Concealed carrier (Retired LEO) stopped by Philly PD

[Deleted]

Valor Morghulis

Who is a man who wears streakers hat and wears streakers beard?

[Pointman73]

Thanks for chiming in SteelCity. I totally agree with the verbal approach aspect, but the problem is that Officers were in both front and back, making it a stop, not a consensual encounter.

Glad to see some folks making obscure references during a post. Seems legit.

[Deleted]

Thanks for chiming in SteelCity. I totally agree with the verbal approach aspect, but the problem is that Officers were in both front and back, making it a stop, not a consensual encounter.

Glad to see some folks making obscure references during a post. Seems legit.

The courts will look at the totality of the circumstances and not one specific like the number of officers in determining whether your friend was seized by the police.

[tl_3237]

As for stopping someone for the mere possession of a firearm... that is covered in two distinct cases in Pennsylvania which have not been overturned yet by our state supreme court.

Commonwealth Vs. Romero is the Philly Case which allows for Open Carry Stops... https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2,34&as_vis=1

The concealed carry case is Commonwealth Vs. Robinson I can't find the link but it's a Pittsburgh case.

Com. v. Robinson, 600 A. 2d 957 - Pa: Superior Court 1991

In the instant case, the only testimony presented at the suppression hearing was that of Officer Hamman of the Pittsburgh Police Department. Her uncontradicted testimony established that on April 16, 1989 appellee was observed by Officer Hamman while on routine patrol. The officer saw appellee bending over into a van with a gun sticking out of the back of his shorts (N.T. at 12). Because of the presence of children in the area, the officer decided to drive 618*618 down the street and discuss the situation with her partner (N.T. at 14). The officers turned their vehicle around, headed back toward appellee's van, and stopped the van. Appellee, who was driving, was asked to exit the van. After he stepped out of the van, Officer Hamman informed appellee that she had seen a gun in the back of his pants. She performed a quick pat down of appellee and discovered a holster inside the back of his shorts. The officer then looked into the van and saw a gun lying on the right side of the floor beside the driver's seat. The gun (a .38 caliber revolver) was loaded and had deep scratches through the serial numbers (N.T. at 19).

...

The present case presents a stronger factual scenario than either Mears or Lagana, since Officer Hamman personally observed the firearm secured in appellee's waistband. The implicit foundation of both Mears and Lagana is that possession of a concealed firearm by an individual in public is sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that the individual may be dangerous, such that an officer can approach the individual and briefly detain him in order to investigate whether the person is properly licensed. In the present case, Officer Hamman was acting upon a reasonable suspicion based upon her personal observation of the weapon in combination with her concern with the presence of children in the area.

------------------

Com. v. Romero, 673 A. 2d 374 - Pa: Superior Court 1996

The uncontradicted evidence adduced at the suppression hearing indicates that in the early morning hours of September 25, 1993, Officer Bolden saw appellee in visible possession of a firearm near the Richard Allen public housing project in North Philadelphia. This observation was a sufficient 200*200 basis for the trained police officer to reasonably infer that appellee was acting in violation of the statutory prohibition against carrying a firearm on public streets or on public property in Philadelphia, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108. Even if these events had occurred in the Society Hill section of Philadelphia rather than in a public housing project, the result would be the same: probable cause existed for Officer Bolden to effectuate appellee's warrantless arrest for contravening the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act.

[Deleted]

Com. v. Robinson, 600 A. 2d 957 - Pa: Superior Court 1991



------------------

Com. v. Romero, 673 A. 2d 374 - Pa: Superior Court 1996

You never cease to deliver!

[sprrdhawk44]

You never cease to deliver!

TL rocks the Kasbah. I consider his knowledge of the law and legal matters to equal or exceed that of anyone here. Anyone.

[Deleted]

So anyway Point man... Comm v. Hawkins is the current autonomous tip case. Take Robinson.. Romero.. Hawkins (if it was truly an autonomous tip) and Au.. roll them all together and I believe your friend was way off base.

[streaker69]

So anyway Point man... Comm v. Hawkins is the current autonomous tip case. Take Robinson.. Romero.. Hawkins (if it was truly an autonomous tip) and Au.. roll them all together and I believe your friend was way off base.

Holy shit, minority report is real!

[Deleted]

Holy shit, minority report is real!

Lol damn tablet spell check.... anonymous

[twency]

Or how about I do this.

Your argument-
PA laws says they can.

My argument-
US Supreme Court says they can't.

tl_3237's argument-
PA law says they can.

Pointman73's argument-
A bunch of tangential SCOTUS cases with differing circumstances suggest to me they can't.

FTFY.