In a July 22, 2026 decision, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that deliberately arming oneself to answer the door to police may be "privileged" and not constitute obstructing official business. The case involved Conrad, who in 2025 lived in Wickliffe, Ohio, with his girlfriend and their ten-month-old son.

In April 2025, following a verbal altercation during which Conrad's girlfriend allegedly damaged his PlayStation console, Conrad called 911. He informed the dispatcher that he would be armed "because the cops are coming in here." The dispatcher cautioned, "Do not pick it up with your hands, okay?" to which Conrad replied, "Absolutely."

After ending the call, Conrad holstered a handgun on his right hip and went upstairs to await law enforcement. During the 911 call, Conrad explained he armed himself because he believed men were typically arrested in domestic situations and wanted to "eve[n] the playing field" due to uncertainty and distrust of police response.

When officers arrived, Conrad again confirmed he was armed. An officer saw the firearm and informed Conrad he would be relieved of the gun, but Conrad initially refused.

The Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Eugene Lucci joined by Judges Matt Lynch and Scott Ylnch, reversed Conrad's conviction. The court found the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code 2923.12(C)(1)(d) each independently provided a "privilege" under the obstruction statute (R.C. 2921.31(A)).

The court emphasized that exercising a constitutional right cannot be criminalized as obstruction, especially when the official whose order is refused is not performing a "lawful duty" in that context. This principle aligns with prior Ohio appellate decisions such as State v. Dickman (2015).

Additionally, the court ruled that Conrad could be retried, as sufficient evidence exists for a properly instructed jury to convict, consistent with Double Jeopardy Clause standards.

Notable Quotes

  • Dispatcher to Conrad: "Do not pick it up with your hands, okay?"
  • Court ruling: The trial court "erred in failing to instruct the jury that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution, and R.C. 2923.12(C)(1)(d) each independently supplied a 'privilege' within the meaning of R.C. 2921.31(A)."
  • On constitutional rights and obstruction: "A constitutional right of refusal cannot be repurposed as the actus reus of an obstruction prosecution, because the official whose order is refused is not, in that circumstance, performing a 'lawful duty.'"

Background

Conrad's case highlights legal tensions around the rights of individuals to bear arms and interact with police during domestic calls. The court's decision clarifies that arming oneself inside one's home in anticipation of police arrival is protected under constitutional and state law privileges.

Source Attribution: Reporting based on Reason's coverage by Eugene Volokh, July 22, 2026.

Sources: