Concealed carry question

[Sonic03snake]

Myself and 4 friends went down to Saddle ridge in Pittsburgh last night, my buddy always carrys 2 guns on him, one on him and one under the seat so he brought them along in my vehicle. I have a carry permit, my wife does, he does, and one of the other girls with us does too.

Anyways, we left Saddle ridge at 2 pm and headed up 51 and ran into a DUI check point in Brentwood, we roll up with the windows down and I hand the officer my licence, he asks if I had anything to drink (No), then asks if there are any weapons in the car. I acknowledged my buddy had 2, next thing you know, they are ordering us hands where you can see them and he yells to the other officers something adout a zoolo? Out of the car we go one at a time and pating us down. They snag up his guns and drag him off to the side to grill him and check all the numbers on them. I felt like a criminal, just doesn't seem right to be yanked off the road and treated like trash over a legal concealed carry. Anyone else know anything about this or have it happen? We had to sit there for about 40 minutes for them to check it all out.

[speedracer]

My carry permit goes out the window with my drivers licence, never had much of an issue. I'm not 100% certain but I dont think you need to tell the officer that you have a pistol if you have a carry permit. I'd be on the phone with a lawyer in the AM tomorrow if I was you, that shit aint right.

[03SnakePlissken]

Illegal move by the officers. If your truely offended, contact the Chief with a letter and details and if so inclined and can afford, contact a lawyer. Go over to www.PAFOA.org and ask for lawyer recomendations in your area.

[2000 Ultra Z]

if they ask you have to tell them and i dont think it legal to carry if your BAL is over the legal limit

[03SnakePlissken]

if they ask you have to tell them and i dont think it legal to carry if your BAL is over the legal limit

PA has no law regaurding BAC and carry.

The LEO would need reasonable suspicion of a crime to act the way he did. They can not arbitrarily confinscate your car, lamps, curtains, sunglasses or firearm. All are your property. You have rights under the law to prevent this type of activity.

[How Much?]

Myself and 4 friends went down to Saddle ridge in Pittsburgh last night, my buddy always carrys 2 guns on him, one on him and one under the seat so he brought them along in my vehicle. I have a carry permit, my wife does, he does, and one of the other girls with us does too.

Anyways, we left Saddle ridge at 2 pm and headed up 51 and ran into a DUI check point in Brentwood, we roll up with the windows down and I hand the officer my licence, he asks if I had anything to drink (No), then asks if there are any weapons in the car. I acknowledged my buddy had 2, next thing you know, they are ordering us hands where you can see them and he yells to the other officers something adout a zoolo? Out of the car we go one at a time and pating us down. They snag up his guns and drag him off to the side to grill him and check all the numbers on them. I felt like a criminal, just doesn't seem right to be yanked off the road and treated like trash over a legal concealed carry. Anyone else know anything about this or have it happen? We had to sit there for about 40 minutes for them to check it all out.

DAMM!!! I had a Bad feeling bout goin, im glad you guys had fun, But Dam that sucks!!

[90TitaniumStang]

Ive been pulled over about ten times and my permit always goes out first only one time i had to get out and i think because it was at night. Other than that officer never said a word.

[Inkdcountryboy]

you didnt have to tell the officer you had them.. we dont have that law..i just took a 9 hour gun class for a utah carrying permit.. and we discussed PA laws....trust me i was stopped in OHIO which was because of profiling and it took 4 hours there.. so your 40minutes was lucky lol.. unless i know i have to tell i nthat state..i dont sell my rights short..i dont say nothing more than i need too

[412mustangz]

i understand ur frustration n y ur mad but in a case like that, officers take there safety very seriously and they dont kno whether ur a trustworthy citizen or criminals out to hurt ppl, so its in there best interest to have the guns checked out n not just let u guys go 2 find out later u guys killed someone when they coulda prevented it

[03SnakePlissken]

i understand ur frustration n y ur mad but in a case like that, officers take there safety very seriously and they dont kno whether ur a trustworthy citizen or criminals out to hurt ppl, so its in there best interest to have the guns checked out n not just let u guys go 2 find out later u guys killed someone when they coulda prevented it

So wrong.

For an officer to take your property in the commision of or if suspician of the intent to commit a crime... this is acceptable.

For an oficer to take your property because he wore red socks... or you have a beard.... or whatever analogy you want to place there... that is another.

If you are legally carrying your firearm he can request your ID and permit and you are required by law to provide when concealed carrying. If you are open carrying on a sidewalk or in a grocery store you are not required to comply with a request for ID or permit as none are required.

LEO safety is important, but this does not trump the rights provided by our legal system. Assuming you were not breaking any laws, you were treated unjust and should at least let the Chief know so that he can coach the officers and prevent expensive lawsuites that they will loose.

[Sonic03snake]

i understand ur frustration n y ur mad but in a case like that, officers take there safety very seriously and they dont kno whether ur a trustworthy citizen or criminals out to hurt ppl, so its in there best interest to have the guns checked out n not just let u guys go 2 find out later u guys killed someone when they coulda prevented it

So basicly it comes down to if you choose the right to protect yourself you should be subject to be treated like a criminal? It doesn't seem right to me. I had no drinks that night and if I was a criminal I would have not mentioned the weapons. JMO, not giving you a hard time.

[SAC81]

Wow, what garbage- I'd understand if you chose not to because of the hassle, but if you made a stink about this it'd benefit the rest of us gun owners.

[03SnakePlissken]

So basicly it comes down to if you choose the right to protect yourself you should be subject to be treated like a criminal? It doesn't seem right to me. I had no drinks that night and if I was a criminal I would have not mentioned the weapons. JMO, not giving you a hard time.

Sonic,

You are absolutely correct and 412 is off track. We have laws in place to prevent these situations, trouble is that some LEO forget how to act when they meet law abiding citezens with legally owned firearms that are being carried safely and legally.

Make the call and write a letter to the Chief! You were mistreated.

[Mater]

only 4 friends :(

[PaceFever79]

I don't know anything about weapons laws but I do know something about "resisting";
Any hostile arguing (resisting) can be used as probable cause for arrest. That goes for
any questions or instructions an officer gives you.

Always be careful (how) you react.

[Sonic03snake]

only 4 friends :(

You had your own ride little buddy. Ill re phrase it for you. In my truck:D

[Sonic03snake]

I don't know anything about weapons laws but I do know something about "resisting";
Any hostile arguing (resisting) can be used as probable cause for arrest. That goes for
any questions or instructions an officer gives you.

Always be careful (how) you react.

Absolutely no attitude was given, wasn't enough time to realize what was up and get an attitude.

[03SnakePlissken]

4th amendment.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and its protections extended to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicle falling short of arrest. A reasonable suspicion determination is made by the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. Past cases have recognized reasonable suspicion was a somewhat abstract notion – a deliberate intent to avoid a neat set of legal rules. Rather than viewing incidents in isolation, the proper test is to look at factors as a whole to determine if there is reasonable suspicion.
A police officer can conduct an investigative stop and briefly detain and question a person for investigative purposes when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts. Subsequent to a valid Terry stop, a police officer can search the individual for weapons where the officer has reason to believe the person is armed and dangerous. In assessing whether the suspect is armed, the officer doesn’t have to be absolutely certain; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts". Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

Precedent
In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of April 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.

Examples

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything that would indicate reasonable suspicion. The occupants admitted that they had firearms and I assume they volunteered thier PA permits, what at this point would hint to the officer that these folks were in the process of or with intent of commiting a crime?

When LEO's do something like this, it weakens the 4A for all Americans.

I carry pretty much all the time. I also excersize my right to open carry quite often during the warmer weather when it is a PITA to conceal. I have NEVER had an officer ask or demand to touch my weapon(s). If they would ask for no reason I would ask that they call the Chief and have him come to the location to collect my weapon... in other words I would offer to comply by forcing them to call back to the Chief and learn that I am not being legally detained and that they can not legally take my weapon by force. Now, had I been speeding, drinking, driving wrecklessly.... that would change things dramatically. Now I am living outside of the law and I am clearly in suspicion of commiting a crime of some sort while armed. This changes the rights that I have left to excersize and it changes the LEO's rights as to what he can force upon me. Should I be breaking the law and carrying a firearm and a LEO get involved.... he has the right and duty to take total control of me and my posessions while he sorts everything out and determines if an arrest needs to be made.

Being stopped at a DUI check point while sober is not reasonable suspicion of commiting a crime.

Then you have the illegal data base that they run your pistol against. In the United States there is law stating that no database of firearms may exist, yet the PSP has begun building thier private database. There are pending lawsuites against this right now.

[PaceFever79]

All I'm saying, (and I realize the "suspect" in question didn't do it), is that if a cop tells
you to turn off your car and put your hands where I can see them, and you argue back,
"but I did nothing wrong!" that is technically resisting arrest. At that point you could be
arrested merely for arguing, regardless of the reason.

[Sonic03snake]

All I'm saying, (and I realize the "suspect" in question didn't do it), is that if a cop tells
you to turn off your car and put your hands where I can see them, and you argue back,
"but I did nothing wrong!" that is technically resisting arrest. At that point you could be
arrested merely for arguing, regardless of the reason.

I completely understood you,