Concealed carrier (Retired LEO) stopped by Philly PD

[Pointman73]

I made my case and you go back to State law like it trumps Federal law.

Since you love to repost, here you go, again.

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998)
Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998)

U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion. Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.

The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following:

•Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation

•Are themselves acts of violence

•Indicate impending criminal activity

•Raise a reasonable concern for public safety

State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.

[Pointman73]

Or how about I do this.

Your argument-
PA laws says they can.

My argument-
US Supreme Court says they can't.

[louie]

There was a time when "Presumption of Innocence" was the Law of the land.

PPD has long since obfuscated this principle; preferring to label all non-uniformed civilians as "potential" criminals.

When an individual is observed committing an unlawful and/or criminal act, Law Enforcement is obligated to perform in a lawful manner in addressing the complaint.

However,

It is NOT their duty to harass law-abiding citizens.


Hell, I've seen PPD officers(?) violate the law on a daily basis.
Another indicator of their "Us versus Them" posture, when dealing with 'civilians.'
I'm not Anti-LEO,
I am Anti-lawbreaker.
Whomever you may be.

[Pointman73]

Please understand my issue is with technique and policy, not the folks involved.

Officers only know their training and the memos that come from upstairs. Our city has experience with getting sued for the lack of understanding the laws enacted and it is atrocious.

I fought long and hard to make sure Officers did their jobs the right and legal way, with compassion when appropriate.

Maybe they meant to do a verbal approach, but it turned into a stop when they came at me from front and rear.

[tl_3237]

Or how about I do this.

Your argument-
PA laws says they can.

My argument-
US Supreme Court says they can't.

You proffered two SCOTUS decisions. For those other PAFOAers [and the OP]who are interested, they can be found at:

Florida v. JL, 529 US 266 - Supreme Court 2000

Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 - Supreme Court 1990

For those that want the 'cliff notes':

Florida v. JL, 529 US 266 - Supreme Court 2000

Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 - Supreme Court 1990

As to the other cites of the 1st circuit and Mass state cases, besides being alien jurisdictions, they were based on stops based on information from third party "observations" as were your SCOTUS cites.

Your posited situation is based on an LEOs direct observation coupled with the 6108 statute. How are these cites supportive/applicable to your position??? Excerpts please...

You seem recalcitrant to engage in a meaningful and detailed dialogue. Since you teach MPOTEC, what do you teach about firearm encounters in Phila - both OC and CC?

[Pointman73]

To the contrary, I have given the background and legal basis for the issue. You skirt the issue with antagonistic form.

In the criminal justice system, the use of case law and it's interpretation to future cases is vital in the application of prosecution. The beginning of the prosecution is law enforcement. In simple terms, anything deemed unconstitutional in the past is forbidden in the future.

Direct observation has absolutely no bearing in this situation. There were no actions or behavior to lead Officers to believe that criminal activity was taking place or about to take place. An Officer may not stop a citizen merely because of possession of a firearm. Where has this not been explained over and over again?

I teach what the law states, not illegal policies.

You already have your mind made up and no one can show you evidence otherwise, no worries.

[sprrdhawk44]

[Deleted]

Anonymous tip cases are nice... but this was not an anonymous tip where the police rolled up, frisked your friend and arrested him for carring a concealed weapon without a license in violation of both federal and state case law.

The officers walked up to your friend and asked him if he was carrying a gun... he obliged them by answering. It is not prohibited in Pennsylvania for the police to walk up to anyone and ask them questions... or ask them for their Identification (Commonwealth vs. Au) This does not turn the encounter into a detention by any means. Even if the consensual encounter was initiated by an anonymous 911 call. Do you even know if it was anonymous? Ken the clerk from WaWa is not an anonymous caller.

[Deleted]

As for stopping someone for the mere possession of a firearm... that is covered in two distinct cases in Pennsylvania which have not been overturned yet by our state supreme court.

Commonwealth Vs. Romero is the Philly Case which allows for Open Carry Stops... https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2,34&as_vis=1

The concealed carry case is Commonwealth Vs. Robinson I can't find the link but it's a Pittsburgh case.

[streaker69]

Is a man Jaqen H'ghar?

Valor Morghulis