Dickson City, Pa Police Harass Gun Owners

Any lawyers around?

IF oc is legal in Pennsylvania, then how about

USC TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983

Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Does this mean they need to get an injunction before using § 1983? Could the injunction be applied to the whole state, or would it have to be each jurisdiction?

matt33 said:

I understand the cops broke the law. What I suggest is not Elitism. I am not excusing what they did. My first post here was based on the fact that I thought in your post #47 you were giving the police officers a pass. Your implications that I am an elitist or that I respect a badge more than justice could not be further from the truth. I am neither and if this wasn't the internet I'd be offended. I have seen my share of police officers who did not fairly administer justice. That is one reason I'm now in the private sector.

Click to expand...

Matt, the bottom line is they stole a handgun -- a deadly weapon -- from a citizen under colour of law. Allowing THEM to get away with what would put a "citizen" in prison sends the wrong message. Even if they get a suspension and some extra "education" -- they will have skated on an offense that would land you or me in prison.

The message that needs to be sent is that unless LEOs are in fact enforcing the law, they are equally subject to the law. If they are properly prosecuted for stealing under colour of law, THAT will sent the necessary message to other officers that they should stick to enforcing the law and lay off making it up ad hoc.

That might also send the correct message to those other officers on the cop forum who don't seem to understand that open carry IS legal in Pennsylvania.

Here's a follow-up to the post in the cop forum about open carry being illegal. This came from another PA officer. Fortunately, it seems some of them (like Steve) do know the law:

I'd suggest you read Commonwealth Vs Hawkins, specifically this portion, on page 4:

"4 In all parts of Pennsylvania, persons who are licensed may carry concealed firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.§ 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)."

Click to expand...

ForeignDude, what's most interesting to me about that thread is the number of officers who corrected that position and the quality of their responses. Take another look? The thread might have continued past where you last read.

Here, for example, is one of the responses and it looks as if it might as well have been posted here:

If you are LE, you should strive to attain a better understanding of law, and of the United States Constitution. If your state's law is in conflict, it will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. That's where the phrase comes from.

Also, if open carry is not prohibited, it's legal. Doesn't need to be a law making it legal for it to be so. Va. is an open carry state. With few exceptions (specified in law) it is legal to carry openly, you will not find a law saying so, so outside of those exceptions, it's legal.

Originally Posted by phillyrube
What is this cop thinking? Let a possible suspect unholster his own gun and clear it?? Sounds like they have some issues up there.....

Click to expand...

Suspect of what? The officers in the story, if all that is true, are lucky they didn't get someone hurt. If open carry is legal, no PC to demand an inspection of the weapon existed.

Click to expand...

The second thread you mention is interesting to me in quite a different way. It does indeed reflect the attitude you describe. There are a great many self-destructive people in the world so it probably should be expected that some of them find their way into law enforcement. The attitude is self-destructive as well as destructive. So far as I know, there is no way to recognize a police officer at birth and distinguish him or her from mere mortals. It could be that they are born with teeny leetle shields, uniforms, caps, and boots, but I don't know that and it must be awfully hard on their mothers.

So my guess is that whatever the source of the attitude that they are substantially different from and superior to mere mortals, they themselves participate in developing the attitude that separates them from the rest of mankind. Perhaps they confuse part of the role they must sometimes play with the human actor who must play it. That's a hard role to live for an entire working life, all day everyday. Or maybe they come to believe their own fiction. And as the rest of mankind comes to believe it too, the different and superior people isolate themselves from the people they profess to protect and to serve.

That's not awfully bright. For example, when cops enter a ghetto the people who live there should be expected to welcome them with friendly smiles and open arms. But most of them don't. And when cops desperately need lifesaving help from citizen bypassers one would expect them to get it. But it's not anything they can count on, except maybe from decent citizens who have concealed carry permits and tend to support law enforcement.

So it seems to me that it's in the best interest of law enforcement officers generally to make sure that ordinary people look upon them as one of us, not as special and superior beings.

If you want to play Superman you've really got to be a man of steel and susceptible only to Kryptonite. Of course Superman doesn't get a paycheck or raises either, and if he did he'd probably be smart enough not to generate unnecessary hostility from the people who provide the money.

So it seems to me that it's in the best interest of law enforcement officers generally to make sure that ordinary people look upon them as one of us, not as special and superior beings.

Click to expand...

You would certainly think so ...

now, now...

Aguila said:

Matt, the bottom line is they stole a handgun -- a deadly weapon -- from a citizen under colour of law. Allowing THEM to get away with what would put a "citizen" in prison sends the wrong message. Even if they get a suspension and some extra "education" -- they will have skated on an offense that would land you or me in prison.

The message that needs to be sent is that unless LEOs are in fact enforcing the law, they are equally subject to the law. If they are properly prosecuted for stealing under colour of law, THAT will sent the necessary message to other officers that they should stick to enforcing the law and lay off making it up ad hoc.

Click to expand...

This is getting very close to Cop bashing. You're going to get yourself labeled an "internet hero of the revolution...with a tin foil hat" if you keep that up!

Don't you know that the actions of the police were reasonable and justified under the circumstances? It was obviously the right thing to do...'cause it was the cops what done it!

Submit! Comply! Be passive! The Cops are always right!

Pointing out the obvious fact that two specific officers in one specific incident violated the law does not strike me as being "cop bashing."

Perhaps your definition differs from mine ...

I think THAT was sarcasm. Tin foil hat gave it away for me.

Where can one get those hats. All I have is aluminum foil and the sparks coming off it worry me.

I saw on the news a couple of days ago where 20 or so Philly cops felt justified in subduing 3 people in a car. I thought that once they were on the ground with their hands behind their heads that they were subdued. Guess not.:banghead:

I was the individual arrested. As you can imagine, the news reports are generally misleading and downplay the event. I am mentioned as having been "detained" (I was arrested), but released for "refusing to cooperate" with police.

What is not mentioned is that their idea of "cooperation" included telling my wife (unlawfully) to cease recording the event. At which time I decided I would not comply with (unlawful) demand for government issued ID (drivers license).

Original report on the board from which our group organizes:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/conceale...ickson-city-5-9-a-post-298674.html#post298674

My first post in response to the the incident:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/conceale...ickson-city-5-9-a-post-298916.html#post298916

Patriot,
I am extremely troubled by the violations you endured. I'm as troubled by this as anything I’ve experienced in my life, I cannot imagine how you feel. I was at the town council Dickson City on Monday night. I was even more disturbed by the completely arrogant attitude displayed by members of the council. I wish you well. BTW, has the chief of police returned your gun yet? I'd also love to see Mrs. PA Patriot's video on youtube.

Sans Authoritas

"Hey, the police have a very difficult, thankless job, and they're just following orders. Cut them some slack."

I believe that argument was dealt with rather conclusively at the Nuremburg Trials.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Hey, the police have a very difficult, thankless job, and they're just following orders. Cut them some slack.

Click to expand...

wjustinen wrote:

I believe that argument was dealt with rather conclusively at the Nuremburg Trials.

Click to expand...

Those men were Nazis.

-Sans Authoritas

The more I consider all of the facts and the more additional facts that are exposed; I’m having a change in my position. Initially, I thought the OC'ers (in particular PA Patriot) should receive a cash settlement from Dickson City, the PD and city should offer a formal apology assuring this type of violation will never happen again, and the chief should personally and immediately return the illegally seized gun. Additionally, I felt the officers should be educated regarding the laws relating to firearms in PA.

I’ve given this issue serious thought over the past few days and I realize the error in my thinking. When I was a police officer, I needed three things to make an arrest: I needed a statement of charges, a statement of probable cause, and I needed to complete a report which included a detailed narrative answering "who, what, where, and when" with regard to the crime that was committed. Obviously these requirements are to be fulfilled after the arrest is made, but to make an arrest I needed to know these requirements would be met. Most of the time it was obvious, but when it wasn't, we were instructed to err on the side of caution and not deprive one's freedom until we established a crime was committed. At no time during this incident did reasonable suspicion exist. Probable cause was never even close, yet a man was arrested and his firearm was illegally seized.

I tried to give these LEO’s the benefit of the doubt, but I no longer can. Several times, I imagined myself in their position. In each mental scenario, I would not have made an arrest because no criminal offense was committed. I now realize that a civil award and a “promise” that this type of constitutional violation won’t happen again is not good enough. Criminal charges should be filed against the appropriate LEO’s. I appreciate some of you here encouraging me to give this issue some critical thought. I concede that you were right and I was wrong. I love these discussions.

Blank.

Why are they "Law Enforcement Officers"? One would think that rights protection or defense of he innocent would rank ahead of 'enforcement'. As long as cops are enforcing mere statutes (as they see fit) there will be oppression of the common people. In order for the situation to change, the focus must shift to protecting people and property. For this to happen, funding must be non-coercive.

I tried to give these LEO’s the benefit of the doubt, but I no longer can. Several times, I imagined myself in their position. In each mental scenario, I would not have made an arrest because no criminal offense was committed. I now realize that a civil award and a “promise” that this type of constitutional violation won’t happen again is not good enough. Criminal charges should be filed against the appropriate LEO’s. I appreciate some of you here encouraging me to give this issue some critical thought. I concede that you were right and I was wrong. I love these discussions.

Click to expand...

As if you needed another reason, the city's website states that the call was CANCELED before they arrived. That means there was no substantive law enforcement reason for their presence AT ALL. The city seems to be saying that they did this all on their own. If that's true, at the very least that female officer can kiss her home and car goodbye.

I looked on dicksoncity.org, but all I could find was that the police received a call at 6:29pm on 5/09/08 about several men with guns at the OCB. "Investigation continuing" was the only detail I saw regarding this call. Can you post a link of where you found this info?

matt33 said:

I’ve given this issue serious thought over the past few days and I realize the error in my thinking. When I was a police officer, I needed three things to make an arrest: I needed a statement of charges, a statement of probable cause, and I needed to complete a report which included a detailed narrative answering "who, what, where, and when" with regard to the crime that was committed. Obviously these requirements are to be fulfilled after the arrest is made, but to make an arrest I needed to know these requirements would be met. Most of the time it was obvious, but when it wasn't, we were instructed to err on the side of caution and not deprive one's freedom until we established a crime was committed. At no time during this incident did reasonable suspicion exist. Probable cause was never even close, yet a man was arrested and his firearm was illegally seized.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Sir, for being open-minded enough to reconsider this incident.

I spent quite a bit of time last night reading through a huge chunk of the PA open carry forum's thread on this incident. I was struck by the fact that the original responding officers (apparently the female in particular) made a big deal out of asking everyone for identification, and that what initially singled PA Patriot out for special attention was his refusal to provide same.

Looking back to the Supreme Court decisions regarding Terry, and Hibel, the Court's guideline is that an officer may ask a person to identify him/herself only when "on the basis of reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed." Even then, while IANAL I believe the requirement is only that a person identify him/herself, not that he/she must produce documented proof that they are who they say they are.

Apparently PA Patriot knew the law and, since he had not committed any crime and no crime was being committed, he therefore declined to identify himself. Good for him. If we "citizens" are expected to comport ourselves in accordance with all the gazillions of hidden and often counter-intuitive laws out there, I do not think it's asking too much for police officers to comport themselves in accordance with the law. Especially when the law has already been to the U.S. Supreme Court and a "bright line" has been drawn as to precisely when they can (and canNOT) ask interviewees to identify themselves.

In such a situation, I suppose the question to pose to the officer is "What crime do you suspect that I am committing or that I have committed?" If they can't state what the suspected crime is, they have no basis to even talk to you unless you feel like chatting. I'm trying to train myself to just ask up front, "Is this a Terry stop?"

A "Terry Stop" is interesting when applied to someone who is open-carrying. It is obvious that the person is armed, so the benefit of frisking them for "officer safety" vanishes.

So I don't think Terry applies at all.

A requirement of a Terry frisk is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The courts have ruled that open carry by itself does not constitute reasonable suspicion. As a result, no Terry frisk is allowed here.

Aguila Said:

I do not think it's asking too much for police officers to comport themselves in accordance with the law.

Click to expand...

You don't need to worry about that. I'm sure the kind officer will tell you what the law is.

In such a situation, I suppose the question to pose to the officer is "What crime do you suspect that I am committing or that I have committed?"

Click to expand...

Don't you understand that the time to debate this is when you're in court? I'm sure that by then the good officer will be able to articulate a crime of which he or she was suspicious at the time.

Why can't you be a good little Civilian and just Submit and Comply?

"Submit and Comply" should be your mantra too!

We'll have a nice orderly society if we all just Submit and Comply! To quote the fictional but heroic Sheriff in that horrible vigilante movie First Blood,

"People go F&*%ing around with the Law, and all hell breaks loose!"

As if you needed another reason, the city's website states that the call was CANCELED before they arrived. That means there was no substantive law enforcement reason for their presence AT ALL. The city seems to be saying that they did this all on their own. If that's true, at the very least that female officer can kiss her home and car goodbye.

Click to expand...

It's not a good idea to cancel a 911 call, and I believe most areas have to dispatch an officer once a call is placed, if not by law by policy. If there actually was a gang intent on doing harm at the restaurant, it would be feasible that one of them may have had a gun to the head of the caller, prompting them to say "Oh, nevermind. Everything is just fine. False alarm." So, once the call went in, it was a done deal.

However, since there was no actual 'emergency', the 911 call should not have been placed in the first place. I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has suggested slapping the 911 callers on the wrist for calling when no emergency existed. That may get people to think twice the next time they see someone with a gun going about thier own business.

It's not a good idea to cancel a 911 call

Click to expand...

At the very least, the website implies that the call was canceled BY 911. If that's the case, the cops had no business being there in the first place. They were "freelancing" and well outside of qualified immunity. PA Patriot needs to sue that female cop and financially hammer her into the ground like a tent peg. Legally, she's no better than a gang member who steals a gun from an FFL.

where you guys find the info on the 911 calls? only site i find is this one
http://www.dicksoncityborough.org/index.jsp?id=13

where you guys find the info on the 911 calls? only site i find is this one
http://www.dicksoncityborough.org/index.jsp?id=13

Click to expand...

That's what I saw, although I don't recall it saying "by restaurant" when I read it.