STOP, DETAIN, SEARCH - What CAN an Officer Do Legally (IANAL)

[Curmudgeon]

[Emptymag]

One week time-out issued at customer request.

We aim to please.

Thank you and come again.

[Justin///M]

You clowns have proven my point about how you people have no consideration,regard or respect for anyone,not even your own selves.I asked what in the hell does "printing" while "OCing" means and instead of helping out those that are new to owning firearms what you childish idiots instead do is to ridicule,mock and make the new comers here feel like crap and you people are extremely proud of all of that aren't you?To show you selfish idiots that I do in fact know what "printing while OCing" means and for the benefit of those that are new here which we all know won't be here for very long because you childish idiots will run them out of here with your insults and your bullshit "printing refers to the outline on your clothing that carrying a firearm can/may leave.Go ahead and give me an infraction for stating the truth about you people and this shit forum of yours that instead of using to help what you idiots use this forum for is to make fun of those that don't know,what?you idiots came in here knowing all there is to know about firearms,"OCing","printing" and the like?YOU PEOPLE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES ACTING AS YOU DO THEN THINKING THAT YOU'RE ALL SUCH HOT SHIT,AND BY THE WAY "streaker69" NOT EVERYTHING CAN RUN ON BATTERIES LIKE HOW YOUR WIFE'S "B.O.B.",GIVE IT A TRY IF YOU ALREADY HAVEN'T TO SEE IF YOU CAN GET IT JERRY-RIGGED TO USE SOLAR,IT'S THE LEAST YOU CAN DO AND BESIDES,THAT MAY KEEP YOUR WIFE AT HOME WITH YOU WHERE SHE BELONGS.LOL!!!! THAT'S IN REPLY TO: ---Quote (Originally by streaker69)---
Why sure, haven't you ever operated a moveable type printing press while OC'ing your firearm?
---End Quote---
Thats the only thing i can think of. Does it run on batteries? solar?
BRING ON THE INFRACTIONS,BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU TINY LIMP DICK CLOWNS KNOW HOW TO DO IS TO MAKE FUN OF THE NEW PEOPLE HERE INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM AND GIVING INFRACTIONS WHEN YOU GET CHALLENGED WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR STUPID SHIT SELVES,THE MAJORITY OF YOU HERE SHOULD HAVE YOUR GUNS AND YOUR FIREARMS CONFISCATED AND REVOKED WITH THE SHAMELESS IMMATURE WAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF YOU CONDUCT YOURSELVES ON THIS FORUM MAKING FUN AT PEOPLE THAT ARE NEW THEN THINKING THAT MAKES YOU SUCH BIG SHOTS WHEN ALL YOU REALLY ARE IS A BUNCH OF LITTLE SHITS.CHILDREN MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY WITH GUNS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SO I'LL BE DAMNED IF I KNOW WHY SO MANY OF YOU CHILDISH IMMATURE RETARDS HAVE GUNS AND FIREARMS PERMITS.LOL!!!!BRING ON THE INFRACTIONS BECAUSE THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE THE TRUTH OR THE FACT THAT YOU CHILDISH IDIOTS OWN GUNS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR COWARD-PUNK SELVES AND YOUR TINY LIL LIMP DICKS,AND BY THE WAY "streaker69" DON'T FORGET TO PICK UP EXTRA BATTERIES FOR YOUR WIFE'S B.O.B. WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO BUY HER MORE KOTEX.LMAO!!!!!

[sprrdhawk44]

Hot damn that old boy left for vacation in style.

[Gun]

You clowns have proven my point about how you people have no consideration,regard or respect for anyone,not even your own selves.I asked what in the hell does "printing" while "OCing" means and instead of helping out

You made a point of not answering this question,

You mad, bro?

Twice in the post you quoted I saw a reference to printing, and in both instances he said " ...OCing, or printing while CCing..."

Can you explain yourself? It is only your post that makes no sense.
.

... and explaining how you inferred printing while OCing from the text you quoted. Either you truly misread the post you quoted, or you felt like fishing. Fishing is done in your spare time, or while on vacation. Hope you catch a big one.

[dman]

Well , I'd be a little upset to .Stopped , detained , searched ? It's the ," What can an officer I- anally search me is where I draw the Line , No anal probe for me!


Eeeek !

[ImminentDanger]

WOW! ---- I step away for a day and miss the STREAKER in my thread....

And it looks like ETHEL was INCENSED.......

I hope some of the new folks read Posts #1 thru #7 instead of just the last handful.....

...

[ImminentDanger]

Another update to this thread - The following information was added to Post#7:

Return of Seized Property
COMMONWEALTH v. ROSS - DECEMBER 8, 2011
(Commonwealth Court 250 C.D. 2011)
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwe...11_12-8-11.pdf

More specifically, motions to secure the return of property seized by police are initiated pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 588. Under this rule, on any motion for return of property, the moving party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to lawful possession. Once the moving party provides sufficient proof, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to resist the return of property by proving the property is contraband. Commonwealth v. Crespo, 884 A.2d 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

Johnson v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 781, 783-84 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (footnote omitted). This Court further explained:
There is a dearth of case law addressing the question of whether a petitioner has met his initial burden of proving that he is the lawful owner of the items seized. Commonwealth v. Younge, [] 667 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 1995). This is because the only burden of persuasion placed on a petitioner under Rule 588(A) is entitlement to lawful possession or ownership of the subject property. Commonwealth v. Stipetich, [] 623 A.2d 360 (Pa. Super. 1993). In fact, a mere allegation of entitlement meets this burden. Younge, 667 A.2d at 741-42

.

...
(8484)

[ImminentDanger]

COMMONWEALTH V. GOSLIN - FEBRUARY 16, 2017
(PA Superior Court J. E03006/16)
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...7916074935.pdf

PA Superior Court - Clarifies Meaning of Other Lawful Purpose
Defense for Possession of Weapon on School Property. - 18 Pa.C.S. § 912(c)

While we cannot turn to a dictionary to ascertain the plain or ordinary meaning of the phrase “other lawful purpose,” we can analyze the component parts to determine the phrase’s definition. Something that is “other” is “distinct from the one or those first mentioned or understood,” or is “additional.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1598 (1986). A “lawful” act is one that is “allowed or permitted by law.” Id. at 1279. And last, a “purpose” is “something that one sets before himself as an object to be attained,” “an end or aim to be kept in view in any plan, measure, exertion, or operation,” or “an object, effect, or result aimed at, intended, or attained.” Id. at 1847. Accordingly, for purposes of the instant case, the plain meaning of the phrase “other lawful purpose” is an aim or goal different from, or in addition to, an aim or goal described in the first clause of Section 912(c), i.e., in conjunction with “a lawful supervised school activity or course.” The second clause of this subsection, thus, serves as a catchall provision.

Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the “other lawful purpose” language does not restrict the defense provided in Section 912(c). Instead, the phrase does just the opposite: it expands the defense to include any additional or different lawful reason not otherwise mentioned in the first clause of Section 912(c), regardless of whether it is school-related.(3) To conclude otherwise, would make “possessed for other lawful purpose” redundant with “possessed and used in association with a lawful supervised school activity or course.”

...

[ImminentDanger]

COMMONWEALTH V. HICKS - MAY 31, 2019
(PA Supreme Court J-86-2018)
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...2564400534.pdf

PA Supreme Court - Overrules Commonwealth v. Robinson (from 1991 Superior Court)

Majority Opinion Written by Justice Wecht - Joined by Saylor, Todd & Donohue:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...2564400534.pdf

Hicks sought allowance of appeal in this Court, which we granted in order to consider whether the Superior Court’s continued application of the Robinson rule comports with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.(4)

Footnote (4) & (5)

(4) Adopting Hicks’ phrasing of the question, we granted allowance of appeal to determine:
Whether the Superior Court’s bright line rule holding that possession of a concealed firearm in public is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion is a matter of such substantial public importance as to require prompt and definitive resolution by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court?
Commonwealth v. Hicks, 172 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2017) (per curiam).

(5)Hicks also invokes his constitutional right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. II (“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”); PA. CONST. art. I, §21 (“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”).

Although the right to keep and bear arms serves as an important conceptual backdrop to numerous legal issues surrounding firearms and the enforcement of the criminal law, our analysis will not focus upon the contours of that right. The issue presented is one of law enforcement practice, and the constitutional right at issue is the freedom from unreasonable, warrantless seizure of the person for purposes of criminal investigation. As such, this case is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s Terry doctrine, not by the right to keep and bear arms.

A license to carry a firearm further authorizes an individual to carry a firearm openly or concealed within the City of Philadelphia. 18 Pa.C.S. §6108.(6) Accordingly, “[i]n all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms.” Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068, 1071 n.4 (Pa. 1997) (plurality). Stated otherwise, an individual licensed to carry a firearm may do so in public, openly or concealed, within a vehicle or without, throughout every municipality in Pennsylvania.

Crime and violence are ever-present threats in society, and it can be tempting to look to the government to provide protection from “dangerous” people with constant vigilance. However, the protections of the Fourth Amendment remain an essential bulwark against the overreaches and abuses of governmental authority over all individuals. Notwithstanding the dangers posed by the few, we must remain wary of the diminution of the core liberties that define our republic, even when the curtailment of individual liberty appears to serve an interest as paramount as public safety.

More recently, in Arizona v. Johnson , the {USSC} Court articulated the distinct standards for a “stop” and a “frisk” with unmistakable clarity:
The [Terry] Court upheld “stop and frisk” as constitutionally permissible if two conditions are met. First, the investigatory stop must be lawful. That requirement is met in an on-the-street encounter, Terry determined, when the police officer reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a criminal offense. Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and dangerous.
Johnson, 555 U.S. at 326-27(emphasis added).

The Superior Court’s holding in Robinson clearly subverts this fundamental principle. Rather than requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the initial “stop”, the Robinson rule conflated that necessary antecedent with the justification for the “frisk.” The court reasoned that possession of a concealed firearm in public “is sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that the individual may be dangerous,” which, in turn, the court concluded, allows an officer to “briefly detain him in order to investigate whether the person is properly licensed.” Robinson, 600 A.2d at 959 (emphasis added). However, even presuming dangerousness, “dangerous” is not synonymous with “criminal.” As set forth above, a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and dangerous allows for a limited search for weapons only after the police officer ascertains specific and articulable facts to support a finding of reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, so as to justify the intrusion of an investigative detention in the first instance. Mere “dangerousness” is simply an insufficient basis upon which to conduct a Terry stop. This was precisely Justice Harlan’s point in Terry, and it is a clear line that has been drawn throughout the Court’s subsequent decisions.

The Robinson rule purports to deem constitutional the seizure of persons upon a basis manifestly inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that has governed interactions between citizens and law enforcement for five decades. However, although the conflation of dangerousness with criminality is a palpable flaw in the Robinson rule, its effect would be the same if, for some other reason, a police officer is entitled to infer that an individual carrying a concealed firearm is engaged in some type of unlawful conduct, such that an investigative detention would be “justified at its inception.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. Some courts have so held. Because the essence of the Robinson rule is that possession of a concealed firearm establishes a lawful basis for an investigative detention, we now evaluate this proposition, and the problematic consequences that follow.

Conclusion:

In light of all of the foregoing, it has become clear that the Superior Court patently has erred in concluding that the “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.” Robinson, 600 A.2d at 959. This holding facially contravenes established law as set forth in Terry and its progeny, demands no suspicion of criminal activity — let alone individualized suspicion — and countenances a sweeping and unjustified expansion of the authority of law enforcement to seize persons upon the basis of conduct that, standing alone, an officer cannot reasonably suspect to be criminal. Indeed, the Robinson rule does not contemplate a Terry stop at all, but rather a wholly distinct species of police intrusion, untethered from the law upon which it ostensibly is premised, and ultimately lacking any justification in the basic principles of the Fourth Amendment.

We accordingly overrule Robinson and those decisions of our Superior Court that have reaffirmed and applied its holding.

Concurring - Justice Baer:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...2564402464.pdf

Concurring - Justice Dougherty (Joined By MUNDY):
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...2564402892.pdf


News Story - https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylva...e6e-story.html

"The court ruled a police officer’s knowledge that a person is carrying a gun no longer constitutes reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate whether they’re licensed to do so.

The rule that allowed Pennsylvania police to do so “subverts the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment,” the court said. It noted Pennsylvania issues hundreds of thousands of licenses to carry firearms every year."

Comment: This ruling (for Pennsylvania) reiterates the Terry Stop principle: There must be RAS of criminal activity BEFORE A STOP is justified ('Investigative Detention'). ONLY AFTER THAT can the observation (or evidence) of a firearm be considered to justify a FRISK. Observation of a firearm, by itself, is not justification for the initial STOP!

Also note (in PhilaPD-Memo4.pdf) how the Philadelphia PD has been using the Robinson rule for more than 10 years to justify stopping, frisking & disarming law-abiding citizens when suspected (or observed) to be carrying a firearm (PPD - Directive 137)

...