As fourth defendant in gun confiscation suit, Moritz asks court to rule in his favor

COLUMBUS — The fourth of four police defendants being sued in federal court by a Murray City man over confiscation of his guns has filed a motion asking for judgment in his favor. The other three defendants had already done so.

The latest defendant to ask the court for a favorable ruling, in a motion filed Tuesday, is Caleb Moritz, former chief deputy of the Hocking County Sheriff’s Office. The other three defendants, who are current or former Hocking County Sheriff’s deputies, filed a motion for judgment June 20. Those three — Craig Johnson, Carl Wilderman and Kyle Arnett — share an attorney and are acting in concert in the case, while Moritz has his own legal counsel and is conducting a separate defense.

Plaintiff Robert L. Wolfe alleges that when the four then-Hocking County Sheriff’s officers came to his home in February 2023 to serve him with a civil stalking protection order, Moritz neglected to tell him all of what the order said, and then the officers entered his home without permission or a warrant and seized 25 handguns. In the course of this incident, Wolfe claims, Moritz also assaulted and injured him.

In Moritz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, his attorney Daniel T. Downey argues that Wolfe doesn’t actually state any viable claims against the former officer. “Plaintiff alleges grand conclusory allegations of federal and state law violations but does not present any factual allegations necessary to support these conclusions,” the attorney says.

One of Wolfe’s claims is that his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was violated. But even if the court accepted all his factual claims as true, Downey maintains, they would not add up to a Second Amendment violation.

Wolfe has cited the fact that the protection order being served on him did not mandate that he give up his firearms immediately, instead allowing him until the date of a scheduled hearing three days later to do so. But making a point also raised by the other three defendants, Downey notes that the order did not require that the officers wait that long, but gave them the authority to seize the guns at the time of serving the order if they chose to do so. Though Wolfe complains that he was not given the option of turning the guns in later, Downey states, ultimately the decision to seize the weapons that day was at the officers’ discretion.

Wolfe also lodges a Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure) claim. Again, Downey contends that even if all Wolfe’s factual allegations are true, they don’t support a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Though Wolfe has cited the fact that the officers had to walk past two “no trespassing” signs to get to his home, for example, Downey says the presence of the signs is irrelevant, given that the officers were serving a court order.

Another claim in Wolfe’s lawsuit is made under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a number of rights including the right to confront one’s accusers, and have a speedy trial with an impartial jury. However, Downey asserts, it is not at all clear from Wolfe’s complaint why or how he thinks Moritz violated his Sixth Amendment rights, or which specific rights were violated.

As for his claim that Moritz assaulted him, Downey notes that police officers generally have immunity from such claims unless they use more force than necessary to make an arrest and protect themselves from injury.

“Plaintiff has not demonstrated Chief Moritz used any force, let alone more force than necessary to execute the civil stalking protection order and protect himself and the other officers,” Downey claims.

Wolfe also claims he was falsely arrested; he was then charged with obstructing official business, though the charge was later dropped.

Downey argues that Wolfe makes no factual allegations to support the conclusion that there was no probable cause to arrest him. He also suggests that Wolfe’s actions during the incident fit the legal description of obstructing official business.

Finally, Downey maintains that even if Wolfe had presented any viable claims against Moritz, the former officer would be entitled to multiple forms of immunity as a public official.

In addition to the lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Moritz is facing wholly unrelated criminal prosecution in Hocking County Common Pleas Court on charges including theft, intimidation and forgery.

Email at jphillips@logandaily.com