Arrested by the Philadelphia Police for Open Carry

[whoshisface]

There is no legal basis to suppress the audio recording at trial.

Also, he will not be able to sue the prosecutor or DA's office because they have absolute immunity. The lawsuit will have to be against the individual police officers and the City of Philadelphia.

You have to prove malicious prosecution. Thats tough but there is another way civily
Isnt there, no one takes the long shot and thats unfortunate.

[whoshisface]

They can repress the tape, maybe. But they cant surpess marks memorization of every word that was said when he recalls the details of the stop word for word

[son of the revolution]

They can repress the tape, maybe. But they cant surpess marks memorization of every word that was said when he recalls the details of the stop word for word

True enough, but then it simply becomes Mark's word against the cops, and without the tape to corroborate Mark's recall of the event, the judge will almost certainly side with the police. Seen it happen time and time again.

[NShortino]

At this point, the audio is out there for everyone to hear. The cops know the audio is out there, and the Judge will probably know the audio is out there too. Not that I would put it past the PPD, but telling a story other than what is clearly going on in the audio would be a huge mistake for them to make.

Even if the audio is somehow not allowed in court, if their story is any different than the audio, we'll all know they're lying. The media might not care too much about gun carriers rights, but they'd love a story about cops lying on the stand when there is clear evidence to prove it. This case just isn't important enough for the police department, or the individual cops, to risk being embarrassed and losing the trust of the people (if there is any trust left).

Suppressing the audio and lying on the stand might help in their case against Viper, but it will definitely backfire outside of the courtroom, and hopefully the PPD is smart enough to realize that.

[Daycrawler]

Suppressing the audio and lying on the stand might help in their case against Viper, but it will definitely backfire outside of the courtroom, and hopefully the PPD is smart enough to realize that.

The PPD is not smart or they would have never charged Mark in the first place! Expect lies and deception on there part. I cant see how the tape could get suppressed however stranger things have happened. You are right that the press would love a good story about lies and more so in a court room. Lets just pray that they dont loose intrest in the case before the next big thing comes along!

[PoconoJo]

I brought up the suppression possibility. At this stage of the case, it should be settled. Viper or his attorney should know by now whether or not the tape will be admitted. Even if the matter is not settled, if a motion to suppress has been filed by the DA, which I'll bet it has, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to suppress it, they should know that as well. They may not, however, at this time, wish to divulge that information in a public forum.

The plot thickens...

[BenGlock]

You have to prove malicious prosecution. Thats tough but there is another way civily
Isnt there, no one takes the long shot and thats unfortunate.

Malicious prosecution is not a criminal offense, it is a civil cause of action. Simply put, you cannot sue a district attorney for malicious prosecution, or anything else, under Section 1983 (federal civil rights act) for things done during the course of their official prosecutorial duties since the DA is absolutely immune based on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can sue the police officers involved in the malicious prosecution though.

[son of the revolution]

Malicious prosecution is not a criminal offense, it is a civil cause of action. Simply put, you cannot sue a district attorney for malicious prosecution, or anything else, under Section 1983 (federal civil rights act) for things done during the course of their official prosecutorial duties since the DA is absolutely immune based on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. You can sue the police officers involved in the malicious prosecution though.

Uhhh, thats not exactly true. Remember Mike NiFong ?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...LPLVvA&cad=rja

[BenGlock]

Uhhh, thats not exactly true. Remember Mike NiFong?

You are correct that there are some exceptions, however those exceptions are limited to adminstrative and investigatory functions, as opposed to prosecutorial functions. Administrative and investigatory functions include things such as giving legal advice to police, making statements to the press, or acting as a complaining witness in support of a warrant application. You cannot sue the DA just because the DA decided to file and/or pursue baseless charges since that is prosecutorial conduct that is protected by absolute immunity. In the NiFong case, the theory was that the prosecutor directed the police to set up an improper and illegal line-up, and that he withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, both of which have been held by courts to be non-prosecutorial functions.

[Red]

I do not know if this has been shared yet, but this is how an officer should act with a citizen who is open carrying. Keep in mind this encounter happened in California where the officer is allowed by law to inspect the weapon to make sure it is unloaded, the only way you can opn carry in California. Philly cops my only ask to see a LTCF to make sure the person has a LTCF.

http://youtu.be/ZFzH5Oe-YL4

Philly police lerking here please watch and learn how to deal with the open carrying public.