LEO encounter at Home Depot in Allentown

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Have you seen post #81 (LEO encounter at Home Depot in Allentown)?

Thank you so much Greg yes I did miss that. Awesome!!!!!

[BlownNitroPontiac]

Don't those legal secretaries have spellcheck on their computers? For the $300/hr. that their employers charge, one would think so.

[BlownNitroPontiac]

By the way: was this case taken on contingency?

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by BlownNitroPontiac

By the way: was this case taken on contingency?

I would humbly advise TC to not answer this (at this time) without attorney consent

[ChrisF4i]

Originally Posted by rotten97

Just a little note about Home Depot , All there employees are trained to suspect anyone entering the store of having the intent of stealing something . The reason it is stressed to go ask Customers/suspected thief if they need help finding something is more so to deter them from shop lifting than it is to help them .

At the very least this is what I was taught when worked a the HD in East York .

That's the way it is at "Old Slavy" also. I used to work there when I was 17 and they taught us that if we saw someone stealing an item we would have to say, "That's a nice belt you picked out, can I help you find some socks to match it?" What a joke, I hated retail.

[BlownNitroPontiac]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

I would humbly advise TC to not answer this (at this time) without attorney consent

I think such a matter is relevant, as it certainly has a bearing on folks' abilities to bring suit in just cases.

My attorney just reviewed some emails of mine, wrote a letter, talked to an engineer and then sent me a bill for $900.

So, that's why I'm curious.

Due to precedent, one would think such a case is winnable. Although yours has gone on for, what, six months?

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by BlownNitroPontiac

I think such a matter is relevant, as it certainly has a bearing on folks' abilities to bring suit in just cases.

There are civil rights attorneys who will take these types of cases on contingency depending on the circumstances and merits of a particular case and the workload and types of cases ordinarily handled by the attorney you approach. Whether any one case is or isn't being handled on a contingency basis really doesn't mean a whole lot so don't sweat it not having an answer in this case.

My attorney just reviewed some emails of mine, wrote a letter, talked to an engineer and then sent me a bill for $900.

I'm going to have to guess that the attorney also did some research and cogitating to provide you with accurate advice. That's what you're paying for.

Due to precedent, one would think such a case is winnable. Although yours has gone on for, what, six months?

IMHO, if the item were just about anything other than a gun, a seizure of his person and property under the circumstances described could only be described as a total slam dunk of a winner of a case. The fact that it was a (OMG!!!) gun makes police and some judges (or jurors if it's a jury trial) get a little squirrly, depending on their own attitudes and biases, which can make the outcome harder to predict.

The bottom line is that the analysis is always the same. In general, did the police have a reasonable suspicion that crime was afoot such that an investigative detention was warranted. Under these circumstances the answer is clearly "no." Carrying a gun openly in PA is lawful. If all the police have is "man with gun," it is legally equivalent to "man with orange juice" for purposes of justifying detention. If "man with gun" does something that can be articulated and is "suspicious" with regard to an actual chargable crime, the ball game changes but it appears very clearly that that's not what happened here.

The next issue is did the police have legal justification to seize the gun either for their own safety or upon probable cause. Well again, if they didn't have legal justification to detain (seize) the OP, they certainly did not have justification to seize his property. Even in a lawful detention (Terry stop) the police must articulate reasonable reasons why they believed the subject is armed AND dangerous to do a pat down or seize a weapon for their own safety. Here there was no lawful basis for the stop and thus certainly no lawful basis on which to believe that the OP was dangerous. The police can't bootstrap a safety issue to seize property for their own safety if their safety was not at risk, or even if they argue that they put themselves in danger by making the stop of an armed person, if that stop was unlawful.

I can't see how any court would ever get to a probable cause issue because given that the circumstances would not support even the lower standard of a finding of reasonable suspicion, there clearly was no probable cause to justify the temporary seizure of the OP or his property.

I've seen an increasing number of these types of situations in terms of you can almost hear the cop say to himself "nobody worry, I'll handle this" just before he does something that absolutely justifies a solid lawsuit against him/her (and dismissal of all misguided charges against the soon to be civil rights plaintiff at the preliminary hearing stage). I can't really "blame" the cop because I think this type of response is a natural reaction and part of the whole "first to make the phone call is the complaining witness" syndrome. Most cops are motivated to help people and when poorly trained use that natural desire as their lens when deciding what to do in a given situation. Proper training would make a more objective approach the instinctive reaction instead of what we too often see happen.

The police often need to be reminded of their role in a free country such as ours -- they are not absolute protectors of everyone against all conceivable dangers -- they enforce the law as written and it is society (generally through our elected leaders) and not the police who decide what laws to enact with regard to, for example, OC. Without that critical understanding, we all lose our most precious rights to be governed under the laws instead of under what the police think best at the moment to "protect" us all. When that happens, it's time for a lawsuit to put it right.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

....

IMHO, if the item were just about anything other than a gun, a seizure of his person and property under the circumstances described could only be described as a total slam dunk of a winner of a case. The fact that it was a (OMG!!!) gun makes police and some judges (or jurors if it's a jury trial) get a little squirrly, depending on their own attitudes and biases, which can make the outcome harder to predict.

.....

This may be an unpopular viewpoint here, but I can place myself in the position of a storeowner and I really can't say exactly where I'd draw the line on visible guns.

Some guy in a suit walks in, with his wife and 2.3 children, pleasant smile on his yuppie face, and he looks for the widget aisle and grabs a cart, and he has a pistol on his hip in a nice shiny leather rig....I'm not worried. But three young guys walk in, not talking, very serious looking, each with a gun stashed in his waistband, then they take up positions where they seem to be covering the exits and watching the cashier....I'm calling the cops and racking the slide on my own piece.

Guns are not commonly visible on people who are not in uniform and are not planning to rob the place. Maybe we're changing that. But for now, anything unusual that involves firearms is cause for consternation, if you run a place that has cash. But a reasonable person looks at the totality of the circumstances. Having a gun is not enough to suspect a robbery, any more than having a dick is enough to suspect rape.

And I really don't understand why open carry is more alarming that concealed carry. It's like mosquitoes, the females bite but only the males make noise, so if you hear a mosquito he won't bite you. But if you DON'T hear any mosquitoes...

It sounds like this case was much more like the first scenario, the guy was clearly a legitimate shopper who happened to be armed, and he shouldn't have been rousted. Without additional factors beyond the gun, like the suspicious behavior, casing the joint, not doing anything that looks like shopping, in other words without being armed AND suspicious I don't see cops having just cause to search and disarm peaceable citizens.

[Adam-12]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

This may be an unpopular viewpoint here, but I can place myself in the position of a storeowner and I really can't say exactly where I'd draw the line on visible guns.

Your property, your rules. Some folks around here might not do business with you if they don't like your rules, but you already knew that.

Some guy in a suit walks in... a pistol on his hip in a nice shiny leather rig....I'm not worried. But three young guys walk in... each with a gun stashed in his waistband, then they take up positions... I'm calling the cops and racking the slide on my own piece.

Sounds prudent to me. We're all responsible for knowing what's going on around us and assessing potential risks.

Just to round out the picture, I'd point out that a crew of robbers taking up position will probably keep their guns concealed until they're ready to strike. So in this case I'd count open carry in their favor, holster-less carry against them, and let their behavior tip the scales. If I were feeling friendly, I might mention that mexican carry is a good way to blow off the family jewels, and suggest they get holsters.

And I really don't understand why open carry is more alarming that concealed carry. It's like mosquitoes, the females bite but only the males make noise, so if you hear a mosquito he won't bite you. But if you DON'T hear any mosquitoes...

Exactly! That really struck me in SFN's debate with Bryan Miller, too. They're all in a tizzy about open carry, but the criminals they should be worried about almost certainly conceal.

[RXM]

GunLawyer - That is actually a fair statement. Same thing could be applied to obtaining a LTCF. A sheriff can see a sketchy guy applying for a LTCF and would have his reservations but if the guy's record is clean...it is a shall issue. However, you can't always judge a book by its cover.