"Man tries to take loaded gun to hearing"

[MDJschool]

18 Pa.C.S. 913, unlike the vehicle code, provides no express authorization to conduct any checkpoint let alone allow the sheriff to do so. "The members of this Court maintain great respect and express gratitude for sheriffs and their deputies in the performance of indispensable public services within their realm. We reiterate, however, that they are not police officers — nor are they invested with general police powers beyond the authority to arrest for in-presence breaches of the peace and felonies — in the absence of express legislative designation. We hold that the Sheriffs did not have the authority to independently establish and conduct the suspicionless sobriety checkpoint at which Appellee was arrested." Com. v. Marconi, 64 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2013). Good read.

Are you/Mckown asserting that PA sheriffs are not permitted to operate the types of security checkpoints found in most or all of the county courthouses in the state? If so, are you asserting that . . . that it is unlawful for the sheriffs to operate them[?]

Inquiring minds want to know.

I can't prescribe reading therapy, for I am no doctor. This stuff doesn't take a genius. It's not that you're asking to be handfed or spoonfed, you're asking to be breastfed. It's honestly rather amazing that you continue to persist on this earth, given that you sound too lazy to get up from where you are, acquire food, do the necessary chewing and swallowing, and have those lazy bodies of yours process that for nutrients. I've excerpted and cited a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case which spells out a clear limitation on sheriffs in its conclusion, and you're telling me you can't walk that citation over to Google Scholar?

"[B]inding majority decisions of this Court confirm the general understanding that express statutory authorization is required for independent investigations by sheriffs and/or their deputies implicating constitutionally-protected interests of the citizenry. Suspicionless stops, such as those occurring at sobriety checkpoints, are plainly investigatory in nature and just as clearly implicate citizens' constitutional interests. Com. v. Marconi, 64 A.3d 1036, 1039-1040 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations omitted).

"In terms of such independent authority, we conclude essentially where we began. Again, suspicionless stops are not made based on an in-presence breach of the peace or commission of a felony; rather, they are inherently investigatory. Cf. Commonwealth v. Dobbins, 880 A.2d 690, 696 (Pa.Super.2005) (Del Sole, P.J., dissenting) ("In this case, the sheriffs were conducting an investigation, thus looking for a breach of the peace, not witnessing one.")." Marconi, at 1043. "As amply related by the common pleas and intermediate courts, suspicionless stops represent a peculiar — and highly regulated — exercise of police powers, which are particularly broad in matters pertaining to highway safety." Id.

For those whom wish to exercise their rights, to the open courts, to speak publicly at commissioners' meetings, to access public records, and whom must subject themselves to warrantless, suspicionless search of their property by scanner, magnetometer, wand, and physical groping, at threat of force to be denied access to the courthouse or other building containing a court facility, there is virtually no difference between an independently authorized and operated courthouse checkpoint by the sheriff and a DUI checkpoint, in absense of statutory authorization. 18 Pa.C.S. 913 contains no statutory authorization for anyone -- not sheriffs, not state police, not local police, not judicial officials -- to erect or operate a checkpoint or security array.

Two options remain. It appears that Marconi overrules Minich v. County of Jefferson, 869 A.2d 1141 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) ("Minich I") and Minich v. County of Jefferson, 919 A.2d 356 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) ("Minich II") sub silentio. If it does, the sheriffs are legally incompetent to operate the security array and subject any person to search or seizure without warrant or probable cause; our inquiry needn't tread further. Alternatively, we are left with Minich I and Minich II requirements (however nonconformant to law they are), which are as follows:
A) The County must pass an ordinance to implement 18 Pa.C.S. 913. Minich II, at 361.
B) The County ordinance must give fair notice of the search of property, seizure of person, and surrender of wepaons. Minich II, at 360.
C) Signage must exist on the outside of the building (apparently without disregard to the clear and easily undertaken requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. 913 itself!) Minich II, at 360.
D) Requiring emptying of pockets (as into a scanner) and detection by hand-held metal detector is excessive. Minich II, at 360, 339-360 n. 4.
Butler County has no such ordinance. Therefore, whether under Marconi or Minich I/II, the sheriff('s deputies) is legally incomptent to conduct warrantless, suspicionless searches and seizures, to erect and control a security array.

A president judge of the Judicial District issued an administrative order around 2001, banning all weapons and explosives from the courthouse/government-center and ordering certain county employees to enforce this, far exceeding the limitation on weapons possessed in court facilities set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. 913 (see 913(f), definitions.) A president judge has no such authority, nor would such an order be 'statutory authority'.

"The legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a General Assembly[.]" Pa. Const. art. II, sec. 1. "No law shall be passed except by bill[.]" Pa. Const. art. III, sec. 1. Marconi would require "express legislative designation" to allow sheriffs to conduct checkpoints. A president judge is not a member of the General Assembly.

"The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace . . . and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions." Pa. Const. art. V, sec. 10(c). A order banning arms is not consistent with "this Constitution". Furthermore, the president judge is not a member of the Supreme Court.

"The President Judge shall be responsible for ensuring that the judicial district is in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, other rules, and statutes, applicable to the minor judiciary, courts, clerks of courts, and court administrators." Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 116. (This rule is under the rules of criminal procedure rather than judicial administration.) It is probably that the order issued, to which none of us were party, was formed and set without public hearing, notice, or comment, and further it acts beyond the scope of 18 Pa.C.S. 913 in what it bans and what it erects. Therefore, no such administrative order would ensure the judicial district is in compliance with statutes.

This is all without even mentioning the right to bear arms as well as the preemption on municipalities deciding when the citizens of this Commonwealth shall be armed. Every man has the inherent and indefeasable right to possess property -- here, a weapon. Pa. Const. art. I, sec. 1. Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and his state. Art. I, sec. 21. The right shall not be transgressed by the general powers of government -- here, the police power -- and the rights contained on the Declaration of Rights shall be held inviolate. Art. I, sec. 25. The Pennsylvania Constitution is subordinate to Article I, the Declaration of Rights, Gondelman v. Com., 520 Pa. 451, 465-469 (1989), meaning that the legislature's power to make law, by bill, under Pa. Const. art. II and III, and the judiciary's power to make rule, are necessarily subordinate to Article I. Further, Art. III, sec. 16 states that "The citizens of this Commonwealth shall be armed, organized and disciplined for its defense when and in such manner as may be directed by law." Art. IX, sec. 2, states "A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time." Because the citizen has the right to possess and bear arms, and the legislature reserves the power to declare when citizens shall bear arms, the county shall not choose where and when to limit it.

I won't write a brief for those I know will not read it and avowedly present themselves as unwilling to understand law. Yet I remain, what, one of less than ten users on PAFOA willing to delve into statute and case to bring you cited, excerpted materials which you may verify yourself, content you were unwilling to spend the time or effort to acquire or parse yourselves? Please.

[John222]

Basically Hodson does a lot of really stupid stuff and MDJschool tries to justify it using a lot of complicated and convoluted leg as jargon.

[cdi]

Dr. Hobson & Mr. School.

[Sshuker]

I've excerpted and cited a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case which spells out a clear limitation on sheriffs in its conclusion, and you're telling me you can't walk that citation over to Google Scholar?

The problem is that you are seeing only what you want to see. My first attempt at a Google search on courthouse entry searches included this as the third result:

http://www.dsap.org/uploads/3/1/6/2/...nnsylvania.pdf

Give it a read. It is not controlling law, but it is a far more rational examination of the subject. Your entire position is based on a poor foundation and is only supportable if you ignore everything that contradicts what you want it to be.



Dear Moderator,

When I clicked the Post Reply button, the post I replied to had not yet been sanctioned nor the member banned. My reply was not an attempt to "pile on" after the member was sanctioned and banned, as was identified as the reason for closing another thread. My reply is respectful to the member and a legitimate reply to the issue he raised. If you would like me to delete the post, just let me know and I am glad to do so.

[twency]

I can't prescribe reading therapy, for I am no doctor. This stuff doesn't take a genius. It's not that you're asking to be handfed or spoonfed, you're asking to be breastfed. It's honestly rather amazing that you continue to persist on this earth, given that you sound too lazy to get up from where you are, acquire food, do the necessary chewing and swallowing, and have those lazy bodies of yours process that for nutrients.

…

I won't write a brief for those I know will not read it and avowedly present themselves as unwilling to understand law. Yet I remain, what, one of less than ten users on PAFOA willing to delve into statute and case to bring you cited, excerpted materials which you may verify yourself, content you were unwilling to spend the time or effort to acquire or parse yourselves? Please.

Ask a couple simple clarifying questions, get a nasty flame in response.

And yet you wonder why Hobson isn't getting the support you think he should from your posts here.