2009 MPOETC Mandatory In-Service Training

[rwilson452]

Are you taught as it is legal it is not sufficient cause for a "Terry Stop"? Although this should be self evident, sometimes you just need to beat on it a little.

Originally Posted by nhughesmd

I recently graduated from Police Academy. OC was covered in much the same way, very mater of factly, without positive or negative. It was explicitly referenced both in class an in our patrol operations and tactics as well. Rest assured that many police officers are aware of the OC laws and new officers are being taught how to handle the situation properly.

[nhughesmd]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

Are you taught as it is legal it is not sufficient cause for a "Terry Stop"? Although this should be self evident, sometimes you just need to beat on it a little.

I feel like I'm walking into a trap, but here goes...

The "Terry Stop" was one of those issues that was extensively covered, but always left you feeling a little confused. The reason being that case law regularly changes the limits and reasons when, where and why an officer can conduct a terry stop. For example, there might be cause for a terry stop if one were to OC in known high crime/drug area where on the other hand there might not be cause in upper-middle class suburbia. So to say OC "is not sufficient cause for a terry stop" would depend on a number of factors, and might not necessarily be true.

Officer safety was always taught as priority number 1. A "frisk" or "pat down", stemming from the Terry v. Ohio case, is acceptable anytime an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe he could be in danger or criminal activity is afoot. A Terry Frisk is primarily a search for weapons, although in some cases more experienced officers will be able to distinguish other items like drug packets etc. It is true that OC is not criminal activity, nor is the officer's safety in danger (except maybe for a few of you ) (All said in jest of course! I know you are all good guys who appreciate their legal rights an abide by the law)

I was taught that in the case of a legal stop and when the person OC/or CCing the officer is allowed to remove any weapons he/she feels are a threat. Of course, those weapons must be returned at the end of the encounter as long as long as no other arrestable crimes have been committed.

[markheck1]

I don't see why OC in a high crime area would be cause for a stop....what crime is suspected of being committed?

And I gotta rep you for the last part.....you didn't say the officer had the right to disarm the person, you said he was "allowed" which is the way it was designed. rights to the people...with power allowed by the people to the government

Oh...and what part of a routine traffic stop requires running the serial number through the illegal regis...errmm...database?

[nhughesmd]

Originally Posted by markheck1

I don't see why OC in a high crime area would be cause for a stop....what crime is suspected of being committed?

First off, thanks for the rep!

This is a case law issue. It has been established that an officer (or anyone for that matter) is in greater danger in a high crime/drug area. If you could only see some of the police survailance videos they showed in class of high crime/drug areas you would understand. The majority of people in those areas carrying firearms and not like you and me! You would be surprised at not only the ammount of guns carried by adults, teens and adolescents, but the guns they are packing. While I was in the academy they pulled a full auto Uzi out of a teenagers backpack in Reading. Yikes!

[HiredGoon]

Originally Posted by headcase

...The hesitation was explained...

I don't understand...is it prohibited to talk about the specific training that was provided??

[DaveM55]

Our update is scheduled for March 5th.

[markheck1]

Originally Posted by nhughesmd

First off, thanks for the rep!

This is a case law issue. It has been established that an officer (or anyone for that matter) is in greater danger in a high crime/drug area. If you could only see some of the police survailance videos they showed in class of high crime/drug areas you would understand. The majority of people in those areas carrying firearms and not like you and me! You would be surprised at not only the ammount of guns carried by adults, teens and adolescents, but the guns they are packing. While I was in the academy they pulled a full auto Uzi out of a teenagers backpack in Reading. Yikes!

I completely understand that, but how many of those are a high dollar gun in a quality belt holster? The majority of the people in those areas are trying to hide their guns because they are illegal, not having them in plain sight. how many of those are going to walk past a cop, with gun on their side, and wave at him?

the line is just too fuzzy, I guess....I wouldn't have a problem with an officer who witnesses someone shoving a gun in their waistband. I just don't see how a properly holstered firearm equates to RAS...

[LM4300]

Originally Posted by nhughesmd

I recently graduated from Police Academy. OC was covered in much the same way, very mater of factly, without positive or negative. It was explicitly referenced both in class an in our patrol operations and tactics as well. Rest assured that many police officers are aware of the OC laws and new officers are being taught how to handle the situation properly.

Good to know this is being covered in the Academy now. It certainly was not when I was there, but that was in the late 90's

Officer safety was always taught as priority number 1. A "frisk" or "pat down", stemming from the Terry v. Ohio case, is acceptable anytime an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe he could be in danger or criminal activity is afoot. A Terry Frisk is primarily a search for weapons, although in some cases more experienced officers will be able to distinguish other items like drug packets etc.

I have to add to this: A frisk can be performed of outer garments if the officer can reasonably articulate that criminal activity is afoot and that the person is armed. I could feel I was in danger because the person I'm stopping is a 6'5" 300lbs muscle head, but I can't use just that to justify a patdown.

If they can also articulate that during this frisk or pat down that they felt something that they immediately know to be some other sort of contraband (i.e. drugs) only then can the officer retrieve that other item. Manipulating that other possible contraband item is not going to fly down the road in court.

Otherwise, not a bad explanation nhughesmd.

[LM4300]

Just got a call back from a co-worker that had the MPOETC training. OC etc. was discussed. He said it was presented fairly. He added that PAFOA.org was mentioned and so was Ms. Hain "the soccer mom" and her OC saga. My co-worker is not a PAFOA member, but knows that I am because I've tried to educate the guys I work with.

He said that many of the others in this particular class were ignorant or misinformed when it came to OC and when someone has to produce ID or an LCTF (No surprise). According to him, some were certainly not enthused when told it was, legal.

By the end of our conversation, I think my co-worker was a good ambassador because he tried to participate in the debate that ensued and tried to reinforce that it should be a no-brainer that cops be safe, but they should follow the law rather than personal opinion if they have to interact with someone OCing, whether it be a dispatched call for a "man with a gun" (with no other circumstances) or seeing it while they are patrolling.

I'm not sure if that message will be heeded by the rest of PA officers once all have been through the In-service training. Of course this class was a tiny sample of all PA cops, but it was not encouraging, from what I gathered.

I'm not trying to rile any one, just give some feedback.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by LM4300

Just got a call back from a co-worker that had the MPOETC training. OC etc. was discussed. He said it was presented fairly. He added that PAFOA.org was mentioned and so was Ms. Hain "the soccer mom" and her OC saga. My co-worker is not a PAFOA member, but knows that I am because I've tried to educate the guys I work with.

He said that many of the others in this particular class were ignorant or misinformed when it came to OC and when someone has to produce ID or an LCTF (No surprise). According to him, some were certainly not enthused when told it was, legal.

By the end of our conversation, I think my co-worker was a good ambassador because he tried to participate in the debate that ensued and tried to reinforce that it should be a no-brainer that cops be safe, but they should follow the law rather than personal opinion if they have to interact with someone OCing, whether it be a dispatched call for a "man with a gun" (with no other circumstances) or seeing it while they are patrolling.

I'm not sure if that message will be heeded by the rest of PA officers once all have been through the In-service training. Of course this class was a tiny sample of all PA cops, but it was not encouraging, from what I gathered.

I'm not trying to rile any one, just give some feedback.

Good info, thanks