A WORTHY CAUSE!!

[TangoBravo605]

http://blog.princelaw.com/2017/12/26...lvania-suprem/

My retirement check shows up on Friday. I'll be donating.

[Williamsmith]

Brandishing a firearm in a high crime neighborhood while under the influence of alcohol is not an activity worthy of financial support nor does it seem reasonable to think this case has a chance for reversal by the Supreme Court.....IMHO. I don’t think the case is as monumental as Prince Law Offices makes it out to be....IMHO.

[esh21167]

But if the case is made to sound monumental, average folk will donate to the Prince dynasty.

[Sgt.K]

Brandishing a firearm in a high crime neighborhood while under the influence of alcohol is not an activity worthy of financial support nor does it seem reasonable to think this case has a chance for reversal by the Supreme Court.....IMHO. I don’t think the case is as monumental as Prince Law Offices makes it out to be....IMHO.

The specific point of the brief has nothing to do with the charge(s) or activity(s) of the defendant. The point of the brief is to protect the rights of any of us to carry a firearm (a.k.a. exercising our 2A rights) without giving up our rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (a.k.a. our 4A rights).

I haven't read the original case. I know zero about the original case. The defendant may be an absolutely upstanding citizen or a complete sack of crap. That's not at all relevant to the brief at hand.

I have seen it said that most people commit at least 3 felonies a day, simply because of the number of things that have been made illegal (see malum prohibitum). I'm not suggesting that one intentionally violate these laws simply because they are ridiculous laws, but let's present a scenario:

You are walking down the street in possession of some widget that the local .gov has ruled is prohibited.* Officer Friendly sees that you are carrying your duly licensed firearm, whether OC or your shirt blew up and revealed your CC. He now has probable cause to believe you are committing a crime and may therefore detain and search you to investigate what crime(s) you have committed. Your LTCF means your firearm is good to go, but you are now facing 5-10 for felony possession of a widget. You haven't *done* anything with the widget. The widget has perfectly acceptable and legal uses in your home, but - even though you have been deemed worthy of carrying a firearm - having the widget on your person is a no-no. You haven't taken the widget out, used it, exposed it to anyone, or even suggested to anyone that you had it. But since you were subjected to a search - because your firearm constituted Probable Cause - popo can now cite you. And, since you are now facing felony charges, you need to give up your firearm(s) - possibly for life, but certainly expect the one you're carrying to be confiscated for the duration.

The 4A exists for a reason. I remember Junior.K#1 reciting it while attending the police academy, so I know the popo are aware of it. If .gov is permitted to violate the protections guaranteed to us under 4A simply because we exercise 2A, then there are no protections left except at their whims. That's NOT how it's supposed to work.

* See "Philadelphia knife laws"

[Williamsmith]

There are as I understand it, according to Pennsylvania Law, three types of meetings between police and citizens. Mere encounter, reasonable suspicion and probable cause. These three result in three separate status’s for the citizen. No compulsion to stop, investigative detention and custodial detention or arrest.

Mr. Hicks was viewed in public in a high crime area brandishing his firearm toward another person and a report was made by another party to the police regarding the incident and a description which allowed police to reasonably suspect a crime could be afoot. Therefore they acted on this and did an investigative detention which resulted in a Terry pat down search for the officers safety. Had he not been driving drunk, no charges would have resulted. Those are the facts as I have them.

As to your scenario, one might want to carry your Glock 26 in a galco lite shoulder holster or stay out of windy Philadelphia street corners. Carrying in Philly is the second to the last thing I want to do. The first is actually being there. But I understand your concern and agree with the injustice of the story you propose. Hooking to a case like Hicks seems to be unwise if you want to push the envelope of stupid laws closed.

[TotinMama]

Mr. Hicks was viewed in public in a high crime area brandishing his firearm toward another person and a report was made by another party to the police regarding the incident and a description which allowed police to reasonably suspect a crime could be afoot. Therefore they acted on this and did an investigative detention which resulted in a Terry pat down search for the officers safety. Had he not been driving drunk, no charges would have resulted. Those are the facts as I have them.

That is the at the center of the brief. The police had only a "tip" without anything further on which to base the search.

"3. Under Both the Pennsylvania and United States
Constitutions and the Prior Precedent of this Court,
Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Conduct is Not
Established by the Mere Open or Concealed Carrying
of a Firearm
As protected by the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and
the prior precedent of this Court, reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct
cannot be established by the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm.
i. This Court’s Precedent
This Court, based upon Article 1, Section 21, previously
acknowledged that that firearms are constitutionally protected in the
Commonwealth. See, Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. at 287.1 Thereafter, in
Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652, 657 (1997), in addressing whether
the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Hawkins because of a police
tip that he was seen with a gun, this Court declared:
The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty
to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a
suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in
Pennsylvania, it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates,
notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s fanciful and histrionic
references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and
assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if
the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such invasive police
activity as the Commonwealth proposes – which it does not – such
activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public.
Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the
possibility of conflict where none need exist."

IANAL, and there are others far more educated on the matter, but my understanding is that there is no brandishing law in PA, and therefore there was no illegal behavior. The search was based solely on a MWAG "tip", behavior which is, in itself, perfectly legal.

I agree, Hicks may have been a total POS, but that isn't within the scope of the brief. Prince's stand is that allowing a search under these conditions opens the floodgates. I would agree with that. I have not studied this case in depth, so if I'm missing something please set me straight.

[knight0334]

http://blog.princelaw.com/2017/12/26...lvania-suprem/

My retirement check shows up on Friday. I'll be donating.

The open carry aspect was already answered in PA Commonwealth v Hawkins 1997 - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-suprem...t/1119957.html.

The concealed carry aspect was also already answered in PA Commonweath v Robinson(cant remember which Robinson case).

The PA Supreme Court should throw this new case out the window and refer to the prior cases.


...drops the mic, and walks off stage.

[Sgt.K]

As to your scenario, one might want to carry your Glock 26...

Bite your tongue! I carry a 5" 1911, not some tiny tactical Tupperware.

...in a galco lite shoulder holster...

I actually had it in a Galco Miami Classic II for Xmas Eve services, but it's usually at 3:00 in a hybrid IWB with my shirt tucked behind it.

...or stay out of windy Philadelphia street corners.

Yeah, *I* don't care if they see it.

Carrying in Philly is the second to the last thing I want to do.

You fail to consider going to PRNJ, but I digress...

The first is actually being there.

I honestly cross the city line less often than I do the Delaware (and I live just over a mile from the line), but Viper has made inroads that make it less likely to be unpleasant. For that matter, I may have as well: http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=216917

But I understand your concern and agree with the injustice of the story you propose.

That is the purpose of the brief - to prevent such a story from being permitted to happen.

Hooking to a case like Hicks seems to be unwise if you want to push the envelope of stupid laws closed.

The case itself is irrelevant to the root of the brief. The law is the law. The specific legal points made in the brief (should) get considered on their own merit and - when the court agrees with them - then we have case law that can be applied to any case, including the immediate one. A positive ruling on the brief is good for all, even if you personally disapprove of it being used to help Mr. Hicks.

My 2¢

[Williamsmith]

Since the Hicks case is the vehicle by which the brief is being offered, and the Justices will be making case law based on some aspects of the specifics of the events surrounding that arrest.....the fact that Hicks was reported to have pointed the gun in the direction of another person seems to be reasonable suspicion enough to detain for an investigation of “aggravated assault”. That is not the same as innocently and quite legally carrying openly or concealed in Pennsylvania. Apparently, after investigatory detention the police determined that the aggravated assault did not occur or at least they could not produce a willing victim. And here is where Hicks could improve on his exercise of his 2nd amendment right to be armed. You don’t have the right to whip out your gun without exposing your self to the scrutiny of police acting on complaint of other citizens. Weighing public safety against 2A Rights .....judges are going to land on public safety most often and the result will only be money spent on a lawyer for a losing cause. But I do see the point that is trying to be established here. If this is a problem, then why not use a case with better facts.....like the cc’er was minding his own business and the police took him down. There’s no way to blankety State, because I am carrying a firearm, the police have no right to detain me. It is already understood that the police cannot simply detain you simply because you are carrying a firearm. That I agree with. But they could have a mere encounter with you if you permit it. Lots to think about here when carrying in a hostile city.

[SigForLife]

But I do see the point that is trying to be established here. If this is a problem, then why not use a case with better facts.....like the cc’er was minding his own business and the police took him down.

Maybe it is because we don't have control over the fact pattern or the fact that Mr. Hicks is represented by the Lehigh County Public Defender, including in the appeal. Since you seem so aware of the factual background and arguments made, then you likely know that neither the District Attorney nor the Public Defender addressed Ortiz or Hawkins in any of their briefs, including in the Public Defender's Petition for Allowance of Appeal. The briefs submitted in this matter through the appellate courts thus far have been abhorrent. Thus, the Amici Curiae Brief is trying to preclude negative case law based on the limited options available...