Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philadelphia PD won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
    Oh and we're not on a range day, we point our guns at people all the time. We do so for a reason. Who is more prepared to use deadly force and therefore has the tactical advantage. The one who has his gun on target or the one who has his gun in the holster? We operate from a position of advantage to keep things from going south
    ...and to make sure our asses don't suddenly sprout more holes...

    -V

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lawdawg45
      With all due respect, there is quite a bit of free thought and bantering back and forth on this forum, but it's fairly evident by some of the uneducated responses that there are several imposter's in the bunch. I don't mind Dispatchers, Corrections Officers or even security guards, but people pretending to be LEO's have no business here..........as the forum rules state at the top of every page.

      LD45
      If they're breaking the rules, sure. But I took the implication as "If you disagree with me on this topic, you're not a real cop because a real cop would never think that way."

      If I misinterpreted what was being said, I apologize.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by opencarry View Post
        Right or wrong on the officers part the guy should have complied and taken issue with it later, he had audio he did not need to be a street lawyer. He was not verbally confrontational but he made himself be almost as much of a moron as the officer that started the encounter in the manner he did.

        Having your hand on your gun when you start the encounter is one thing...aiming it is something entirely different that goes against every common sense rule of gun handling
        I agree. I wasn't so much excusing the citizen's behavior as taking issue with the exaggerated characterization of it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Lawdawg45
          You then have to question the motive of the person since you were able to listen to a recording of the event!

          LD45
          Perhaps. But the motive of a citizen is irrelevant to how a professional should respond to him, assuming no crime is being committed, as was the case here.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vincelli View Post
            This is ludicrous. Doesn't matter if he's saying "I'm so sorry I'm not complying with your commands; so sorry with sugar on top".

            If he's not complying, he's not complying, and his demeanor means nothing at that point. I understand some points you make, even when I disagree with them, but this is just ridiculous for any Cop to say...

            -V
            I didn't day he wasn't complying. I said he wasn't being confrontational about it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BTR1701 View Post
              I didn't day he wasn't complying. I said he wasn't being confrontational about it.
              Sorry, but on the street in this type of situation, if he's not complying then he IS being confrontational.

              You seem to view "confrontational" as solely based upon a person's words and demeanor. Words and demeanor don't cause injury, actions do. I'd much rather have a suspect who is "verbally" confrontational but is complying, than have one who is trying to kick the living **** out of me while saying "sorry Officer, I really don't understand why I'm trying to kill you..." but I guess to you that would be a non-confrontational encounter and the Officer would be in the wrong for defending himself.

              Sheesh.

              -V

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
                AGAIN - AND AGAIN:

                #1. THERE IS A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING. As I stated before, until 9/11 no one thought a plane could be used as a weapon; until Columbine no one thought kids would take guns to school and shoot up their classmates; until Oklahoma City no one thought someone would park a bomb in front of a federal building. Just because a criminal hasn't OC'd in the past, doesn't mean they won't ever do it. How do you know that a criminal won't OC? Are you psychic? Are you willing to put peoples lives and your livelihood at risk by assuming they have a permit? No. I think not. It's easy to sit back and in your perfect little world and "know" that everyone who open carries is a law abiding citizen. Then there is the real world where sh*t happens. Get over yourself. The officer has a DUTY to make sure that anyone carrying a weapon is carrying it legally.
                With all due respect you have your facts wrong.

                Between 1966 and Columbine there are over 2 dozen cases of shootings and shooting rampages in schools by students and incidents before that but the records are a little harder to dig up.

                The Weather Underground bombings and arsons of many government buildings in the 1970s.
                In 1920 the Bolshevists exploded a bomb in a horse drawn carriage on Wall Street, killing 35 and injuring hundreds.

                The 1940 - 1956 "Mad Bomber" bombing public places, including government buildings.

                The 1970 Sterling Hall bombing of the Army Mathematics Research Center.

                The 1971 attempted bombing of a police station by the Black Panthers.

                The 1974 bombing of TWA Flight 841.

                The 1975 bombing at LaGuardia Airport, killing eleven and injuring 75.

                The 1977 bombing by FALN of a Defense Department security personnel building.

                The 1980 FALN raids of campaign headquarters of President Jimmy Carter and campaign headquarters of George H. W. Bush.

                The 1980 bombing of the Statue of Liberty story room.

                The 1982 FALN bombings outside of the Federal Plaza in Manhattan, FBI Headquarters and a United States courthouse in Brooklyn.

                The 1983 bombing of the US Senate building.

                The 1993 assault rifle killings in front of CIA headquarters.

                The 1993 WTC bombing.

                There are more examples but that should be sufficient.

                The difference I believe is the masses are more willing to give up freedoms for security now than they used to be.
                The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BTR1701 View Post
                  Perhaps. But the motive of a citizen is irrelevant to how a professional should respond to him, assuming no crime is being committed, as was the case here.
                  I would not say that no crime was being committed. The crime of carrying a weapon presumptively was being committed, and the crime of obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties was being committed. Regardless of whether the officer was being rude, the suspect had a duty to comply.
                  Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                  Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
                    With all due respect you have your facts wrong.

                    Between 1966 and Columbine there are over 2 dozen cases of shootings and shooting rampages in schools by students and incidents before that but the records are a little harder to dig up.

                    The Weather Underground bombings and arsons of many government buildings in the 1970s.
                    In 1920 the Bolshevists exploded a bomb in a horse drawn carriage on Wall Street, killing 35 and injuring hundreds.

                    The 1940 - 1956 "Mad Bomber" bombing public places, including government buildings.

                    The 1970 Sterling Hall bombing of the Army Mathematics Research Center.

                    The 1971 attempted bombing of a police station by the Black Panthers.

                    The 1974 bombing of TWA Flight 841.

                    The 1975 bombing at LaGuardia Airport, killing eleven and injuring 75.

                    The 1977 bombing by FALN of a Defense Department security personnel building.

                    The 1980 FALN raids of campaign headquarters of President Jimmy Carter and campaign headquarters of George H. W. Bush.

                    The 1980 bombing of the Statue of Liberty story room.

                    The 1982 FALN bombings outside of the Federal Plaza in Manhattan, FBI Headquarters and a United States courthouse in Brooklyn.

                    The 1983 bombing of the US Senate building.

                    The 1993 assault rifle killings in front of CIA headquarters.

                    The 1993 WTC bombing.

                    There are more examples but that should be sufficient.

                    The difference I believe is the masses are more willing to give up freedoms for security now than they used to be.
                    What is the point of all these examples? You're trying to avoid the main issue or divert it. Either way, just because someon OCs does not make them a law abiding non-threatening Capt Kangaroo. If you think I'm going to assume such every time I deal with an armed subject you're smoking crack.
                    I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                      What is the point of all these examples? You're trying to avoid the main issue or divert it.
                      No, I am illustrating that if you're trying to use those things to bolster the credibility of your position on the issue, you did the opposite - at least get the history right.

                      Either way, just because someon OCs does not make them a law abiding non-threatening Capt Kangaroo.
                      True. And just because someone OC's does not make them a threatening criminal either.

                      If you think I'm going to assume such every time I deal with an armed subject you're smoking crack.
                      I'm not thinking that at all - who said that? Not me. One of these days its going to be tested in the courts, if you can ask for a permit without RS.
                      The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
                        Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
                        Are you mentally retarded or trying to be a complete smarta*s?!?!? Sorry for not explaining IN DEPTH...

                        Before 9/11 - no one thought a group of terrorists would hijack airplanes and use them as missiles and fly them into pre-determined targets without taking hostages or asking for ransom and whatnot. Where there incidents involving airplanes before that? Yes. THAT'S NOT THE F**KING POINT!!

                        Before Columbine - no one thought students would walk into a school, shoot classmates, and then kill themselves. Columbine changed the way schools treat EVERY type of threat now. If you don't have children in school, you wouldn't know that. Were there incidents involving guns and shootings in schools before that? Yes. Did they change schools and policies and lock-down procedures and reactions and dispatch procedures and police response as much as Columbine? NO! But you wouldn't have ANY CLUE what I'm talking about!!

                        Before Oklahoma City - domestic terrorism was limited to small events and no one thought a "home grown" terrorist would target and bomb a federal building and it changed the way federal buildings were secured and their policies and procedures (along with other events that happened soon after).

                        THE POINT IS - JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OPENLY CARRYING A WEAPON DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE OPENLY CARRYING A WEAPON IS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, GOT IT?!?!?!

                        Take your open carry crap to another forum! It has been explained again and again and beat to death why the officer reacted the way he did. You DO NOT get to dictate why and how officers respond to threats. I've dealt with some pretty stupid people in my life, but you are about as dumb as a box of rocks. Get it through your head - this is NOT A PRO OPEN CARRY FORUM - this is a forum for lawn enforcement professionals - take your open carry crap somewhere else! No matter what you say on here no officer is going to agree with you that they should ignore someone walking past them with a gun on their hip in a city where you are required by law to have a permit to carry a gun. And no officer in their right mind is EVER going to agree with you that they shouldn't pull out their weapon and draw down on a subject who they KNOW is armed with a gun. Get that in your head!! At least a dozen or so officers on here have already told you that they agree that every law abiding citizen should have the right to carry a gun as long as the law allows it. Now leave it alone at that!
                        Originally posted by RSGSRT
                        We've reached a point where natural selection doesn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the procreation of imbeciles.
                        Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot, but not acceptable for me to point it out?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
                          I'm not thinking that at all - who said that? Not me. One of these days its going to be tested in the courts, if you can ask for a permit without RS.
                          Ok, for now the...7th or 8th time??!?!

                          YOU NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY A GUN IN PHILADELPHIA....GO IT?!?!?!

                          Therefore, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A PERMIT TO CARRY A GUN IN PHILADELPHIA, YOU ARE COMMITTING A CRIME BY CARRYING A GUN WITHOUT A PERMIT....GO THAT?!?!!?

                          So...THE REASON FOR THE STOP IS TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE THE PERSON CARRYING THE GUN HAS A PERMIT!!!!!

                          Why? BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT -THEY WILL BE ARRESTED FOR CARRYING A GUN WITHOUT A PERMIT!

                          Why is that so hard to understand??!!?! Are you a complete mental?!?! If you are too dumb to understand how that works, then stop commenting in these forums....

                          Geez...my 8 year old understands this concept, why can't you?!?
                          Originally posted by RSGSRT
                          We've reached a point where natural selection doesn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the procreation of imbeciles.
                          Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot, but not acceptable for me to point it out?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Aerohead View Post
                            Are you mentally retarded or trying to be a complete smarta*s?!?!? Sorry for not explaining IN DEPTH...
                            I've never been one to belittle someone for their opinion... verbal bullying?

                            Before 9/11 - no one thought a group of terrorists would hijack airplanes and use them as missiles and fly them into pre-determined targets without taking hostages or asking for ransom and whatnot. Where there incidents involving airplanes before that? Yes. THAT'S NOT THE F**KING POINT!!
                            Should we clamp down on citizen's freedoms as a result? Have warrantless wiretaps circumvented the Constitution or not? Are there not calls now from government wanting to have more control over the Internet, back doors into people's online files, etc.?

                            Before Columbine - no one thought students would walk into a school, shoot classmates, and then kill themselves.
                            Before Columbine there were plenty of mass school shootings, but not 24-hour CNN and Fox News needing to fill every minute of the day with stories. No shouts from politicians about how they needed to "protect" people, rather for what it was: an isolated but tragic incident. Clamping down on free speech and increasing security hasn't made a statistical difference in the number of shootings at schools.

                            Columbine changed the way schools treat EVERY type of threat now. If you don't have children in school, you wouldn't know that. Were there incidents involving guns and shootings in schools before that? Yes. Did they change schools and policies and lock-down procedures and reactions and dispatch procedures and police response as much as Columbine? NO! But you wouldn't have ANY CLUE what I'm talking about!!
                            I had children in schools then. It didn't make me want to run to my school and demand they start kicking kids out for wearing GI Joe t-shirts or drawing cartoons of guns. The schools have become so sue scared that they've lost all sense and politicians have to look like they are doing their job, and that job in their minds is to continuously create more and more laws to "protect" us from ourselves. It looks like freedom of speech as lost this battle.

                            Before Oklahoma City - domestic terrorism was limited to small events and no one thought a "home grown" terrorist would target and bomb a federal building and it changed the way federal buildings were secured and their policies and procedures (along with other events that happened soon after).
                            True. You can't walk damn near anywhere these days without being on video. Can anyone look honestly say we're freer as a nation than we were 20 years ago?

                            THE POINT IS - JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN OPENLY CARRYING A WEAPON DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE OPENLY CARRYING A WEAPON IS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, GOT IT?!?!?!
                            I got that from the beginning. But your position appeared to be one of guilty until they prove innocence.

                            Take your open carry crap to another forum! It has been explained again and again and beat to death why the officer reacted the way he did.
                            Broad brush you paint with. I stated earlier I don't open carry and that idiots like that OC in the Autozone are going to make 2nd amendment rights tougher on individuals. He should have complied, then taken them to court after the fact if he felt he had a case.

                            You DO NOT get to dictate why and how officers respond to threats. I've dealt with some pretty stupid people in my life, but you are about as dumb as a box of rocks.
                            More belittling? I don't dictate why and how officers respond to threats. But I am free to express an opinion, am I not? It doesn't make me anti LEO, disgruntled or some nut looking for OC encounters if I disagree on this issue.

                            Get it through your head - this is NOT A PRO OPEN CARRY FORUM - this is a forum for lawn enforcement professionals - take your open carry crap somewhere else!
                            I am a gun owner but not an OC, and but so long as open carry is legal, that's where my position comes from. I come from the position that an automatic assumption of guilt is exactly what we don't need from government - be that the police, warrant less phone taps, you name it, without RS. Yeah, the Constitution makes rounding up criminals harder, and sometimes they get away with things they shouldn't get away with, but that's the price we as a society pay for freedoms.

                            This guy at the Autozone, under the circumstances and given the officer didn't even know the law, yes it was RS. And yes, he was an *** hat how he reacted with the officer. But, what if the officer had known the law? I am against the assumption of all OC being an automatic assumption of criminal behavior, not against checking if there is RS.

                            No matter what you say on here no officer is going to agree with you that they should ignore someone walking past them with a gun on their hip in a city where you are required by law to have a permit to carry a gun. And no officer in their right mind is EVER going to agree with you that they shouldn't pull out their weapon and draw down on a subject who they KNOW is armed with a gun.
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3mF7...eature=related
                            Seems this LEO and the OC's handled this very well. Professional and courteous on both sides. No gun drawn.

                            Get that in your head!! At least a dozen or so officers on here have already told you that they agree that every law abiding citizen should have the right to carry a gun as long as the law allows it. Now leave it alone at that!
                            I never disagreed with that position.
                            Last edited by eyesopen; 05-28-2011, 01:11 AM.
                            The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                            Comment


                            • I'm not thinking that at all - who said that? Not me. One of these days its going to be tested in the courts, if you can ask for a permit without RS.
                              Maybe you missed the posts that DAL and I mentioned on the last couple of pages. In both PA and my state (TN), it is illegal to carry a firearm on your person. An AFFIRMATIVE defense (i.e. burden of the permit holder, not the state) is if you have a carry permit. So an officer in these states has a right to approach and confirm the person is carrying legally. Does it happen every time we see someone carrying? No, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

                              True. And just because someone OC's does not make them a threatening criminal either.
                              Never said it was, but you and/or other OCers expect officers to assume for the better rather than err on the side of caution. That's not going to happen in most cases.

                              I got that from the beginning. But your position appeared to be one of guilty until they prove innocence.
                              Nothing to do with guilt/innocence. It's an issue of safety. I know it's hard to understand, but considering that firearms kill LEOs on-duty more than anything else, try to realize for half a second that we're going to do what's necessary to stay alive. I'm not impying that every single person with a firearm is someone out to get us, but we're going to be safe when dealing with anyone with a weapon.
                              Last edited by SgtScott31; 05-28-2011, 02:08 AM.
                              I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                                Maybe you missed the posts that DAL and I mentioned on the last couple of pages. In both PA and my state (TN), it is illegal to carry a firearm on your person. An AFFIRMATIVE defense (i.e. burden of the permit holder, not the state) is if you have a carry permit. So an officer in these states has a right to approach and confirm the person is carrying legally. Does it happen every time we see someone carrying? No, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

                                Never said it was, but you and/or other OCers expect officers to assume for the better rather than err on the side of caution. That's not going to happen in most cases.

                                Nothing to do with guilt/innocence. It's an issue of safety. I know it's hard to understand, but considering that firearms kill LEOs on-duty more than anything else, try to realize for half a second that we're going to do what's necessary to stay alive. I'm not impying that every single person with a firearm is someone out to get us, but we're going to be safe when dealing with anyone with a weapon.
                                First and foremost, thank you for your polite response. I respect that, and am far more open to opinions not framed with what (to me) appeared to be an attack.

                                I fully understand where you're coming from, and understand that safety is a paramount issue with officers. Coming home to your family is #1. I'm not an OC, never have been and probably never will. I have guns but never felt the need to make a public statement about them but I can understand why some OC's would, but don't agree with how they go about it.

                                This topic caused me to look into the issue, not in my state because as I said I don't OC, but rather into PA and Philadelphia, so I would be more informed on this particular issue. I found some interesting things, most notably Commonwealth v. Hawkins - and I think it's something which should be addressed when Philadelphia's police force trains the officers on OC law issues (I think one of the press releases said they would but I could be wrong).

                                Now, one of the positions put forth here is that open carry in Philadelphia is different from a driver's license. I assume this to mean a person doesn't have to provide proof of a driver's license without RS, whereas you do with a firearm. I understand why it would be judged different, since OC is uncommon.

                                The PA Supreme Court ruling states (I bolded what stood out to me):

                                [J-257-1996]
                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                EASTERN DISTRICT
                                COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                Appellee v. MICHAEL HAWKINS, Appellant

                                [J-257-1996]
                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                EASTERN DISTRICT
                                COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                Appellee
                                v.
                                MICHAEL HAWKINS,
                                Appellant

                                No. 50 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996
                                Appeal from the December 15, 1995
                                order of the Superior Court at No.
                                2955 Philadelphia 1994, affirming
                                the order of the Court of Common
                                Pleas of Philadelphia County, M.R.
                                No. 94-8421, which denied a writ of
                                certiorari to the Philadelphia
                                Municipal Court, following
                                imposition of defendant's judgment
                                of sentence, M.C. #9311-2345
                                November term, 1993
                                349 Pa.Super. 615,
                                503 A.2d 48 (1985)
                                ARGUED: December 12, 1996

                                OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FLAHERTY DECIDED: April 22, 1997
                                This case concerns whether a police radio broadcast that a man of a particular description is carrying a gun may serve as the justification for a search of that person and the seizure of the gun he is carrying when the arresting officer is unable to authenticate the telephone message on which the radio broadcast was based or provide an independent basis for the stop and frisk.

                                On November 19, 1993, a Philadelphia police officer responded to a radio call that there was a man with a gun at Sydenham and York Streets. The suspect was described as a black male wearing a blue cap, black jeans and a gold or brownish coat. When the officer arrived, he observed Hawkins, who fitted the radio description. He then stopped and frisked Hawkins, finding a .22 caliber revolver in his waistband. At the suppression hearing, the officer stated that he did not know the source of the information contained in the radio call. No other testimony established the source of the call or the basis for the information.

                                On May 25, 1994, Hawkins was convicted of a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act and sentenced to twenty-one months probation. A writ of certiorari in the court of common pleas was denied and Hawkins appealed to
                                Superior Court. On July 20, 1994, Superior Court, in a memorandum opinion, affirmed the conviction. This court granted allocatur. The existing law with respect to searches such as the one conducted in this case is based on Terry v. Ohio, supra, which held that police are authorized under the Fourth Amendment to stop and temporarily detain [b]citizens short of an arrest when they can point to "specific and articulable facts" causing them to have a reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity may be afoot."

                                If police reasonably believe that they may be in danger, they may conduct a limited pat-down search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, ; accord, Commonwealth v.
                                Melendez, supra. Thus, before police may briefly detain a person, there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and before police may pat down for weapons, there must be a reasonable belief that the suspect is presently armed and dangerous. The initial question with which any analysis of this case must begin, therefore, is whether the police officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.

                                Commonwealth v. Melendez, ___ Pa. ___, 676 A.2d. 226, 230 (1996) makes it clear that the requirements of Terry are also the requirements of Art. I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and we decide the present case on the basis of Art. I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides:

                                The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
                                affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

                                When police receive an anonymous call alleging that a person of a particular description is carrying a gun at a particular location and the police broadcast this information to radio patrol cars, neither the police
                                dispatcher nor the officers in the cars know whether the information is reliable. It may be a prank call. For this reason, in Commonwealth v. Queen, 536 Pa. 315, 320, 639 A.2d 443 (1994), we held that "a stop and frisk may be
                                supported by a police radio bulletin only if evidence is offered at the suppression hearing establishing the articulable facts which support the reasonable suspicion. "3 To hold otherwise would be to sanction police
                                interference with citizens upon less than the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity required by Terry.


                                The Superior Court reasoned that because the officer arrived within three minutes of receiving the call, because Hawkins fitted the description of the man on the radio broadcast, and because Hawkins allegedly had a gun, there was "sufficient corroboration" of the phone call to give the officer reasonable suspicion that Hawkins was "armed and dangerous." Superior Court erroneously believed that these factors were sufficient to justify the search of appellant and the seizure of his gun. If the police respond to an anonymous call that a particular person at a specified location is engaged in criminal activity, and upon arriving at the location see a person matching the description but nothing more, they have no certain knowledge except that the caller accurately described someone at a particular location. As the United States Supreme Court observed in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the fact that a suspect resembles the anonymous caller's description does not corroborate.

                                Although it is not part of this case, the police might also justify an investigative stop based on a tip if they knew the identity of the person giving the tip and the basis of his knowledge. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are "highly relevant" in determining whether the informant has provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); Commonwealth v. Queen, supra. Additionally, if the tip is anonymous, police may reasonably rely on it if is predictive of the suspect's behavior. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).
                                J-257-1996-4 allegations of criminal conduct, for anyone can describe a person who is standing in a particular location at the time of the anonymous call. Something more is needed to corroborate the caller's allegations of criminal conduct.
                                The fact that the subject of the call was alleged to be carrying a gun, of course, is merely another allegation, and it supplies no reliability where there was none before. And since there is no gun exception to the Terry
                                requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,
                                in the typical anonymous caller situation, the police will need an independent basis to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion.

                                The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,4 it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not -- such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.

                                Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them by Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and this court's relevant
                                caselaw. Upon receiving unverified information that a certain person is engaged in illegal activity, the police may always observe the suspect and conduct their own investigation. If police surveillance produces a reasonable
                                suspicion of criminal conduct, the suspect may, of course, be briefly stopped In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms.

                                § 6108. Except in Philadelphia, firearms may be carried openly without a license. See Ortiz v. commonwealth, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 681 A.2d 152, 155 (1996) (only in Philadelphia must a person obtain a
                                license for carrying a firearm whether it is unconcealed or concealed; in other parts of the Commonwealth, unconcealed firearms do not require a license).
                                J-257-1996-5 and questioned (the Terry investigative stop), and, if the officer has reasonable fear for his safety, police may pat down the suspect's outer
                                garments for weapons.


                                In this case, the police acted on an anonymous tip and had no basis for believing that the tip was reliable. They also had no independent reason to believe that the suspect may have been involved in criminal activity. But
                                Queen requires that "a stop and frisk may be supported by a police radio bulletin only if evidence is offered at the suppression hearing establishing the articulable facts which support the reasonable suspicion." 536 Pa. at 320,
                                ___ A.2d at ___. Here, no facts were offered which supported the suspicion created by the anonymous call. The judgment of sentence must, therefore, be
                                reversed.

                                We do not address the scenario in which the officer has an independent reason to believe that a crime (carrying an unlicensed gun) may be in progress, inquires as to whether the gun is licensed and
                                the person does not answer.


                                ------

                                Now it seems to me, based on that ruling, that there is no RS exception when it comes to guns, there must be a reasonable basis for believing a crime has or is about to be committed for a Terry stop even if the call is about someone carrying a gun. Its very clear on that, but muddles the issue with the closing statement about Open Carry. Based on the wording, I'm going to assume (and I may be proven to be wrong when it happens) that any OC who takes this issue up with the court... the court will use the wording of that case to clear the waters and say OC isn't an exception, since this ruling says that a report of someone having a gun is not an exception to Terry.
                                Last edited by eyesopen; 05-28-2011, 03:13 AM.
                                The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3519 users online. 179 members and 3340 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X