i'm just thought exercising on this federal building tangent)

The Federal Building part is where it gets weird between the law, LEOSA, and what the law constitutes official business. By the exact letter of the law an officer can be asked to remove his weapon. The grey area comes when you get into the Official Business part of the federal blockade as there are references that local police departments within Federal Buildings along their patrol routes are considered On Duty and on official business allowing them to carry into a building. Considering Four Seagate is in Toledo and part of Gaston's jurisdiction this is where I'm guessing the Toledo PD found him not to be wrong in the whole episode.

Especially if the law was violated to the extent Thwart was claiming the local PD would know full well the extent of disregarding a potential federal felony.

[InTheEnd]

What's with all these made-up stories involving black victims lately?

[Ghostpanther]

Certainly more information and knowledge for all involved would have made the situation not as explosive. But the security officer was 100% in the wrong. He should know the rules for non-federal LEO's entering a building and how to address them appropriately. The Deputy Sheriff was right in his actions. I'm not sure what the rule is when a non-federal LEO enters a federal government building. Surrendering your firearm is a big no-no.

Ironically, and mildly hysterically, there is probably a form for this somewhere in the federal government.

If he was 100% wrong, then the conviction of the charges he is facing will be the evidence he actually was. But I do agree it could have been handled better and the whole mess avoided. The deputy was in the process of leaving. Let him leave.

[Citizen T]

The Federal Building part is where it gets weird between the law, LEOSA, and what the law constitutes official business. By the exact letter of the law an officer can be asked to remove his weapon. The grey area comes when you get into the Official Business part of the federal blockade as there are references that local police departments within Federal Buildings along their patrol routes are considered On Duty and on official business allowing them to carry into a building. Considering Four Seagate is in Toledo and part of Gaston's jurisdiction this is where I'm guessing the Toledo PD found him not to be wrong in the whole episode.

Especially if the law was violated to the extent Thwart was claiming the local PD would know full well the extent of disregarding a potential federal felony.

Ah, well then. Eklund is entirely fucked it seems.

In regards to a fully federal building, I'm guessing that there is an exception to Gaston's requirement to always be armed if asked by federal authorities to disarm when entering a building. I mean, there are almost always exceptions to the "must always have firearm on person while on duty" rule. IIRC, everyone entering the White House is required to disarm (outside Secret Service personnel). Entering a prison I'm guessing is another example of the exception to the rule.

(i'm just thought exercising on this federal building tangent)

It doesn't have to be a federal building. 18 U.S. Code § 930 nor I ever mentioned buildings. Federal facility which is defined as: " a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

@cubby, I will defer a bit when discussing legal matters to those that have spent their lives studying such. I'm not a lawyer but I've studied this very small area of law fairly extensively due to trying to be a responsible firearms owner/carrier. I'm certainly willing to admit being incorrect but the exception of:

the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

seems pretty clear. I have no idea if there are any court precedents defining "lawful performance of official duties" to include personal errands. If you know of anything to clear this up, I'm willing to listen.

Just as a side note, I actually found a copy of the City of Toledo Police Department Manual and using the search feature reviewed every instance of the terms "firearm" and "gun". There is no rule that says he cannot disarm himself. The only rules I found were that each officer must be equipped with a firearm - not that he must carry it all times. And there are rules for how a firearm must be stored if left unattended - which pretty much implies that they can disarm themselves.

Yes, I know it's kind of bat crap crazy to do this, but I'm a little OCD about some things.

[cubby]

It doesn't have to be a federal building. 18 U.S. Code § 930 nor I ever mentioned buildings. Federal facility which is defined as: " a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

@cubby, I will defer a bit when discussing legal matters to those that have spent their lives studying such. I'm not a lawyer but I've studied this very small area of law fairly extensively due to trying to be a responsible firearms owner/carrier. I'm certainly willing to admit being incorrect but the exception of:

the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

seems pretty clear. I have no idea if there are any court precedents defining "lawful performance of official duties" to include personal errands. If you know of anything to clear this up, I'm willing to listen.

That section you quote claiming clarity is anything but, and it's also incomplete. The section on federal buildings, however, seems clear enough. Regarding personal errands while on duty, the best example of that situation is lunch breaks. Officers take breaks to get food/etc, and they are still "on duty" regardless of what they are actually doing at the time. It's widely understood that breaks or errands during duty hours are still duty hours. If there is an issue with the errand itself, then the department can review the behavior. Dropping something off at a building/office that is only open when he is on duty is a clear example of proper

Just as a side note, I actually found a copy of the City of Toledo Police Department Manual and using the search feature reviewed every instance of the terms "firearm" and "gun". There is no rule that says he cannot disarm himself. The only rules I found were that each officer must be equipped with a firearm - not that he must carry it all times. And there are rules for how a firearm must be stored if left unattended - which pretty much implies that they can disarm themselves.

Yes, I know it's kind of bat crap crazy to do this, but I'm a little OCD about some things.

It's fun to drill down on these things - it's why I always found the law so fascinating. The rule about "each officer must be equipped with a firearm" is the regulation that you are looking for to confirm that he must remain armed at all times while on duty.

However, as I said before, there are exceptions to that rule. For instance, in the extreme, entering the White House. Even on duty FBI agents must disarm when entering that building.

I think the important issue here is that the private security officer handled the situation about as badly as was possible - short of actually shooting the deputy. I'm relieved to see he will be punished and that the deputy is seeking civil recriminations.

[Citizen T]

That section you quote claiming clarity is anything but, and it's also incomplete. The section on federal buildings, however, seems clear enough. Regarding personal errands while on duty, the best example of that situation is lunch breaks. Officers take breaks to get food/etc, and they are still "on duty" regardless of what they are actually doing at the time. It's widely understood that breaks or errands during duty hours are still duty hours. If there is an issue with the errand itself, then the department can review the behavior. Dropping something off at a building/office that is only open when he is on duty is a clear example of proper




It's fun to drill down on these things - it's why I always found the law so fascinating. The rule about "each officer must be equipped with a firearm" is the regulation that you are looking for to confirm that he must remain armed at all times while on duty.

However, as I said before, there are exceptions to that rule. For instance, in the extreme, entering the White House. Even on duty FBI agents must disarm when entering that building.

I think the important issue here is that the private security officer handled the situation about as badly as was possible - short of actually shooting the deputy. I'm relieved to see he will be punished and that the deputy is seeking civil recriminations.

Police must report in to dispatch when they are "taking a break". This may not be the case in small forces but certainly in larger departments such as this case.

In any case, those personal errands are not operating in the course of their official duty. Otherwise are you saying that local deputies can carry into a federal courthouse/courtroom for their own business? Lunch break to watch the proceedings of a family member for instance? The exemption is the same for federal courts as it is for federal facilities.

It also seems (from further research) that Ohio has a similar law pertaining to carrying into state courthouses with 2 exemptions. The two seem similar, but the first specifies "official duties" and the second does not but only applies to Ohio law enforcement officers. This sort of implies that OH law is similar to federal in that they only allow their own sovereign law enforcement officers to enter armed just because they are on duty.

As I mentioned before, the guard almost assuredly over-reacted. Not having audio and not being there we have no evidence of what was actually said or how. I do not believe that the guard should be charged and do believe that if he is, the deputy should be as well for the federal violation. Any civil matter is entirely up to the individual as essentially that is all between them and not the government per se.

Edit: link to OH law text: https://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthou...ourtrooms#Ohio

[cubby]

Police must report in to dispatch when they are "taking a break". This may not be the case in small forces but certainly in larger departments such as this case.

In any case, those personal errands are not operating in the course of their official duty. Otherwise are you saying that local deputies can carry into a federal courthouse/courtroom for their own business? Lunch break to watch the proceedings of a family member for instance? The exemption is the same for federal courts as it is for federal facilities.

Taking a break is still on duty. Until they are officially off from their shift, lunch/errand/break is still considered on duty. Yes, I'm saying that local deputies can carry into a federal courthouse/courtroom if they are on duty but attending for personal business. That, of course, never happens - as officers do not attend to personal court sessions while on duty. That is far beyond an "errand". However, dropping off a form or something similar would be fine.

All of that falls under the superseding rules of who is allowed to carry into a federal courthouse/courtroom/building. As I pointed out early with the example of the White House.

It also seems (from further research) that Ohio has a similar law pertaining to carrying into state courthouses with 2 exemptions. The two seem similar, but the first specifies "official duties" and the second does not but only applies to Ohio law enforcement officers. This sort of implies that OH law is similar to federal in that they only allow their own sovereign law enforcement officers to enter armed just because they are on duty.

Edit: link to OH law text: https://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthou...ourtrooms#Ohio

Good find. Makes it clear that on duty officers can carry into the courthouse. Shows that the deputy was in the right according to the law. However, again, the federal government building/office rules may supersede.

As I mentioned before, the guard almost assuredly over-reacted. Not having audio and not being there we have no evidence of what was actually said or how. I do not believe that the guard should be charged and do believe that if he is, the deputy should be as well for the federal violation. Any civil matter is entirely up to the individual as essentially that is all between them and not the government per se.

The guard definitely overreacted. We don't even need to see audio or video. The Deputy was in uniform. End of discussion. The guard will most certainly see some fine or jail time - he fucked up royally.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the deputy should be charged with anything. He broke no rule, much less a law.

[Ooid]

How about a source that isn’t The Root? I trust them about as much as I would The Daily Stormer.

[Citizen T]

Taking a break is still on duty. Until they are officially off from their shift, lunch/errand/break is still considered on duty. Yes, I'm saying that local deputies can carry into a federal courthouse/courtroom if they are on duty but attending for personal business. That, of course, never happens - as officers do not attend to personal court sessions while on duty. That is far beyond an "errand". However, dropping off a form or something similar would be fine.

All of that falls under the superseding rules of who is allowed to carry into a federal courthouse/courtroom/building. As I pointed out early with the example of the White House.




Good find. Makes it clear that on duty officers can carry into the courthouse. Shows that the deputy was in the right according to the law. However, again, the federal government building/office rules may supersede.




The guard definitely overreacted. We don't even need to see audio or video. The Deputy was in uniform. End of discussion. The guard will most certainly see some fine or jail time - he fucked up royally.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the deputy should be charged with anything. He broke no rule, much less a law.

I mention audio because we don't know if the guard even inquired if the visit was personal or official. If he did and the deputy told him personal, then I do not believe any charges should be filed. If the officer said official then the guard should be charged but then the deputy is also lying to agent of the government and should be charged as such. If the guard never asked, then there is a whole lot of grey area and that is what juries are for.

Let's set aside the right/wrong of the guard. I'm far more interested in discussing/learning about the LEOs carrying in federal facilities.

My opinion is that "on duty" does not equal "official duties". To make an absurd point, this would mean that while on duty, taking a leak in the middle of a busy intersection is an official duty. This almost entirely exempts on duty law enforcement officers from almost any behavior.

If a LEO enters an IRS office with a warrant, to question a (potential) witness, serve a subpoena, or any other official duty, then they obviously are exempt from being required to disarm. If they are on lunch break and have an appointment with an IRS employee for an meeting/interview over a personal matter, then this is obviously not official duty.

[cubby]

I mention audio because we don't know if the guard even inquired if the visit was personal or official. If he did and the deputy told him personal, then I do not believe any charges should be filed. If the officer said official then the guard should be charged but then the deputy is also lying to agent of the government and should be charged as such. If the guard never asked, then there is a whole lot of grey area and that is what juries are for..

What the deputy was there for is irrelevant. You're ignoring a huge aspect of this case. The guard held a gun on a uniformed Deputy. The guard is going to jail for that. Period. There isn't anything for a jury to decide. He's lucky the charge is so minor.

I'm far more interested in discussing/learning about the LEOs carrying in federal facilities.

I find this part a fun thought exercise. When and how any LEO who is required to carry a firearm while "on duty" is allowed and/or required to relinquish their weapon. We know it happens because of the extreme White House example. But what if an FBI agent is going to the IRS to drop off a form? And then in the current matter, what if it's a local/state LEO with the same requirements.

Jails are an easy situation - as IIRC no one is allowed to enter a prison/jail armed, outside of guards on duty.

My opinion is that "on duty" does not equal "official duties". To make an absurd point, this would mean that while on duty, taking a leak in the middle of a busy intersection is an official duty. This almost entirely exempts on duty law enforcement officers from almost any behavior.

I agree, except for your conclusion. You're assuming that all official duties exempt officers from any behavior. That's not the case at all. While performing "official duties" LEO's must adhere to strict codes of conduct. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at.

If a LEO enters an IRS office with a warrant, to question a (potential) witness, serve a subpoena, or any other official duty, then they obviously are exempt from being required to disarm. If they are on lunch break and have an appointment with an IRS employee for an meeting/interview over a personal matter, then this is obviously not official duty.

But in both cases official duty isn't the issue. It's "on duty" which is different. And some LEO's are always on duty (FBI for example - or at least always required to be armed). So the issue isn't official duty, but on duty, and then what the rules are for the building they are entering.

[Citizen T]

I find this part a fun thought exercise. When and how any LEO who is required to carry a firearm while "on duty" is allowed and/or required to relinquish their weapon. We know it happens because of the extreme White House example. But what if an FBI agent is going to the IRS to drop off a form? And then in the current matter, what if it's a local/state LEO with the same requirements.

Jails are an easy situation - as IIRC no one is allowed to enter a prison/jail armed, outside of guards on duty.

I agree, except for your conclusion. You're assuming that all official duties exempt officers from any behavior. That's not the case at all. While performing "official duties" LEO's must adhere to strict codes of conduct. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at.

I'm not assuming that, I'm saying the logical conclusion of allowing personal errands in this case to be considered "official duty" is the equivalent of saying that anything he does (I'll even specify within the law) on duty is official duty. Is taking his dry cleaning to the cleaners official duty if he is on duty? This is just as much a personal errand as popping into an IRS office.

But in both cases official duty isn't the issue. It's "on duty" which is different. And some LEO's are always on duty (FBI for example - or at least always required to be armed). So the issue isn't official duty, but on duty, and then what the rules are for the building they are entering.

As far as I know FBI are not required to carry off duty. They are allowed to do so but not required. Heck absolutely no off-duty LEO is allowed to carry on an aircraft. Off-duty LEOs fall under LEOSA and they receive no greater power than an average citizien with a conceal carry permit other than it's accepted in all states.