COLUMBUS — Three of the current or former Hocking County Sheriff’s deputies who are being sued in federal court over the seizure of a county resident’s guns have denied one of the plaintiff’s key claims –that a court order they served on him in February 2023 did not require him to surrender his firearms immediately, but instead gave him a few days in which to do so.
Sheriff’s officers Caleb Moritz, Craig Johnson, Carl Wilderman and Kyle Arnett had come to the Murray City home of Robert L. Wolfe to serve a protection order that was issued after Wolfe allegedly made threatening statements toward a sheriff’s detective. The order did require Wolfe to give up his guns, but according to him, gave him until the date of a full court hearing on the matter, scheduled for three days later, to turn them in. Wolfe claims that Moritz deceptively left out this part of the order when he read it to Wolfe, and that the officers had no legal authority to enter his home and seize 25 firearms on the day they served him with the order.
In his lawsuit, filed in February of this year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Wolfe also claims that Moritz assaulted and injured him.
Moritz has his own attorney, while Johnson, Wilderman and Arnett are all being represented by the same counsel. The latter three have asked the court to grant judgment in their favor, and Wolfe recently filed a document with the court opposing that request. In a reply to Wolfe, filed Thursday, the three officers maintain that he is simply wrong when he claims the protection order allowed him three more days to surrender his guns.
What the order actually states, they say, is that Wolfe must turn over all deadly weapons to authorities no later than the date of the hearing, or at the time the order is served. Therefore, they conclude, the protection order did in fact clearly authorize them to seize the weapons on Feb. 23, 2023.
The three officers also note that in supporting his claim that they acted unlawfully, Wolfe cites only actions taken by Moritz. But because the motion for favorable judgment was filed on behalf of the other three officers, they contend, Moritz’s actions are irrelevant to that motion.
In support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, the three officers presented arguments specific to Wolfe’s claims of excessive force, malicious prosecution, and violation of the Second and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Because Wolfe has failed to respond to these arguments in his latest court filing, the officers contend, he “concedes that the aforesaid claims should be dismissed.”
They conclude by reiterating their request that the court dismall all claims against them in Wolfe’s complaint.
Email at jphillips@logandaily.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0