COLUMBUS — A Toledo man can sue a city police officer for detaining him illegally in 2010 for openly carrying a semiautomatic handgun in his neighborhood, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, threw out similar allegations made against a second officer who, the court found, had acted in good faith based on what he’d been told by the officer who was on the scene.

“The Fourth Amendment no doubt permitted [Officer David] Bright to approach [Shawn] Northrup and to ask him questions,” Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote. “But that is not what he did. He relied on these facts to stop Northrup, disarm him, and handcuff him.

“Ohio law permits the open carry of firearms …, and thus permitted Northrup to do exactly what he was doing,” Judge Sutton wrote. “While the dispatcher and motorcyclist may not have known the details of Ohio’s open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty.”

On June 16, 2010, Shawn and Denise Northrup were walking down Rochelle Road in their neighborhood with their Yorkshire terrier on a leash when a passing motorcyclist challenged Mr. Northrup for openly carrying the handgun in a holster next to his cell phone. The motorcyclist called 911.

Upon his arrival at the scene, Officer Bright told Mr. Northrup to hand the dog’s leash to his wife, which he did. The officer said Mr. Northrup removed his cell phone and then moved his hand back toward the gun where the phone had been, which the officer saw as a “furtive movement.”

Mr. Northrup said he removed his phone to record the interaction. He kept asking questions rather than comply with the officer’s demand that he turn around and raise his hands above his head. He provided his driver’s license upon demand, but he told the officer to look up his concealed-carry permit himself.

The officer took the gun and put Mr. Northrup in the squad car under suspicion that he was “inducing panic.” The officer learned Mr. Northrup had a valid concealed-carry permit.

Half an hour later, Sgt. Daniel Ray arrived at the scene. Mr. Northrup was released with a citation for “failing to disclose personal information,” a charge that was later dropped.

“They filed trumped-up charges because they made a mistake,” said Mr. Northrup’s Sylvania attorney, Daniel T. Ellis. He said Toledo has not been alone in how cities treat open carry.

“Columbus is very restrictive,” he said. “Cleveland is kind of restrictive. Cincinnati is restrictive. I think Toledo is getting better. Police officers do not want people to carry firearms. They seem not to want to abide by the Constitution that allows people to do so.”

Mr. Northrup sued the officers and other representatives of Toledo police, arguing that they violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution and Ohio law. A U.S. District Court judge in Toledo granted the officers’ motions to throw out some of the charges against him while allowing some to proceed.

Mr. Northrup appealed. Wednesday’s ruling agreed and disagreed with portions of the lower court’s decision. The 6th Circuit threw out all allegations against Sergeant Ray, determining he was entitled to qualified immunity because he had acted based on what Officer Bright had told him.

Adam Loukx, Toledo’s law director, declined to comment on the case because it’s still pending.

Officer Bright had argued he had reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Northrup, noting he was openly carrying a firearm and that he was responding to a 911 call. But the appeals court determined Mr. Northrup can proceed with the allegation that Officer Bright violated his Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.

“Not only has the state made open carry of a firearm legal, but it also does not require gun owners to produce or even carry their licenses for inquiring officers,” Judge Sutton wrote.

Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

First Published May 14, 2015, 4:00 a.m.