Had a sit-down with the Chief of Lansdale Police

[ViperGTS19801]

Many of you are familiar with the "incident" I experienced with the local police yesterday morning. For those who are not, please at least read the initial post of the thread I started here: Hassled by Lansdale Police for OCing

This morning, I decided, after much deliberation, to go up to the station and, instead of filing a complaint, have a sit-down with the Chief of Police to discuss the matter, as well as express my concerns with the behavior of the officers in question and hopefully familiarize ourselves a bit more in a non-threatening and friendly manner.

At this point I know that many of you are screaming "DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!!! WTF ARE YOU DOING??!!11?one!" I understand your concerns, but I wanted to investigate the inner workings of the law enforcement that I live under, and I was comfortable in knowing that I could avoid doing or saying anything incriminating while there.

I drove up since it was starting to rain, and Sergeant Kromdyk (pronounced: crom-****) came out to greet me. He asked me if I was carrying at the time (looks like he read the report that the officers made yesterday, lol) and he had me secure my weapon in a locker. BTW, I didn't unload it this time. See? I'm learning! =D

After securing it, he and I went back to Chief McDyre's office. The entire encounter was nothing but friendly and professional, and I felt as though they bore no ill-will towards me given what had happened the day prior.

After introducing myself, we sat down, and I explained that I had some concerns regarding the interaction yesterday morning.

The chief told me that the officer who stopped me was upset over the fact that I was trying to record him while it's an illegal act. Based on the information I gathered here, I informed him that I was under the impression that it's not illegal, and cited the "expectation of interception" clause. The chief asked to see the case law that specifically states that. All I had on me at the time was a print out of the transcript excerpt covering the Judges comment regarding the recent Matheny dismissal, which the chief dismissed since it was one individual case regarding one individual person.

Now that I am back in front of my computer, I am a bit concerned, as I am unable to find in Title 18 SS5103 anything that specifically mentions the legality or illegality of a citizen recording the oral communications of himself and an officer in public. Will someone please point out to me where this clause is? I'd greatly appreciate it. Perhaps it is not expressly stated, but can only be ruled as such through legal interperetation - I don't know, since IANAL.

Anyway, the Chief said that since we're in a two-party consent state, if one party states they do not wish to be recorded, then you must stop recording.

After we discussed the issue at length, I essentially came to the conclusion that, if I ever feel as though I need to record an interaction with the police, I need to keep the recorder concealed and not make the officer aware that he is being recorded.

After a while, we moved onto the topic of me being stopped by the police for carrying a weapon openly. They received a phone call about a MWAG and were asked to investigate. The Chief and the Sergeant explained to me that when a citizen calls to complain about activity that they are concerned may lead to or indicates illegal or suspicious behavior, they have an obligation to investigate that report.

Me: "Just because someone makes a call about a man with a gun, that doesn't give the police the right to make a stop and question the person being reported."

Chief: "It's gives us the obligation to stop somebody."

Sergeant: "Not the right - it goes one level above that."

Me: "But without the suspicion of a crime, that citizen can't be stopped."

Chief: "We're waiting for an opinion from the DA on this as to what raises it to the level of reasonable suspicion, it's going to become a huge issue. Do you have a concealed weapons permit?"

Me: "I have a license to carry firearms, yes."

Chief: "No, do you have a concealed weapons permit?"

Me: "I have a license to carry firearms; it's not a permit."

Chief: "What do you mean, you have a 'license'?"

I showed him my license and pointed out that nowhere on the card does it say permit, and he read the top line where it spells out LTCF. He said he was surprised to see that "it had changed, that's not what he's used to seeing" and asked the Sergeant if he'd seen it recently.

We then got into a discussion about 'why carry openly if you are allowed to conceal it because it draws negative attention to yourself by both police and other citizens', but I don't want to go into detail about that crap again, lol.

After a while I simply explained to them the main focus of having this discussion was so that we're more familiar with each other - so that I understand their mentality a bit better and so they know who I am, and that I am not some half-cocked guy with a gun who's liable to shoot up a place. They agreed that it's a good idea to get to know the armed citizens, whether they agree with the mode of carry or not, so that eventually, the more that person carries, the more the police will see them out and about, being legal and not causing trouble.

In addition, the Sergeant told me that if someone makes a panicked phone call to the police saying they saw an angry-looking man with a gun and they also saw him thumbing the weapon and looking like he was going to shoot someone, that they would not only want to question the MWAG, but they would also be guaranteed to detain him until they felt comfortable that he was not a threat because it's a "raised level of concern", even if the call from that citizen was inaccurate.They also expressed that these kind of encounters can just be avoided if you greet the officers respectfully and answer their questions. (goes to make popcorn)

So, that's the gist of my talk with the chief and one of his sergeants. I'm considering this a closed issue at this point, since I now feel comfortable in what to do in the future should I be stopped or feel uncomfortable with any questions, starting with keeping the recorder in my pocket and knowing which buttons to press without looking, and up to and including "AIBD, ORIFTG".

[4XLT]

props for going in and discussing it with them !!

so what i got from your post is that they are fine with breaking the law and stomping on the citizens rights that they patrol over.. hmm not good

.....Me: "But without the suspicion of a crime, that citizen can't be stopped."

Chief: "We're waiting for an opinion from the DA on this as to what raises it to the level of reasonable suspicion, it's going to become a huge issue. Do you have a concealed weapons permit?".....

the new MPOTEC training is all they need ..

[-JD-]

[snip]
After a while, we moved onto the topic of me being stopped by the police for carrying a weapon openly. They received a phone call about a MWAG and were asked to investigate. The Chief and the Sergeant explained to me that when a citizen calls to complain about activity that they are concerned may lead to or indicates illegal or suspicious behavior, they have an obligation to investigate that report.
[snip]

OK up to this far.

[snip]
Me: "Just because someone makes a call about a man with a gun, that doesn't give the police the right to make a stop and question the person being reported."

Chief: "It's gives us the obligation to stop somebody."

Sergeant: "Not the right - it goes one level above that."

Me: "But without the suspicion of a crime, that citizen can't be stopped."

Chief: "We're waiting for an opinion from the DA on this as to what raises it to the level of reasonable suspicion, it's going to become a huge issue. Do you have a concealed weapons permit?"
[snip]

OK, I am bringing this over from the other thread.

Arrgh.


Language is important here! STOP AND QUESTION implies Investigatory Detention. Where is the RAS?

from the MPOTEC Update: http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkb...pdate_2009.pdf

If an officer can develop reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, by a
person engaged in open carry, then the temporary seizure of the person and
confiscation of the firearm would be justified, because the person is known to be
armed and dangerous based on the suspected criminal activity and visible
possession of a firearm. A further frisk would also be warranted to ensure the
person was not in possession of any other weapons. If the officer’s investigatory
detention leads to probable cause, then the person may be placed under arrest for
the crime that has been committed. However, if the officer’s suspicion is allayed
then any seized firearms must be returned to the citizen and the citizen must be
released from the investigatory detention. A firearm may be seized from a person
who the officer knows to be prohibited from possessing a firearm under State or
Federal law.

Officers should be aware that citizens may become alarmed or concerned when
they witness persons engaged in open carry. This may be due in part to individual
sensibilities regarding firearms and the fact that persons engaged in open carry are
infrequently encountered in Pennsylvania. However, a citizen’s alarm or concern
does not alone negatively impact the rights of a person engaging in the lawful open
carrying of a firearm. Officers receiving citizen reports of a “man with a gun”
would be prudent to respond to determine the nature of the report. However, the
rights of any person engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm must be
carefully considered when interacting with such person. Persons engaged in the
lawful open carrying of a firearm are not subject to seizure of their person or
property based solely on the fact that they are engaging in open carry, nor may
they be required to produce identification or other documents. A person who is
engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be
required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or
establish an exemption. Of course, a person engaged in the open carrying of a
firearm may engage in violations of other laws or handle the firearm in an
inappropriate manner which could constitute offenses such as: disorderly conduct,
reckless endangerment, simple assault by physical menace, etc. However, merely
engaging in the open carrying of a firearm would not necessarily constitute such an
offense.
An officer who observes a person who is engaged in the open carrying of a
firearm in the vicinity of a public event attended by the President or other persons
under the protection of the Secret Service must consider whether any violation of
Pennsylvania law is occurring, If there is not a clear violation of the law, it would
be prudent to bring the presence of this person to the attention of the Secret Service
who is empowered under various federal statutes to regulate the possession of
firearms in the vicinity of persons under Secret Service protection.

OK we need the trial transcript from Methany. Does anyone know if it is available?!!!!!!!!

[Johncj5]

Anyway, the Chief said that since we're in a two-party consent state, if one party states they do not wish to be recorded, then you must stop recording.

I wonder if that works both ways, "Officer, will you please turn your dashcam off. We're in a two-party consent state, if one party states they do not wish to be recorded, then you must stop recording."
Or better yet, the interrigation(sp?) room camera.

I bet that'll go over well.

[kadar]

Why do I have the feeling that there are instructors out there that either don't teach or just gloss over the MPOTEC update on firearms?
There is absolutely no excuse why these 2 did not learn this in LAST YEARS update.

[tlgpa]

Good job going and talking to him. I think you (everyone) learned something very VERY important. The chief is an incompetent moron or a liar!

I showed him my license and pointed out that nowhere on the card does it say permit, and he read the top line where it spells out LTCF. He said he was surprised to see that "it had changed, that's not what he's used to seeing" and asked the Sergeant if he'd seen it recently.

That's some scary shit!

Now that I am back in front of my computer, I am a bit concerned, as I am unable to find in Title 18 SS5103 anything that specifically mentions the legality or illegality of a citizen recording the oral communications of himself and an officer in public. Will someone please point out to me where this clause is? I'd greatly appreciate it. Perhaps it is not expressly stated, but can only be ruled as such through legal interperetation - I don't know, since IANAL.

http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...ml#post1133965

I think you should go back and talk to the Chief again. Show him the above info.

Print this out http://paopencarry.org/pdfs/mpoetc_oc.pdf
Show th Chief Question #3 on page 48. Ask him what him and his officers were doing during this part of their training?

Question #3- What can police legally do when they observe a person engaging in open carry?
Answer #3- In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter. Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: prohibitions contained in §6105, possession by a minor §6110.1, possession on school property §912, possession in a court facility §913, carrying in Philadelphia §6108, carrying in a vehicle, carrying during a declared state of emergency §6107), the officer would not have specific reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified.

[reverserboy]

Very nice.....a chief & a sergeant who don't know the law & are willing to violate people's rights. How can we expect a rank & file cop to know his shit when his supervisors don't?? Unfuckingbelieveable.

[XD45]

sounds like you had the chance to go in there w/ all the correct info and just totally blow him out of the water. Instead they walked all over another citizen, and you probably thanked them for it.

Shame... always next time though

[jahwarrior72]

Many of you are familiar with the "incident" I experienced with the local police yesterday morning. For those who are not, please at least read the initial post of the thread I started here: Hassled by Lansdale Police for OCing

This morning, I decided, after much deliberation, to go up to the station and, instead of filing a complaint, have a sit-down with the Chief of Police to discuss the matter, as well as express my concerns with the behavior of the officers in question and hopefully familiarize ourselves a bit more in a non-threatening and friendly manner.

At this point I know that many of you are screaming "DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!!! WTF ARE YOU DOING??!!11?one!" I understand your concerns, but I wanted to investigate the inner workings of the law enforcement that I live under, and I was comfortable in knowing that I could avoid doing or saying anything incriminating while there.

I drove up since it was starting to rain, and Sergeant Kromdyk (pronounced: crom-****) came out to greet me. He asked me if I was carrying at the time (looks like he read the report that the officers made yesterday, lol) and he had me secure my weapon in a locker. BTW, I didn't unload it this time. See? I'm learning! =D

After securing it, he and I went back to Chief McDyre's office. The entire encounter was nothing but friendly and professional, and I felt as though they bore no ill-will towards me given what had happened the day prior.

After introducing myself, we sat down, and I explained that I had some concerns regarding the interaction yesterday morning.

The chief told me that the officer who stopped me was upset over the fact that I was trying to record him while it's an illegal act. Based on the information I gathered here, I informed him that I was under the impression that it's not illegal, and cited the "expectation of interception" clause. The chief asked to see the case law that specifically states that. All I had on me at the time was a print out of the transcript excerpt covering the Judges comment regarding the recent Matheny dismissal, which the chief dismissed since it was one individual case regarding one individual person.

Now that I am back in front of my computer, I am a bit concerned, as I am unable to find in Title 18 SS5103 anything that specifically mentions the legality or illegality of a citizen recording the oral communications of himself and an officer in public. Will someone please point out to me where this clause is? I'd greatly appreciate it. Perhaps it is not expressly stated, but can only be ruled as such through legal interperetation - I don't know, since IANAL.

Anyway, the Chief said that since we're in a two-party consent state, if one party states they do not wish to be recorded, then you must stop recording.

After we discussed the issue at length, I essentially came to the conclusion that, if I ever feel as though I need to record an interaction with the police, I need to keep the recorder concealed and not make the officer aware that he is being recorded.

After a while, we moved onto the topic of me being stopped by the police for carrying a weapon openly. They received a phone call about a MWAG and were asked to investigate. The Chief and the Sergeant explained to me that when a citizen calls to complain about activity that they are concerned may lead to or indicates illegal or suspicious behavior, they have an obligation to investigate that report.

Me: "Just because someone makes a call about a man with a gun, that doesn't give the police the right to make a stop and question the person being reported."

Chief: "It's gives us the obligation to stop somebody."

Sergeant: "Not the right - it goes one level above that."

Me: "But without the suspicion of a crime, that citizen can't be stopped."

Chief: "We're waiting for an opinion from the DA on this as to what raises it to the level of reasonable suspicion, it's going to become a huge issue. Do you have a concealed weapons permit?"

Me: "I have a license to carry firearms, yes."

Chief: "No, do you have a concealed weapons permit?"

Me: "I have a license to carry firearms; it's not a permit."

Chief: "What do you mean, you have a 'license'?"

I showed him my license and pointed out that nowhere on the card does it say permit, and he read the top line where it spells out LTCF. He said he was surprised to see that "it had changed, that's not what he's used to seeing" and asked the Sergeant if he'd seen it recently.

We then got into a discussion about 'why carry openly if you are allowed to conceal it because it draws negative attention to yourself by both police and other citizens', but I don't want to go into detail about that crap again, lol.

After a while I simply explained to them the main focus of having this discussion was so that we're more familiar with each other - so that I understand their mentality a bit better and so they know who I am, and that I am not some half-cocked guy with a gun who's liable to shoot up a place. They agreed that it's a good idea to get to know the armed citizens, whether they agree with the mode of carry or not, so that eventually, the more that person carries, the more the police will see them out and about, being legal and not causing trouble.

In addition, the Sergeant told me that if someone makes a panicked phone call to the police saying they saw an angry-looking man with a gun and they also saw him thumbing the weapon and looking like he was going to shoot someone, that they would not only want to question the MWAG, but they would also be guaranteed to detain him until they felt comfortable that he was not a threat because it's a "raised level of concern", even if the call from that citizen was inaccurate.They also expressed that these kind of encounters can just be avoided if you greet the officers respectfully and answer their questions. (goes to make popcorn)

So, that's the gist of my talk with the chief and one of his sergeants. I'm considering this a closed issue at this point, since I now feel comfortable in what to do in the future should I be stopped or feel uncomfortable with any questions, starting with keeping the recorder in my pocket and knowing which buttons to press without looking, and up to and including "AIBD, ORIFTG".

has anyone else in this thread mentioned that your chief of police is an asshat? no?

he's an ASSHAT. you know what? i was planning on trying get a sit down with my chief of police, but i have a feeling that i'm going to get this same line of bullshit.

[ViperGTS19801]

sounds like you had the chance to go in there w/ all the correct info and just totally blow him out of the water. Instead they walked all over another citizen, and you probably thanked them for it.

Shame... always next time though

Please explain to me how you expect someone who is specifically trying NOT to piss off the police to effectively correct the chief of said police without it turning into an argument, since everyone here knows for a fact that no matter what a private citizen says, the chief will not admit to being wrong?

All that turns into is an argument, then a shouting match, then being kicked out of the building and having the chief specifically want to make YOUR life suck from then on. And nothing is learned!