PSP encounter today

[headcase]

The wife and I were returning from a morning out, when the car suddenly died. No warning, no nothing, just died as we turned off of 611 on to Rt33. I coasted over to the left side and parked. Tried re-starting to no avail. We called her aunt to come get us and called AAA to come get the car. While we were waiting, someone rammed the back of a truck down below on the opposite side. No one appeared injured, and we watched them walk around taking pictures of the damage. The aunt showed up and sat in our car, while I stood outside, and we waited for the tow truck.

A few minutes later, a PSP trooper drove up and parked about 50 feet behind us. I started walking toward him as he got out of his car. I greeted him and told him that our car had just died, that we were just waiting on the tow truck, didn't need any assistance, and that we were not involved in the accident. He confirmed that we were OK and then walked down the embankment to get to the accident scene. I favor long sleeveless shirts when it gets this hot, and I was printing horribly, but he didn't say a word. I thought, as I sat there waiting, "Hmmm, I should post this when I get home.".

After about ten minutes, he walks back up the embankment and goes to his car and sits in it for a minute before getting back out. He heads toward us, just as the tow truck driver calls me to make sure of our location. "You have got to be kidding me.", I thought. Sure enough, he approaches us, waits for me to finish explaining where we are, and says, "Which car is dead?".
"This one is Trooper. The car in front is my aunt's, like I said we are just waiting for the tow truck and she is going to give us a ride home.".
"Oh, OK... You have a permit for that?".
"Of course I do."
"Can I see it?".
"Why would you ask, I haven't done anything criminal."
"You had it concealed when you were in the car getting here, so you need one.".
"And I told you that I have one.".
"Well, now I want to see it.".

Here is where I had a decision to make. I got the sense from him that while he was being "professional", he was under the impression that somehow since I was obviously in a vehicle with my firearm just prior to him being there, he had the right, or maybe the duty, to demand my LTCF. He seemed to understand that I was versed in the law, but believed that he was within the law to demand my license. We were all smiles and friendly, but after I answered "Why would you ask...", he seemed to get tense and when he said, "Well, now I want to see it.", it wasn't a request. Things seemed like they were one more question of his authority away from turning ugly, so I flipped my wallet open and showed it to him. He looked at it, through the plastic, for about a good minute, then said, "and the expiration date is...uh huh, 2012. OK.". And then he walked away, got in his car, pulled it down and around, and parked behind the rear car that was involved in the accident.

My wife said, "I knew he was going to say something.". I knew it too.

Maybe one of our resident PSPs can shed some light on just WTF? Do we no longer qualify to be secure in our papers and possessions, just because we carry a firearm? Why do we need to choose between remaining free, and standing up for our rights, and why does that choice always seem to be thrust upon us when we have other concerns to think about, not just our singular persons?

No, the Trooper wasn't being "obnoxious". No, I wasn't giving him "an attitude". The fact of the matter is that we told him he did not need his assistance, yet he insisted on injecting his presence unnecessarily. He created conflict where none need exist. I chose to dispel that conflict by showing him my LTCF, but I did not want to do so. Once again, I am feeling a bitter taste in my mouth after interacting with a State Trooper. The guy stopped to offer assistance.... great, kudos. He was "Professional".... great, good job. But he also, for no good reason, put me in the position of having to do something I should not have had to do. Yes, I understand that it will be argued that he never actually "demanded" anything, but the reality is that he did. He did so with his posture and bearing, making it clear to me, who was right next to him, that if the next words to come from my mouth were, "No.", I was going to be against the car, handcuffed, frisked, disarmed, and would have had my wallet forcibly taken, and my LTCF and weapon run. Hopefully my wife would have held her tongue while this was going on, and not wound up tazed and writhing on the new pavement.

Why?

[rockkrawler628]

subscribed... Like to get an answer for that one.

[Curmudgeon]

.....Why?

Officer safety at the side of the road. With that, they get away with murder, and the courts are supporting it.

[Brudog]

I understand your position but what harm is there in the officer confirming you have an LTCF. It is a requirement since you were driving while carrying. Since it is a requirement I would think he has the right to confirm you have it.

I would say if you were walking down the street while OC'ing and he stopped and demanded to see it then you have a case to tell him to shove it because it would not be a requirement in that case.

I understand holding your ground on your rights but sometimes being polite goes a long way in influencing their attitude toward us in the future.

Just my $0.02.

[SteveinNEPA]

Sorry to hear about the car.

dont beat on me for saying this,im just making an observation. you said you were printing bad, so I take it you were carrying concealed? if so thats probably why he wanted to see your LTCF.
HOWEVER he could have & should have just left you alone as you werent doing anything but waiting for a tow truck.

[1713]

Not saying what this guy did was wrong and I'm not saying what you did or what you felt was wrong either but here's what I would have done. After you refused I would have got your name off your tag. Compared the associated PennDOT photo with that name to make sure I had the right guy. Did my own search of records to see if you did have a LTCF. If that answer was no I would have approached you again and explained the information I had. If you still refused then I would have to work with the information that I had that made your previous response appear not truthful and act accordingly.

[headcase]

I understand your position but what harm is there in the officer confirming you have an LTCF. It is a requirement since you were driving while carrying. Since it is a requirement I would think he has the right to confirm you have it.

I would say if you were walking down the street while OC'ing and he stopped and demanded to see it then you have a case to tell him to shove it because it would not be a requirement in that case.

I understand holding your ground on your rights but sometimes being polite goes a long way in influencing their attitude toward us in the future.

Just my $0.02.

I don't think you do understand my position. If you did, you would not be asking what harm there is. My position is that according to our Constitutions, both Federal and State, we have the recognised right to be secure in our papers and possessions, unless an agent of the government has probable cause of criminal activity to warrant a search of such. The harm in having an officer confirm that I have a LTCF, is that he had zero probable cause of criminal activity, only the knowledge that I possessed a firearm, which in and of itself, provides no suspicion of a crime. You need a license to drive, but he did not seem to care whether or not I had one of those.

Officer safety at the side of the road. With that, they get away with murder, and the courts are supporting it.

What did officer safety have to do with anything in this case? We chatted, he left, then he came back, solely to find out if I was licensed to carry.

Sorry to hear about the car.

dont beat on me for saying this,im just making an observation. you said you were printing bad, so I take it you were carrying concealed? if so thats probably why he wanted to see your LTCF.
HOWEVER he could have & should have just left you alone as you werent doing anything but waiting for a tow truck.

I know why he wanted to see it, everyone knows. The question is why did he feel entitled to see it, and why is it OK with the courts, just because someone possesses a firearm, with no other reasoning or suspicion of criminality, for them to have to prove they are allowed to do so? Much like the PASC wrote in Hawkins, it is not a crime in this Commonwealth to carry a firearm if you are licensed. That being the case, why should a law enforcement officer have the right to demand you prove you are legally able to do something, without a good reason to think that you are not legally able to be doing so?

[Curmudgeon]

I don't think you do understand my position. If you did, you would not be asking what harm there is. My position is that according to our Constitutions, both Federal and State, we have the recognised right to be secure in our papers and possessions, unless an agent of the government has probable cause of criminal activity to warrant a search of such. The harm in having an officer confirm that I have a LTCF, is that he had zero probable cause of criminal activity, only the knowledge that I possessed a firearm, which in and of itself, provides no suspicion of a crime. You need a license to drive, but he did not seem to care whether or not I had one of those.

What did officer safety have to do with anything in this case? We chatted, he left, then he came back, solely to find out if I was licensed to carry.

I know why he wanted to see it, everyone knows. The question is why did he feel entitled to see it, and why is it OK with the courts, just because someone possesses a firearm, with no other reasoning or suspicion of criminality, for them to have to prove they are allowed to do so? Much like the PASC wrote in Hawkins, it is not a crime in this Commonwealth to carry a firearm if you are licensed. That being the case, why should a law enforcement officer have the right to demand you prove you are legally able to do something, without a good reason to think that you are not legally able to be doing so?

Perhaps I should have clarified. It was not a reason, but it would have been used as an excuse.

They don't have to do it, but if they want to, they will.

ETA: Don't you remember when "armed and possibly dangerous" was re-defined to mean "armed and therefore dangerous" even in the absence of any RAS or PC, the mere presence of the gun is all they seem to need.

I really hope I don't need to specify that I agree with your thoughts and feelings on this. I wish to hell I had the financial resources to take to court and begin to undo 100 years of damage resulting from the war on drugs and the voting block of the bliss-ninnies. Oh, the corrections I could make.

[headcase]

Not saying what this guy did was wrong and I'm not saying what you did or what you felt was wrong either but here's what I would have done. After you refused I would have got your name off your tag. Compared the associated PennDOT photo with that name to make sure I had the right guy. Did my own search of records to see if you did have a LTCF. If that answer was no I would have approached you again and explained the information I had. If you still refused then I would have to work with the information that I had that made your previous response appear not truthful and act accordingly.

OK, so what gives you the right to investigate me upon my refusal? My declining to show ID, when you have no cause to demand I ID myself, should not give you a legal reason to investigate me further. And in this case, the tag is registered to my wife, not me, so the investigation would have given you nothing either way. Then what? Because you could not assertain if I was being truthful with you when I told you that I was licensed, you come back and search me? What gives you the right to proceed any farther once you ask if I am licensed, and I answer you affirmatively, absent any other reason to believe I am not being truthful?

[t1m0thy]

I need to stop reading the forum tonight...