Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying

[gigag04]

...
Big difference IMO. Philadelphia has licensed open carry, but apparently don't like it. They need probable cause and a young minority in an urban area is not probable cause. However, since it is licensed OC in Philadelphia, they HAVE probable cause detain anyone who open carries to check and make sure they are properly licensed.
...

Texas has licensed driving. Do the police have probable cause to pull over anyone that is driving to see if they have a license?

Yes


Trabsportation Code:
Sec. 521.025.  LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1)  have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2)  display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b)  A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.
(c)  A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that:
(1)  for a second conviction within one year after the date of the first conviction, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200; and
(2)  for a third or subsequent conviction within one year after the date of the second conviction the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(A)  a fine of not less than $25 or more than $500;
(B)  confinement in the county jail for not less than 72 hours or more than six months; or
(C)  both the fine and confinement.
(d)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the person charged produces in court a driver's license:
(1)  issued to that person;
(2)  appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(3)  valid at the time of the arrest for the offense.
(e)  The judge of each court shall report promptly to the department each conviction obtained in the court under this section.
(f)  The court may assess a defendant an administrative fee not to exceed $10 if a charge under this section is dismissed because of the defense listed under Subsection (d).

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

[steveincowtown]

...
Big difference IMO. Philadelphia has licensed open carry, but apparently don't like it. They need probable cause and a young minority in an urban area is not probable cause. However, since it is licensed OC in Philadelphia, they HAVE probable cause detain anyone who open carries to check and make sure they are properly licensed.
...

Texas has licensed driving. Do the police have probable cause to pull over anyone that is driving to see if they have a license?

Yes

Hey, I'm no lawyer, but I think you still have to a reason/probable cause (i.e. the driver looked to by 10 years old).

[ScottDLS]

...
Big difference IMO. Philadelphia has licensed open carry, but apparently don't like it. They need probable cause and a young minority in an urban area is not probable cause. However, since it is licensed OC in Philadelphia, they HAVE probable cause detain anyone who open carries to check and make sure they are properly licensed.
...

Texas has licensed driving. Do the police have probable cause to pull over anyone that is driving to see if they have a license?

Yes


Trabsportation Code:
Sec. 521.025.  LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1)  have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2)  display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b)  A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.
(c)  A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that:
(1)  for a second conviction within one year after the date of the first conviction, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200; and
(2)  for a third or subsequent conviction within one year after the date of the second conviction the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(A)  a fine of not less than $25 or more than $500;
(B)  confinement in the county jail for not less than 72 hours or more than six months; or
(C)  both the fine and confinement.
(d)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the person charged produces in court a driver's license:
(1)  issued to that person;
(2)  appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(3)  valid at the time of the arrest for the offense.
(e)  The judge of each court shall report promptly to the department each conviction obtained in the court under this section.
(f)  The court may assess a defendant an administrative fee not to exceed $10 if a charge under this section is dismissed because of the defense listed under Subsection (d).

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

So the act of driving provides probable cause to stop anyone at any time to determine if they are licensed? Seems to go against current 4th amendment jurisprudence.

[Keith B]

This guy went 'Trolling for Cops'.

I am not pointing a finger at Keith, but at soceity here.

It is truly saddens me that anyone that is doing something within not only the laws of their locality but moreover within their constitutional rights would ever be considered “Trolling for Cops.” Our forefathers paid with their blood, and the blood of their family to earn the rights we have today and it really is a pitty that they are slipping away at an alarming rate.

Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble.

[clarionite]

Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble.

So, if a few LEOs in TX decides they're against Concealed Carry and starts pulling people over when a CHL shows up when they run tags... And they make the CHL holder get out on the ground while they search the vehicle, and then impound their handgun while bogus charges of UCW are defended in court then we should just say I'm not going to carry because I might have a hassle?

[steveincowtown]

However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble.

Take this with the civility that is meant to have, I guess I am still not sure that doing something legal constitutes "looking for trouble."

It reminds of when my Dad use to tell me not to go into (not my race) part of town, because (as my race) I would just be looking for trouble. Seems like an archaic excuse for poor police work, lack of knowledge of laws on the officers part, and the willingness of a trained LEO to escalate something that didn't need to be. Heck, I am just a dumb country boy with a CHL, and even I know the deescalation should always be the first choice.

[speedsix]

...well, I said I was done here after Keith B did...but he's not and neither am I...I'm posting one last time to this thread...I don't believe what I'm reading...

Keith B wrote:
"Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble."


..yeah, the guy had issues before...he'd been hassled by OTHER cops who thought THEY were above the law, and could keep him from doing what the law said he could do...just because THEY didn't agree with state law AND THEIR DEPARTMENT POLICY...excercising your legal rights and carrying a recorder to protect yourself because you've been harassed in the past for doing so is NOT "...looking for a fight..."
...the Philadelphia Police don't need to change their policy on open carry...he cited to them their OWN department directive saying that what he was doing was both legal and in line with the PD's "Policy"....but some rogue cops who thought they were the law and ignored both state law and dept. policy were determined to harass him anyways...and threaten him...and lecture him...and badger him...that's official oppression...
"...and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally..."...certainly not for the cops involved...they dealt with it totally illegally...on multiple occasions...

...your last statement is, to remain civil, totally incorrect and ignoring the facts...hanging onto your opinion that he was looking for trouble, even knowing that he'd been harassed multiple times before, and "...an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble" reads, to me, that you feel that they had a reason to draw down on him before even addressing him, and in spite of what the account gives us that they would be justified in shooting him...and neither is right...
...by the facts we were given, the man was totally within his rights as the law allows...and their Department's written directive...and subsequent confirmation by the city's attorney supported...and re-training of the officers who didn't get it reaffirmed..

...and he was looking for a fight??? and if you can get yourself shot by the police who are ignoring the law, while you are keeping the law...we've lost the battle already...murder by police is not to be feared nor accepted...they were totally in the wrong...and to live in fear of what rogue police might do reeks of a society I refuse to live in...I put my butt on the line for the rule of law for several years...BOTH the citizen and the LEOs must be held accountable when they don't live within it...to suggest that one is looking for trouble by obeying the law, and to warn that "you might be shot"...is kinda like saying "If you go when the light is green, you could potentially get rundown and killed"...it flies in the face of common sense...and is not the way the law was written....he did nothing wrong...and they did nothing right...oh, except maybe to refrain from shooting him...for keeping the law...

[Keith B]

...well, I said I was done here after Keith B did...but he's not and neither am I...I'm posting one last time to this thread...I don't believe what I'm reading...

Keith B wrote:
"Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble."


..yeah, the guy had issues before...he'd been hassled by OTHER cops who thought THEY were above the law, and could keep him from doing what the law said he could do...just because THEY didn't agree with state law AND THEIR DEPARTMENT POLICY...excercising your legal rights and carrying a recorder to protect yourself because you've been harassed in the past for doing so is NOT "...looking for a fight..."
...the Philadelphia Police don't need to change their policy on open carry...he cited to them their OWN department directive saying that what he was doing was both legal and in line with the PD's "Policy"....but some rogue cops who thought they were the law and ignored both state law and dept. policy were determined to harass him anyways...and threaten him...and lecture him...and badger him...that's official oppression...
"...and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally..."...certainly not for the cops involved...they dealt with it totally illegally...on multiple occasions...

...your last statement is, to remain civil, totally incorrect and ignoring the facts...hanging onto your opinion that he was looking for trouble, even knowing that he'd been harassed multiple times before, and "...an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble" reads, to me, that you feel that they had a reason to draw down on him before even addressing him, and in spite of what the account gives us that they would be justified in shooting him...and neither is right...
...by the facts we were given, the man was totally within his rights as the law allows...and their Department's written directive...and subsequent confirmation by the city's attorney supported...and re-training of the officers who didn't get it reaffirmed..

...and he was looking for a fight??? and if you can get yourself shot by the police who are ignoring the law, while you are keeping the law...we've lost the battle already...murder by police is not to be feared nor accepted...they were totally in the wrong...and to live in fear of what rogue police might do reeks of a society I refuse to live in...I put my butt on the line for the rule of law for several years...BOTH the citizen and the LEOs must be held accountable when they don't live within it...to suggest that one is looking for trouble by obeying the law, and to warn that "you might be shot"...is kinda like saying "If you go when the light is green, you could potentially get rundown and killed"...it flies in the face of common sense...and is not the way the law was written....he did nothing wrong...and they did nothing right...oh, except maybe to refrain from shooting him...

Disagree

Agree

End of my comments.

[ScottDLS]

Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble.

So, if a few LEOs in TX decides they're against Concealed Carry and starts pulling people over when a CHL shows up when they run tags... And they make the CHL holder get out on the ground while they search the vehicle, and then impound their handgun while bogus charges of UCW are defended in court then we should just say I'm not going to carry because I might have a hassle?

That's actually a pretty good point, but what the Philly guy additionally has going for him is that what he was doing was completely legal (licensed open carry). Carrying in Texas under CHL is a Defense to Prosecution (all the 46.15 provisions are by case law) AND there is no requirement in PA law to carry your LTCF with you.

I just can't see how doing something perfectly legal on public property, or property open to the public is "asking for trouble"...even if you've had a (completely unjustified) problem with it in the past.

[terryg]

To me, this is an example of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. It is clear that the cop started out with chip on his shoulder. But the contempt and self righteous mindset of Mr. Fiorino is very easy to hear in the audio recording. If he would have been just a bit more professional during the encounter, he would certainly have a stronger case and he might have even had a more positive influence on the concept of citizen open carry to the officers he encountered.

Again, although it is clear that the first officer started with a poor attitude himself; please remember that on a daily basis, police officers have to be able to take control of situations with many unknown variables. That is a part of surviving every day on the job. Mr. Fiorino had many opportunities to protest his detainment in a less hostile manner - and probably would have gotten greater opportunities had he not displayed such disdain.

[ScottDLS]

To me, this is an example of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. It is clear that the cop started out with chip on his shoulder. But the contempt and self righteous mindset of Mr. Fiorino is very easy to hear in the audio recording. If he would have been just a bit more professional during the encounter, he would certainly have a stronger case and he might have even had a more positive influence on the concept of citizen open carry to the officers he encountered.

Again, although it is clear that the first officer started with a poor attitude himself; please remember that on a daily basis, police officers have to be able to take control of situations with many unknown variables. That is a part of surviving every day on the job. Mr. Fiorino had many opportunities to protest his detainment in a less hostile manner - and probably would have gotten greater opportunities had he not displayed such disdain.

Hmmmm... the "contempt of cop" and "officer safety" argument..... Don't take this as personal, but I just have to disgree strongly on personal liberty grounds.

The cop initiated the encounter. Fiorino was NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL. If I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and a cop yells "Hey...Boy, what are you doing?", because it's unusual for a black man to be walking in this part of DFW... I'm not going to have a real positive attitude either, even if (especially if) I've been hassled previously for WWB or DWB (Walking while Black and Driving While Black). DWB even requires a license (as does DWW).

If I want to carry a recorder because I've previously had trouble and want to make sure I don't suffer a "beat down" for being an uppity person of color, I'm not trolling...

How is Fiorino any different than the above? His licensed open carry in Phila is a State protected right and a Federally constitutionally protected right. Why am I under some obligation to act as an ambassador for the black community, or CHL community, or gay community or whatever...when treated rudely by a public servant. My job sucks too, but I don't get to demand respect or politeness from people when I don't give it.

Just my input, which is probably worth little more that you all had to pay for it....

(hmm... Young, gay, black, female, gun carrier....a civil rights case waiting to happen. )

[flintknapper]

This guy went 'Trolling for Cops'.

I am not pointing a finger at Keith, but at soceity here.

It is truly saddens me that anyone that is doing something within not only the laws of their locality but moreover within their constitutional rights would ever be considered “Trolling for Cops.” Our forefathers paid with their blood, and the blood of their family to earn the rights we have today and it really is a pitty that they are slipping away at an alarming rate.

Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble.

I've heard that too, but my Mother also instilled in me.... two other things:

1. Some things are WORTH fighting for.
2. Pick your fights carefully.

There is a "balance" of course.

[terryg]

Hmmmm... the "contempt of cop" and "officer safety" argument..... Don't take this as personal, but I just have to disgree strongly on personal liberty grounds.

The cop initiated the encounter. Fiorino was NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL. If I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and a cop yells "Hey...Boy, what are you doing?", because it's unusual for a black man to be walking in this part of DFW... I'm not going to have a real positive attitude either, even if (especially if) I've been hassled previously for WWB or DWB (Walking while Black and Driving While Black). DWB even requires a license (as does DWW).

If I want to carry a recorder because I've previously had trouble and want to make sure I don't suffer a "beat down" for being an uppity person of color, I'm not trolling...

How is Fiorino any different than the above? His licensed open carry in Phila is a State protected right and a Federally constitutionally protected right. Why am I under some obligation to act as an ambassador for the black community, or CHL community, or gay community or whatever...when treated rudely by a public servant. My job sucks too, but I don't get to demand respect or politeness from people when I don't give it.

Just my input, which is probably worth little more that you all had to pay for it....

(hmm... Young, gay, black, female, gun carrier....a civil rights case waiting to happen. )

I agree about the personal liberty. I don't have a problem, at all, with him having the recorder. Especially if he has been harassed before. It's pretty clear he was expecting - or at least anticipating - a confrontation. But, he was acting within the law. So I don't have a problem with that at all.

But the Philly PD still apparently believed that their local restrictions are still applicable. The officers on the tape were clearly convinced that his gun needed to be concealed. Acting belligerently in that situation was not going to help anything. If he would have acted respectfully first, I think he would have had ample opportunity to inform them about their own directive and it might have been received much better. As the encounter went, all that happened was he confirmed in the officers minds that "those who want to open carry"="troublemakers".

Should he have been detained? Of course not. Were his civil liberties violated? Absolutely. But he still could have handled it better. Change takes time. Battles have been fought months and years after peace has been declared because it takes time the word to spread. That is no different here.

[terryg]

I've heard that too, but my Mother also instilled in me.... two other things:

1. Some things are WORTH fighting for.
2. Pick your fights carefully.

There is a "balance" of course.

I think that is perfectly correct. I think this IS worth him fighting for and a good fight to pick. I just think he fought it poorly.

[ScottDLS]

Hmmmm... the "contempt of cop" and "officer safety" argument..... Don't take this as personal, but I just have to disgree strongly on personal liberty grounds.

The cop initiated the encounter. Fiorino was NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL. If I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and a cop yells "Hey...Boy, what are you doing?", because it's unusual for a black man to be walking in this part of DFW... I'm not going to have a real positive attitude either, even if (especially if) I've been hassled previously for WWB or DWB (Walking while Black and Driving While Black). DWB even requires a license (as does DWW).

If I want to carry a recorder because I've previously had trouble and want to make sure I don't suffer a "beat down" for being an uppity person of color, I'm not trolling...

How is Fiorino any different than the above? His licensed open carry in Phila is a State protected right and a Federally constitutionally protected right. Why am I under some obligation to act as an ambassador for the black community, or CHL community, or gay community or whatever...when treated rudely by a public servant. My job sucks too, but I don't get to demand respect or politeness from people when I don't give it.

Just my input, which is probably worth little more that you all had to pay for it....

(hmm... Young, gay, black, female, gun carrier....a civil rights case waiting to happen. )

I agree about the personal liberty. I don't have a problem, at all, with him having the recorder. Especially if he has been harassed before. It's pretty clear he was expecting - or at least anticipating - a confrontation. But, he was acting within the law. So I don't have a problem with that at all.

But the Philly PD still apparently believed that their local restrictions are still applicable. The officers on the tape were clearly convinced that his gun needed to be concealed. Acting belligerently in that situation was not going to help anything. If he would have acted respectfully first, I think he would have had ample opportunity to inform them about their own directive and it might have been received much better. As the encounter went, all that happened was he confirmed in the officers minds that "those who want to open carry"="troublemakers".

Should he have been detained? Of course not. Were his civil liberties violated? Absolutely. But he still could have handled it better. Change takes time. Battles have been fought months and years after peace has been declared because it takes time the word to spread. That is no different here.

I think I substantially agree with you. Some of the guys over at PAFOA.org (I believe) organized an open carry demonstration and walked while open carrying in front of city hall, DA, and AG office (why isn't this in Harrisburg?), and the Liberty Bell. They reported police observation by Phila PD and Rangers (State Cops) I think, but no harassment...likely because they were being videoed the whole time by supporters.