There is a little more about it in Commonwealth v. Hawkins as well.
http://reference.pafoa.org/caselaw/P...lth-v-hawkins/
This is not a situation where a court case is used to create law or set a precedent, rather it is a case that can be used to illustrate laws and rights that already exist...
Quote:
The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to
stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has
a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,4 it is
difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the
Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray
schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go
undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such
invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not --
such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public.
Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of
conflict where none need exist.
|
Thanks for posting this. Sorry I didn't get to meet you at Venice Pizza!