Shawn Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep't, 785 F.3d 1128

Background

Shawn Northrup openly carried a holstered handgun while walking with family and recording the encounter on his phone; a motorcyclist complained and called 911 reporting a man openly carrying a handgun.
Dispatcher informed Officer David Bright of an openly armed pedestrian; Bright approached, asked for the leash, and perceived (or later reported) a furtive movement by Northrup toward his weapon.
Bright unsnapped and temporarily took possession of the firearm, handcuffed Northrup, placed him in the squad car for ~30 minutes, and later cited him for failure to disclose personal information; the citation was dropped.
Northrup had a valid Ohio concealed-carry permit, discovered by Bright after detaining him; open carry is lawful in Ohio and citizens are not required to carry or produce a license on demand.
Northrup sued Bright, Sergeant Daniel Ray, and others alleging violations of the First, Second, Fourth (and Fourteenth) Amendments and state law; the district court granted partial summary judgment for defendants but allowed Fourth Amendment and state-law claims against Bright and Ray to proceed.
On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit examined whether Bright had reasonable suspicion to disarm, detain, and seize Northrup and whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop, disarm, and frisk for weapons	Northrup: open, lawful possession absent other facts does not create reasonable suspicion of criminality or dangerousness	Bright: visible gun plus 911 report justified investigatory stop and disarmament	No — visible lawful open carry and the 911 call alone did not supply reasonable suspicion to disarm/detain Northrup (fact dispute re: furtive movement for jury)
Whether handcuffing and 30-minute seizure violated the Fourth Amendment	Northrup: full seizure without reasonable suspicion or probable cause was unlawful	Bright: seizure justified by danger and investigatory needs	Yes as to Bright — seizure violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law (no probable cause defense maintained)
Qualified immunity for Sergeant Ray based on reliance on Bright's account	Northrup: Ray participated in the seizure and should be liable	Ray: arrived after Bright had detained Northrup and reasonably relied on Bright’s report and detective guidance	Yes — Ray entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably relied on Bright’s account and acted in good faith
Whether disputed facts (furtive movement) preclude summary judgment	Northrup: credibility and movement are disputed and must go to a jury	Bright: his account establishes justification as a matter of law	Court: factual dispute (whether furtive movement occurred) precludes resolving justification as a matter of law; jury must decide

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (approach and questioning on public streets can be consensual encounter)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable-suspicion standard for stops and limited frisks)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (officers expected to know clear statutory parameters)
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (officer must point to evidence of dangerousness to justify frisk)
United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (possession of a lawful object does not, by itself, justify a stop)
United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (no automatic firearm exception to Terry)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (anonymous tip about a firearm, without more, insufficient for stop)
Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (full seizure/handcuffing addressed under clearly established Fourth Amendment principles)
Humphrey v. Mabry, 482 F.3d 840 (qualified immunity may attach where officers reasonably rely on fellow officers' reports)