Philly Police LTCF Check

[Bruce]

I started this to ask a question I have regarding what I read in another thread (Re: Started a topic on Domelights about OC in Philly).

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

(since they are required in Phila)

This quote references the idea that Philly cops are 'required' to check your LTCF if you are openly carrying.

It *was* my understanding that, without a 'complaint' (911 call: "Hey! There's a guy walking around with a gun!" *or* "Officer, officer! There's somebody down that street with a gun out!") or unless they get a report of, or witness you, doing something obviously suspicious or illegal, then Philly police have no authority to check your LTCF. This (other) thread has caused me to question what I thought I knew.

I had thought Ortiz (Commonwealth vs. Ortiz) settled this.

While it is extraordinarily easy for a police officer to cite "reasonable suspicion" or "probably cause" to initiate any random/"routine" traffic stop - for instance - I was once told one of my back-up lights was out (which was not illegal where I was living / was stopped); but I would imagine it would not be so easy to stop someone on foot (since my 'back-up lights' work just fine).

The traffic stop I referenced above turned out to be a case of mistaken identity; I was not informed this (just 'detained', in my own car, for 45 minutes), but logical deduction leaves no other reasonable conclusion. I was not given the 'reason' for the stop until the officer returned with my paperwork and told me "you got a (meaning one of two) back-up light out - get it fixed." then promptly left the scene (presumably to search for the vehicle/person he thought I was).

If I was approached by a police officer in Philadelphia (or anywhere, for that matter), I would obey any command they issued (short of anything that was obviously downright dangerous). If the told me to squat on one leg and poo green, I would squat on one leg and poo green. I'd worry about any possible civil/criminal action against them (or the department) well after the encounter.

That being said, I am looking for clarification from someone who knows for certain: do Philadelphia police officers have the 'duty' (without a 'complaint'/call) to inspect a citizen's LTCF (or reciprical/honored out-of-state carry license/permit) when a citizen in question is open carrying a firearm?

I am not looking for opinions here on open carry in Philadelphia, I am looking for information on actual department mandated police procedure and the law.

[Mabuz]

I'm thinking that quote was referencing the permit as being required to carry in any way in Philly.

Now as to the Philly PD being able to ask for your LTCF, I'd think that if you were OCing in Philly, they would be able to ask for your LTCF based on the fact that you must have a LTCF to be carrying a gun in any way there. Not sure if that's accurate as far as RAS goes, but someone here will know for sure.

[danp]

An LTCF is required to carry a firearm in any matter in cities of the first class (Philadelphia) so police would not be wrong in asking to see it based on the law in my opinion.

[PA-Joe]

This is the same question as asking "Do the police have the right to ask you for a driver's license simply because you are seen driving a car?" I think that would be an illegal "Terry Stop!"

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by danp

An LTCF is required to carry a firearm in any matter in cities of the first class (Philadelphia) so police would not be wrong in asking to see it based on the law in my opinion.

I have to disagree, following the reasoning PA-Joe suggests.

If that were the case, it would be impossible for the law abiding OC'er to simply walk across town in less than like 12 hours. You would be stopped basically every few blocks.

[Statkowski]

Asking to see your LTCF just because you're openly carrying, absent no reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, would constitute an illegal Terry stop. Open carry in Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, is not illegal. Same rule as driving a car applies here - you can't stop someone driving a car just to check their driver's license. Yes, to open carry in Philadelphia requires an LTCF. Yes, to drive a car in Philadelphia requires a DL. To assume anything else is to assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. If asked, comply, not voluntarily but under duress. State your objections and follow up with a written complaint.

[danp]

I stand very corrected on this issue, I was not thinking about it in the terms of a terry stop and more in the terms of "It is illegal to carry a firearm in Philadelphia without an LTCF so you could not refuse to produce one if asked."

[TaePo]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

If that were the case, it would be impossible for the law abiding OC'er to simply walk across town in less than like 12 hours. You would be stopped basically every few blocks.

Well, have to disagree slightly here.

On the first stop, you would probably have your s/n run, and if not in the recent PSP sales dB, then they will probably take it from you! (sigh)

Then they will leave you and all the criminals would probably stop you every block or so!

(A little sarcasm with a grain of truth)

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by PA-Joe

This is the same question as asking "Do the police have the right to ask you for a driver's license simply because you are seen driving a car?" I think that would be an illegal "Terry Stop!"

that's how i had always thought of it, too. but then a lawyer posted an interesting take on it...

he thought the courts would allow a request for an LTCF just because a police officer somehow suspected you were carrying a concealed gun (and this would be analogous to open carrying in philly since you need an LTCF to do it).

he thought the courts would follow the rationale of: "Most adults have a driver's license. Thus, if you see an adult driving a car, it is reasonable to assume he is licensed. However, very few people (relative to the entire population) have LTCFs. Thus, if you see someone carrying a gun, it is not necessarily reasonable to assume that person has an LTCF...and, statistically speaking, might be quite reasonable to suspect he does not."

there are two cases that seem to back this idea up. commonwealth v. robinson and commonwealth v. stevenson. i have never been able to find a copy of commonwealth v. robinson, but in commonwealth v. stevenson, the courts did uphold a terry search (and all evidence that came about thereafter) which the police did solely on the suspicion that a man was carrying a concealed firearm.

there were some extenuating cicumstances, though.

1. the police officer involved had specific training in spotting concealed weapons.

2. the police officer suspected the gun was being carried in a pocket without a holster...and noted that people who carry guns as part of their jobs and LTCF holders tend to carry in holsters. so, in the officer's view, the fact that he suspected the gun was in a pocket and not in a holster contributed to his suspicion that the guy was carrying the gun illegally.

3. after making eye contact with the officers, the man started acting nervous and kept "checking" the pocket in which the officer suspected he was carrying the gun.

(and, of course, it turned out that the guy did have an concealed gun...did not have an LTCF...and did also have crack cocaine on him.)

the court took all of this into account in saying that the totality of the circumstances did, in fact, give an officer with the specific training this officer had RAS to believe the man was illegally carrying a gun.

so, imho, because of the rest of the circumstances, this case does not directly answer the question of "can an officer detain you, terry search you, and demand your LTCF solely because he knows you are carrying a gun?", but it certainly leans very hard in the direction of "yes, he can".

[Elmar]

Once there is evidence however to show that most people who carry openly are authorized to do so then it becomes unreasonable to assume that any given person carrying a firearm is of the small minority that carries it (openly) illegally.

Is the scope of consideration the people by in large or the more restrictive pool of people who undertake the action (of either driving or carrying a firearm)?