2009 MPOETC Mandatory In-Service Training

[kurt 10/22]

Originally Posted by LM4300

This type scenario was brought up in another recent thread. Others have made the argument that under that rationale, you could stop anyone you saw on foot then attempt to drive a car because you don't know for sure they have a drivers license. That stop would get be unlawful because you don't have enough information to suspect a crime or violation is occurring.

I've made the devils advocate argument that an officer could argue that he had specific (accurate) knowlege about the legalities of OC and how not all those that OC have an LCTF. Also that they could argue that they know there is still much confusion over when and where you can OC (as evident on this forum, since there has been many times when those wanting to be lawful, wrongfully think they can OC then drive and not need and LCTF since they are OCing their gun), then he could stop and investigate. I know most won't like that argument but I'm just throwing it out there.

I think that either scenario would probably be shot down by an examining judge because you don't have enough suspicion to really think a crime has occurred. i.e.

OC with no circumstances = no evidence of crime
Seeing someone on foot then enter a car and drive it away = no evidence of crime
No other circumstances or traffic violation to warrant a stop = No reason to stop that person.

Hope I explained that well enough.

I think that you explained it exceptionally well, you stated what could happen, but followed it up by stating that in the end, it would not meet RAS.

In the other thread this approach was not used.

Excellent post ! Rep coming.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by LM4300

I wish he would have clarified that you can ask someone to ID themselves verbally, but not demand "papers".

.....thought they are still not obligated to verbally identify themselves unless/until they are being formally 'detained'.

As always, police can ask anything they want, any time they want.

[LM4300]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

.....thought they are still not obligated to verbally identify themselves unless/until they are being formally 'detained'.

As always, police can ask anything they want, any time they want.

True, police can ask lots of things. I can't name any specific case law that deals with when a person must identify themselves (verbally) in a situation like this. To keep it OC specific, if somone calls complaining about an OC citizen and there are no circumstances, other than the caller thought thought this person was carrying a gun in an illegal way, I will still try to find that OCing person and speak to them. I can't just blow off the call because I know OC is legal. There are way too many variables in a scenario like this, but as long as the caller isn't describing any actions by the OCer that are truly illegal, I'm only going to want to ID and get the OCer's side of what happened (if they even knew or suspected someone was calling the PD about them). I know I can't demand a DL, but I will ask for a name, DOB, address and a tel#. This is just for the purposes of a written report, that I will have to write and I would explain that to the OC person. Rest assured, that the person making the call would be asked to provide the same info since they called us. I've never had to do this since I've never encountered and OC person, on or off duty. I have, however, asked for people's same information, numerous times, just to document that I investigated a complaint and I did speak to someone and no crime was committed.

Long story short, in this scenario, if the OC'er, for whatever reason, decided they did not want to speak to me, I don't think I could demand them to stay if the one who called to complain did not describe any truly unlawful activity and none was observed by me.

I know many here don't have that warm fuzzy feeling when questioned by cops for any reason. It's all going to depend on the OC'er, the cop and the specific circumstances.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by LM4300

True, police can ask lots of things. I can't name any specific case law that deals with when a person must identify themselves (verbally) in a situation like this. To keep it OC specific, if somone calls complaining about an OC citizen and there are no circumstances, other than the caller thought thought this person was carrying a gun in an illegal way, I will still try to find that OCing person and speak to them. I can't just blow off the call because I know OC is legal. There are way too many variables in a scenario like this, but as long as the caller isn't describing any actions by the OCer that are truly illegal, I'm only going to want to ID and get the OCer's side of what happened (if they even knew or suspected someone was calling the PD about them). I know I can't demand a DL, but I will ask for a name, DOB, address and a tel#. This is just for the purposes of a written report, that I will have to write and I would explain that to the OC person. Rest assured, that the person making the call would be asked to provide the same info since they called us. I've never had to do this since I've never encountered and OC person, on or off duty. I have, however, asked for people's same information, numerous times, just to document that I investigated a complaint and I did speak to someone and no crime was committed.

Long story short, in this scenario, if the OC'er, for whatever reason, decided they did not want to speak to me, I don't think I could demand them to stay if the one who called to complain did not describe any truly unlawful activity and none was observed by me.

I know many here don't have that warm fuzzy feeling when questioned by cops for any reason. It's all going to depend on the OC'er, the cop and the specific circumstances.

That souds like a reasonable scenerio.
I wish more thought like you!

[LM4300]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

That souds like a reasonable scenerio.
I wish more thought like you!

Thanks

My knowlege on OC is certainly a result of joining PAFOA.org. My opinions have been shaped somewhat by reading the experiences and thoughts of others here. Even some of the one's I didn't agree with! Not singling anyone out, just saying.

If I hear of any interesting OC/MPOETC class discussions, I will update here.

[LM4300]

Originally Posted by LM4300

If I hear of any interesting OC/MPOETC class discussions, I will update here.

UPDATE:

I read over some of the text at the back of the OC section of our handbook. I initially skipped it only because we had been looking at the relevent PA laws that were outlined. I'm paraphrasing part of it here. It clarifies and corrects some of what I posted from the other day.

The book does say that someone carrying in Phila or in an area under a declared emergency, "may" be asked to produce a "valid and lawfully issued license to carry firearms." (they do not specify that is must to be a PA LCTF)

It also states that a person lawfully engaging in OC are "not subject to a seizure of their person or property" merely because they are OCing. Also they cannot be forced to produce ID or "other documents".

Among the relevent laws outlined was:
913(e) Possessing Firearms and other dangerous weapon in court facilities.
So the making available some locker etc. to temporarily store firearms and weapons at a court facility has now been addressed officially by MPOETC.

[markheck1]

Originally Posted by LM4300

UPDATE:



It also states that a person lawfully engaging in OC are "not subject to a seizure of their person or property" merely because they are OCing. Also they cannot be forced to produce ID or "other documents".

It states this verbatim? Dang, that's what we need to carry around

[LM4300]

The only verbatim part was the sections I surrounded in quotes. I paraphrased slightly, but I don't believe I changed the tone or meaning of the sentences in anyway.

This is not to say that if an officer had RAS to stop and frisk someone lawfully engaging in OC that it is not allowed. Only that OC in and of itself is not RAS to do so.

[HiredGoon]

Originally Posted by LM4300

The only verbatim part was the sections I surrounded in quotes. I paraphrased slightly, but I don't believe I changed the tone or meaning of the sentences in anyway.

This is not to say that if an officer had RAS to stop and frisk someone lawfully engaging in OC that it is not allowed. Only that OC in and of itself is not RAS to do so.

Is it possible to scan those relevant pages and post them here?

[shefearsnothing]

I just want a copy of the book.....