When asked for his name, Mr. McKenzie immediately became agitated and belligerent, yelling and cursing at Chief Dailey, refusing to provide his name, yelling that he knew his second amendment rights, and turning and walking away from the officer. Chief Dailey’s testimony established that he asked Mr. McKenzie his name because Mr. McKenzie was walking behind closed businesses at 1:30 in the morning while carrying a shovel, circumstances that were highly unusual in the small town of Utica, so unusual that Chief Dailey had never encountered them in the eight years he had been with the Utica Police Department. It was not unreasonable, under the totality of the circumstances, for Chief Dailey to believe that a criminal offense was being committed, had been committed, or was about to be committed.
State v. McKenzie
Fifth District Appellate Court
Licking County, Ohio
January 21, 2025
It’s 1:30 a.m. and Ryan is Carrying a Shovel Over his Shoulder Near the Circle K
On or about September 5, 2023, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Village of Utica Police Chief Cameron Dailey was on duty when he observed the Mr. Ryan McKenzie walking near a gas station and across State Route 62 while holding a shovel across his back. There was no traffic, and no other people around. Due to the late hour, the restaurants and other businesses in the area were closed. Chief Dailey observed the Mr. McKenzie walk between a restaurant and a carwash, and then walk behind the closed restaurant. Chief Dailey believed it looked “suspicious coming behind a building,” and decided to make contact with the Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. Ryan McKenzie was carrying a shovel over his shoulder at night near the Circle K in Utica, was this suspicious behavior? Mr. McKenzie loudly proclaimed he had a Second Amendment right to brandish his shovel. How would the court evaluate his behaviors? This is an AI created image.
Is there a Second Amendment Right to Open-Carry a Shovel?
Chief Dailey pulled his cruiser next to Mr. McKenzie and tried to engage him in conversation, but Mr. McKenzie immediately exhibited what Chief Dailey described as “attitude,” yelling profanities at Chief Dailey, saying that Chief Dailey had no right to stop him, refusing to provide his name, and repeatedly saying that he knew his second amendment rights. Mr. McKenzie’s hands remained on the shovel, which was lying over his shoulder, during the interaction. Mr. McKenzie ignored Chief Dailey and continued walking, shouting that he had no obligation to identify himself or to stop, and telling Chief Dailey that he was going fishing. When Chief Dailey asked the Mr. McKenzie where his fishing pole was he refused to answer. Eventually Chief Dailey drove his cruiser ahead of Mr. McKenzie, stopped, and activated his lights. Mr. McKenzie continued to argue, and continued his refusal to stop or provide his name. In addition, when Chief Daily asked him to put down his shovel, Mr. McKenzie refused. Mr. McKenzie turned from Chief Dailey to walk in the other direction. Chief Dailey ultimately pulled his taser and ordered Mr. McKenzie to turn around, at which time Mr. McKenzie finally dropped his shovel and complied.
Fail to Disclose and Obstructing
Mr. McKenzie continued to refuse to identify himself. However, Chief Dailey was eventually able to use a local computerized reporting system to identify Mr. McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie was thereafter arrested and charged with one count of Failure to Disclose Personal Information in violation of O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1), a fourth degree misdemeanor; and, Obstruction of Official Business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A), a second degree misdemeanor.
Trial with One Witness
The bench trial proceeded as scheduled on April 24, 2024. The trial court confirmed with the Mr. McKenzie on the record that he agreed to waive his right to a jury trial, and the matter was tried to the bench. The appellee called Chief Dailey as its only witness, who testified as follows.
Chief Dailey had been a police officer for thirty-two years, and had worked for the Utica Police Department for eight years. He was on duty in the Village of Utica on September 5, 2023, at 1:30 a.m. when he observed the Mr. McKenzie “come walking across from the area of Circle K” and “across Route 62.” He noted that it was usually “pretty quiet” at that late hour, and that was unusual to “even have cars, let alone people walking.”
A Profanity-Laced Harangue
Chief Dailey observed Mr. McKenzie walking with a shovel lying across his shoulders, and then observed him walk between a restaurant and a carwash. Mr. McKenzie then proceeded to walk behind the closed restaurant. Chief Dailey testified that, after observing Mr. McKenzie walk behind the closed restaurant while holding the shovel over his shoulder, he decided to engage in contact with Mr. McKenzie. Chief Dailey drove his police cruiser across the street to the rear of the business where Mr. McKenzie was walking out from behind the business. Chief Dailey stopped and got out of his vehicle in order to initiate contact with Mr. McKenzie and engage him in conversation. Chief Dailey testified that from the onset the Mr. McKenzie’s behavior was “instantly . . . just an attitude,” that Mr. McKenzie was “all upset,” and kept yelling at Chief Dailey, using profanity “numerous times” during the interaction.
Is Carrying a Shovel to Go Fishing Suspicious?
Chief Dailey testified that he continued to ask Mr. McKenzie about his activities because he “just look[ed] suspicious coming [from] behind a building.” Chief Dailey testified that Mr. McKenzie told him he was going fishing, which Chief Dailey found odd, since Mr. McKenzie did not have a fishing pole. Chief Dailey noted that volume of Mr. McKenzie’s voice during their interaction would have awaken people if it had occurred in a neighborhood.
Arrest Under the Threat of 50,000 Volts
Chief Dailey continued to ask Mr. McKenzie to give him his name, and to stop to talk to him, but Mr. McKenzie continued to tell Chief Dailey that he did not have to stop, and that he knew his second amendment rights. Chief Dailey continued ordering Mr. McKenzie to stop, but Mr. McKenzie refused and continued to walk away. Eventually Chief Dailey got back in his cruiser and drove ahead of Mr. McKenzie with his lights to get in front of him, stopped his cruiser, and ordered Mr. McKenzie to stop. Mr. McKenzie continued to argue that he had no obligation to stop or to identify himself, turning around and proceeding in the opposite direction. Chief Dailey told Mr. McKenzie to put the shovel down, and Mr. McKenzie refused. Mr. McKenzie turned to walk away from Chief Dailey yet again, but the Chief “grabbed the shovel.” Mr. McKenzie “pull[ed] away” from Chief Dailey, who “jumped back” and drew his Taser, repeating the order to drop the shovel and threatening to “tase” Mr. McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie finally complied and dropped the shovel. Chief Dailey ordered Mr. McKenzie to turn around, and Mr. McKenzie complied. Chief Dailey then placed the Mr. McKenzie in handcuffs and secured him in the back of his cruiser. The Mr. McKenzie continued to refuse to identify himself, but Chief Dailey was ultimately able to identify Mr. McKenzie with the help of other officers and the local computerized reporting system. Mr. McKenzie was arrested and taken to jail.
There was No Other Suspicious Activity Besides Going Fishing with a Shovel at 1:30 a.m. While Pronouncing his Second Amendment Rights to do so
On cross examination, Chief Dailey testified that there was no additional evidence of criminal activity by Mr. McKenzie other than the suspicious behavior of walking between and behind closed businesses while carrying a shovel at 1:30 a.m., and that the places Mr. McKenzie was walking were all open to the public. Chief Dailey further testified on that there was a stream near the area. Finally, Chief Dailey testified that in his eight years of service in Utica, he had never seen someone walking behind those buildings at that time of night. This concluded the evidence presented in the case.
Guilty Verdict and Four Days in Jail
The trial court found Mr. McKenzie guilty of failure to disclose personal information in violation of O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1), and obstruction official business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A), and found further that the charges did not merge. The trial court sentenced the Mr. McKenzie on the obstruction charge to five days in jail with credit for one day served, a two-hundred dollar fine and costs, with the fine suspended; and, sentenced him on the failure to disclose charge to a one-hundred and fifty dollar fine, which was also suspended. The aggregate sentence was, therefore, four days in jail and costs.
Appeal
Mr. McKenzie filed a timely appeal, and sets forth the following two assignments of error: Mr. McKenzie’s assignments of error are intertwined, and as such will be addressed together.
Obstruction Official Business
Mr. McKenzie was charged with failure to disclose personal information in violation of O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1), and Obstruction Official Business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A).
O.R.C. §2921.29(A)(1) provides that “[N]o person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following: (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.” R.C. 2921.31(A) addresses obstruction of official business, and provides that “[n]o person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.”
Mr. McKenzie concedes at page 11 of his brief that he was in a public place at the time of his encounter with Chief Dailey, that Chief Dailey was a law enforcement officer who requested that the Mr. McKenzie disclose his name, and that the Mr. McKenzie refused to do so. Thus, the pertinent question before us is whether Chief Dailey had a reasonable suspicion that the Mr. McKenzie was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
Note: Substantive established case law was redacted herein.
Being Argumentative is a Factor for Obstructing Official Business
So, too, did Mr. McKenzie herein engage in behavior that exhibited an argumentative demeanor and needlessly escalated the entire incident in which Chief Dailey was investigating whether Mr. McKenzie was committing, had committed, or was about to commit an offense while walking behind closed businesses at 1:30 a.m. while carrying a shovel over his shoulder. Further, Mr. McKenzie’s persistence in disregarding Chief Dailey’s orders was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact, in this case the trial court, could conclude that Mr. McKenzie acted with the specific intent to prevent, obstruct, or delay Chief Dailey in his lawful duties.
Established Case Law – Investigative Detention
A Terry stop is an investigatory detention. Such a stop is valid if the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Taylor at 749, 667 N.E.2d 60. For such a stop to be valid, the officer must be able to point to specific facts when coupled with reasonable inferences from those facts to reasonably warrant the intrusion. The stop “must be viewed within the totality of the circumstances” presented to the officer at the time. State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044, (1980), paragraph one of syllabus. “An officer need not shrug his shoulders at suspected criminal activity because he lacks probable cause to arrest; rather a brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information may be reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Freeman, at 295–296, 414 N.E.2d 1044; citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145– 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (internal citations omitted) Id. at ¶31-32. In State v. Willey, 2015 – Ohio – 4572 the Fifth District Appellate Court found that the defendant’s refusal to cooperate, “shushing” of other witnesses, and increasingly frenzied conduct supported the officers’ suspicion of criminal behavior.
Application of Facts to the Reasonable Suspicion Doctrine
The totality of circumstances presented during the bench trial in this case established that Chief Dailey was able to point specific facts, coupled with reasonable inferences, that warranted his actions. He observed Mr. McKenzie at approximately 1:30 a.m. walking around and behind closed businesses while carrying a shovel on his shoulder. When asked for his name, Mr. McKenzie immediately became agitated and belligerent, yelling and cursing at Chief Dailey, refusing to provide his name, yelling that he knew his second amendment rights, and turning and walking away from the officer. Chief Dailey’s testimony established that he asked the Mr. McKenzie his name because Mr. McKenzie was walking behind closed businesses at 1:30 in the morning while carrying a shovel, circumstances that were highly unusual in the small town of Utica, so unusual that Chief Dailey had never encountered them in the eight years he had been with the Utica Police Department. It was not unreasonable, under the totality of the circumstances, for Chief Dailey to believe that a criminal offense was being committed, had been committed, or was about to be committed. Furthermore, just as the defendants in Starcher, Mr. McKenzie herein immediately began shouting and cursing at Chief Dailey, his volume so loud that had they been in a residential neighborhood Mr. McKenzie’s yelling would have awakened people. Mr. McKenzie submitted that he was fishing, but while there may have been a stream nearby Mr. McKenzie was not in possession of a fishing pole at the time of his encounter with Chief Dailey. Based upon these factors, we find that Chief Dailey had reasonable suspicion to ask Mr. McKenzie for his personal information.
Mr. McKenzie’s Inapplicable Case Law
Mr. McKenzie submits that this Court’s decision in State v. Guleff, 2024- Ohio-748 supports his argument that Chief Dailey lacked reasonable suspicion to ask Mr. McKenzie his name. The Guleff case is, however, distinguishable, as the defendant therein was walking on a street, not in between closed businesses; did not have anything in his hands, such as a shovel or other tool or implement; and, after speaking with his attorney actually did provide his name to the law enforcement officer. The facts of the case sub judice are distinguishable from those in Guleff, as well as the other cases cited by the appellant. Accordingly, we find that, under the totality of the circumstances, Chief Dailey had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant and ask for his name. We find further that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the essential elements of both failure to disclose personal information and obstructing official business. Finally, the trial court’s verdict on the charges of failure to disclose personal information and obstructing official business is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Conclusion and Holding
Based upon the foregoing, we find that Mr. McKenzie’s convictions on the charges of failure to disclose personal information and obstructing official business were supported by sufficient evidence, and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, Mr. McKenzie’s two assignments of error are overruled, and the decision of the Licking County Municipal Court is hereby affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. McKenzie, 2025 – Ohio – 150.
State v. McKenzie, 2025 – Ohio – 150 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate Court on January 21, 2025 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.
Lessons Learned:
- Investigative Detention – Law enforcement may conduct a pedestrian stop if the suspect is exhibiting suspicious behavior. On Monday June 10, 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court issued Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) the court opined “[T]he police should be allowed to ‘stop’ a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity.”. In this case Mr. McKenzie was shouldering a shovel outside of a Circle K at 1:30 a.m. in a small town. When Mr. McKenzie is stopped by Utica Police Chief Cameron Dailey, Mr. McKenzie states he has a right to carry the shovel based on his Second Amendment rights. At this very moment it was if John Terry and the eight justices who determined Mr. Terry’s stop was objectively reasonable were standing on the streets of Utica pronouncing THIS IS reasonable suspicion.
- Failure to Disclose Personal Information – Failure to Disclose Personal InformationR.C. §2921.29(A)(1) “No person, who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following: The person is committing has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.” Mr. McKenzie’s conviction for Failure to Disclose Personal Information was based on his reluctance to give Chief Dailey his name, date of birth and address as the court described “Chief Dailey continued to ask Mr. McKenzie to give him his name, and to stop to talk to him, but Mr. McKenzie continued to tell Chief Dailey that he did not have to stop, and that he knew his second amendment rights. Chief Dailey continued ordering Mr. McKenzie to stop, but Mr. McKenzie refused and continued to walk away.”.
- Obstructing Official Business – To successfully charge and convict a person for Obstructing Official Business R.C. §2921.31(A), each element of the statute must be met: “(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.”. In this case Mr. McKenzie was convicted for Obstructing Official Business based on his own behaviors, as the court opined “Mr. McKenzie’s persistence in disregarding Chief Dailey’s orders was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact, in this case the trial court, could conclude that Mr. McKenzie acted with the specific intent to prevent, obstruct, or delay Chief Dailey in his lawful duties.”.
- Does the Second Amendment Apply to Garden Tools? – “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”. For over two centuries courts have consistently applied the Second Amendment to firearms not garden tools.
- Officer Meader – When I was a young officer, I stopped a man in a residential area who was walking down the street with bolt cutters at 3am in the Short North area of Columbus, Ohio. Shockingly he had an active, verified and valid warrant for Burglary. My suspect was not creative enough to argue that he had a Second Amendment right to carry a set of bolt cutters.
- Pre–Sent Arms! Village of Utica Police Chief Cameron Dailey should be highly commended for his investigative stop and arrest of Mr. McKenzie. Well done!
Does your agency train on Investigative Detention?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!