Store Owner Cited for Stay-At-Home Order Violation

On March 22, 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced that Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton, had issued a director’s order requiring all Ohioans to stay in their homes to combat the spread of COVID-19. The order went into effect just before midnight on March 23, 2020, and is currently set to last until May 1, 2020.

The notable exceptions to the director’s order include individuals and entities that are deemed to be engaged in “essential” activities, businesses, and services, including the attendant travel that is necessary to effectuate them. Any person or business found to be violating the director’s order may be criminally prosecuted.

On April 10, 2020 Fakhry Daoud, 43, was cited by officers of the Cleveland Police Department for violating the stay at home order. The citation Daoud received alleges a violation of Ohio Revised Code § 3701.352, which is cleverly titled “Violations Prohibited.”

The statute reads as follows: “No person shall violate any rule the director of health or department of health adopts or any order the director or department of health issues under this chapter to prevent a threat to the public caused by a pandemic, epidemic, or bioterrorism event.”

The violation is a second degree misdemeanor, punishable by a jail sentence of up to 90 days and a fine of up to $750.

Hair products are not essential. Daoud’s arraignment is currently scheduled for 8:30 A.M. on June 19, 2020.


Real World Police is proud to be an organizational supporter of the Ohio Coalition for Open Government — working to educate, advocate, and litigate the public’s right to know. Want to know more about access to public records in Ohio? Visit

Related, there is a new series of public Patreon posts about access to public records! The most recent installment went live this morning, and is titled “Access to Arkansas Public Records: Why You (Probably) Don’t Have It, and How We Got It.”

Check it out at:

The first post, explaining and introducing the series, is at:


Follow us on Twitter @realworldpolice


Do you have independently verifiable inside information on a story we are or should be covering? Email Your identity will not be revealed without your consent. Because we receive dozens of tips daily we cannot respond individually to every submission. If we need more information from you someone will be in touch.

Remember: we don’t publish footage that has already been published. The tips line is not for requests. Please don’t send links to news articles.


Want to help make Real World Police happen and get rewarded for it? Become a supporter on Patreon today! Supporters get access to:

-Exclusive full-length Real World Police videos
-The Roadcam series
-Supporting documentation: police reports, court records, and other investigatory material
-Material from cases not shown on the main channel, like the arrest of Chris Hansen and the detention of T-Pain that time he accidentally tried to bring a gun through airport security
-Early access to some videos
-And more!

Rather not?

That works too. There are more than 500 free videos to enjoy!

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: rafael.nieves


25 thoughts on “Store Owner Cited for Stay-At-Home Order Violation

  1. Commenter "Louis Cypher" asked "Why do you, the OP, care if the officers faces are blurred or not?"

    Here is my novella-length answer. If you choose to read it, get comfortable.

    I care because it's not about the officers faces being blurred. I believe strongly that government must follow the law, and I believe that transparency is essential for good government.

    The Fourth Amendment implicitly recognizes a fundamental right of privacy, stating that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Under normal circumstances we should not have to worry about unwanted and intrusive interference in our personal affairs. Government, however, is entitled to no such right.

    In a 1914 article in Harper's, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” That powerful statement was about the importance of openness and transparency in government. Secrecy erodes our society and its freedoms. It prevents people like you and me from discovering and checking abuses of power. It prevents you from knowing how your money is being spent. When transparency fades, accountability goes with it. Concentrations of money and power, left unchecked, tend toward secrecy and corruption.

    Let's make this a bit more real.

    A few weeks ago someone wrote a comment on this channel stating that “any body cam is public record and any member of the public can request any footage[…]” Many people believe that to be the case. You might believe it to be the case. It’s not. I told the guy that he was wrong and to stop misleading you all. After throwing a hissy-fit, the guy responded. Citing no sources, he declared that I was wrong, and that my head was too far up Jeremy Dewitte's ass, and then – amusingly – he backpedaled, asserting that “in the vast majority of situations, body camera footage is public record.”

    Many people would get behind that as true. I don't blame them. But they are wrong.

    The following is part of what I responded:

    North Carolina Session Law 2016-88 states that body-worn camera footage is not a public record. Its preamble literally reads “An act to provide that recordings made by law enforcement agencies are not public records.” There is a provision for access if you are in the recording, but even then you have to petition the head of the law enforcement agency in writing, and if they grant your request you are not allowed to make a copy of the video. The same law states “Recordings in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall only be released pursuant to court order.”

    South Carolina Code § 23-1-240(G)(1) states that data recorded by a body-worn camera is not a public record.

    Illinois Senate Bill 1304 exempts most body worn camera footage from disclosure.

    Kansas Senate Bill 22 classifies body-worn camera footage as “criminal investigation documents” and exempts them from disclosure under the Kansas Open Records Act. (Senate Bill 336 (passed May 10, 2018) allows certain people (“heirs at law,” or parents, spouses, adult children, and attorneys) to listen to or view law enforcement recordings only in the case of certain events such as officer-involved shootings and other use-of-force incidents.)

    Louisiana Senate Bill 398 exempts video/audio recordings by law enforcement from the state’s public records laws.

    Minnesota Senate File 498 classifies body worn camera videos as nonpublic, with limited exception.

    Missouri Senate Bill 765 mandates that body-worn camera footage recorded in a non-public place is confidential unless requested by a person in the video or their close relatives. Other than that, access requires a court order. (Even then, if a court orders release, the person receiving it can’t describe or display the recording without notice to ALL non-law enforcement personnel in the video. After that notice, the people in the video body get 10 days to file a lawsuit against you to stop the display or description of the video. Failure to comply with the notice requirement is punishable by a civil action.)

    New Hampshire House Bill 1584 (passed June 24, 2016) mandates that recordings are not public unless they show an officer use of force or an encounter resulting in a felony arrest.

    North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code § 44-04-18.7(9) (2015) exempts from disclosure body-worn camera footage recorded by law enforcement officers or firefighters “in a private place.” 

    Oregon Revised Statutes § 192.501(40) exempts body-worn camera recordings unless disclosure is in the public interest.

    Texas exempts body-worn camera footage from public disclosure except where used as evidence in a criminal case. Tex. Occ. Code § 1701.661(c)-(d).

    Wyoming Enrolled Act 89 (2017) with limited exception bans public inspection of police body-worn camera footage unless it is for a “purpose related to law enforcement investigation” or you get a court order.

    You wrote that “state legislatures are having to catch up to statutorily codify specific provisions for when footage gets released and when it does not.” Most of the laws referenced above were passed in 2016. And most of them are an embarrassment. But they are not going to change if you keep telling people they don’t exist. 

    Wake up.

    If you have been paying attention (and I have been communicating clearly), you should now have a fair understanding of why I care about government following the law. Why I believe we need strong transparency laws, and that those laws need to be equipped with strong teeth. Police non-compliance with rules whose sole purpose is to regulate police should be an enormous red flag. It doesn’t matter what their justification is. If the Cleveland Police Department wants to do something that is currently unlawful, they should attempt to get the law changed — not violate it.

    In producing this channel, I spend more time fighting for access to public records than anything else. In 2018 I was forced to sue the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland when they unlawfully refused to disclose police and fire department records. (I won.) I have been sued twice so far, both times in response to requesting a copy of a public record. Right now this channel has a case before the Attorney General of Rhode Island. We are in mediation with the Clayton County District Attorney's Office in Georgia. The list goes on for pages.

    Some people think that public records are free. They are wrong. In 2019 this channel spent more than $25,000 in fees for access to public records. On November 29, 2019 we paid the City of Orlando $2,143.32 for body worn camera footage. So far they have produced almost none of it. A couple of weeks ago I paid the Orange County Sheriff’s Office $1,092 for them to conduct a search of three months of emails for three keywords. That was talked down from nearly $8,000. Today, in response to an inquiry, they confirmed having received our bank check over a week ago. They have not yet produced anything. What are they hiding? I am going to find out.

    The benefits of transparency are democracy, accountability and participation. Transparency helps to dissuade what is otherwise a well-founded sense of disempowerment, distrust and frustration. How can we the people participate in the democratic process if we don’t have information about the activities and policies of government? Knowledge of what the state and other institutions do is fundamental to the power of people – to the power of the media – to hold government accountable. I will not excuse government noncompliance with the law.

    On that note: first, congratulations on reading that entire book. Second, if you made it this far you would likely appreciate a public Patreon post that went live this morning. It is titled "Access to Arkansas Public Records: Why You (Probably) Don't Have It, and How We Got It." Check it out at:

    *That post is the second in a series on transparency and access to public records. The first post, explaining and introducing the series, is at:

    [I copied Louis Cypher's comment rather than pinning it to avoid the chance of them deleting it.]

    Edit: I mistakenly wrote “Oakland” instead of “Orlando” initially. That word has been changed.

  2. Yeah right, like the inspector would say "it is highly unlikely they would come today and more likely they would come on Monday". Umm hmmm, they really have a rigorous schedule that they adhere to. That is BS right there. He only said that because the police officer was on the phone and he didn't want to get in trouble. All of these COVID restrictions were BS, anybody who was paying any attention at the time would of known they were BS and just let the police and authoritarians within our government take away our rights for our supposed safety. Remember this quote from the guy on the $100 dollar bill, "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.” People need to wake up and never let anything like this ever happen again…

  3. I must have watched every single vid you’ve ever put up @Real World Police and I fully support the actions by the cops in all of them but this shit right here is plain and simple tyranny, end of!!

  4. 15:52 NOTHING blows this guy's cover like the box on the hand truck in the background at 15:52 with a big white sticker on it that says "BUSINESS IS OPEN. PLEASE DELIVER".

  5. this is some shit you would have seen in a dystopian science fiction future movie or read about in book, holy fuck this has scary implications.

  6. So ridiculous. How do they have PC? They have a reported infraction, but they didn't view it themselves. They have absolutely no PC.

  7. Almost a year later Feb 14th Valentines Day & this shit has not gotten any better BUT! worse. Something is got to give! Scary world we now live in. There are not too many places to hide from this tyranny.

Comments are closed.