Directive 137

I did a search and came up empty so please forgive me if this is already covered elsewhere. In following the Fiorino debacle, I read Directive 137. Isn't Directive 137, specifically the part that says: (spelling not corrected)

IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

Click to expand...

A clear violation of the 4th amendment?

*crickets*

Ooooooooooooooooookay.

(slinks back to Wisconsin forum)

Here's Directive 137 in its entirety:

Police directive sent to all districts regarding open carry in Philadelphia, PA Sept 22, 2010

GENERAL: 1272 09/22/10 12:53:20

TO : ALL COMMANDING OFFICERS / DEPARTMENT HEADS
SUBJECT : FIREARM OPEN CARRY LAW IN PHILADELPHIA

1. DIRECTIVE 137, ENTITLED “FIREARMS” IS BEING UPDATED CONCERNING THE PENNSYLVANIA OPEN CARRY LAWS REGARDING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THIS TELETYPE REFLECTS THE NEW POLICY AS IT WILL APPEAR IN THE DIRECTIVE.

2. ALL OFFICERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT PENNSYLVANIA IS CONSIDERED AN “OPEN CARRY STATE” WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PHILADELPHIA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE A FEW TERMS USED, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:

“OPEN CARRY” REFERS TO THE ACT OF OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRYING A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON.

“OPEN CARRY STATE” REFERS TO A STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM ON ONE’S PERSON WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.

“CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” REFERS TO A SPECIFIC LICENSE ISSUED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZING THE PERSON TO CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED ON HIS OR HER PERSON OR
VEHICLE.

3. IN PHILADELPHIA, UNLIKE ANY OTHER PART OF THE STATE, FOR ANY PERSON TO LAWFULLY, OPENLY AND VISIBLY CARRY A FIREARM, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE. SO, IN PHILADELPHIA, IF A PERSON HAS A VALID CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE, HE OR SHE CAN LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM EITHER OPEN AND VISIBLE OR CONCEALED.

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE, BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED, OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID (I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFA VIOLATION AND TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS “ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

Click to expand...

This "directive" contains numerous 4th Amendment violations, assumes guilty until proven innocent, etc.

1FASTC4 said:

I did a search and came up empty so please forgive me if this is already covered elsewhere. In following the Fiorino debacle, I read Directive 137. Isn't Directive 137, specifically the part that says: (spelling not corrected)



A clear violation of the 4th amendment?

Click to expand...

I would agree with your assessment.

There are MULTIPLE problems with the verbiage in this Directive, and whoever wrote it is obviously completely CLUELESS as to the exact wording and legal meanings implied by the PA statutes regulating the carry, transport, and concealement of firearms...

Let's run this down, line by offending line:

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

Click to expand...

This makes things difficult for any PA resident that possess a PA-issued License, because NOWHERE on the card does the word "concealed" appear. PA issues a "License to Carry Firearms". It does not stipulate wheter it is for open or concealed carry anywhere on the card. So I guess that means that the Philly PD believes that ANYONE in possession of a PA LTCF and is OCing is violating the Philly Carry Ban, because NONE of them have a "valid concealed carry license"...

C. A 75-48A MUST BE COMPLETED AND THE BASIS FOR THE STOP WOULD BE A “POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION”

Click to expand...

If you are EVER stopped in Philly, and the LEO doesn't file a 75-48A, they are in violation of this directive, and should be reported for failing to perform their duty. Hopefully this will be a tactic used by more OCers being harassed. FOIA is your friend...

D. ONCE THE OFFICER RECEIVES CONFIRMATION THAT THE CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE IS VALID, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER OFFENSE OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED, OFFICERS SHOULD RETURN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE END OF THE STOP.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in the PA Statute is it stated that you must have a "concealed carry license" to carry in a City of the First Class. The statute only says you must be "licensed to carry a firearm". The word "concealed" does not appear at all in the "Philly Statute"...

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.008.000..HTM

18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

Click to expand...

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106 of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license). E. HOWEVER, IF THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT PRODUCE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OR THE LICENSE IS NOT VALID (I.E. EXPIRED OR REVOKED), PROBABLE CAUSE THEN EXISTS TO ARREST THE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE VUFA VIOLATION AND TRANSPORT THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE DIVISIONAL DETECTIVES FOR PROCESSING. THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SHOULD BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY RECEIPT (75-3) AND MARKED AS “ EVIDENCE”. A 75-48A FOR THE INITIAL STOP MUST BE PREPARD ALONG WITH A 75-48 FOR THE VUFA ARREST.

Click to expand...

So by the wording of this directive, EVERY resident of PA who holds a valid PA LTCF (or any citizen holding a license or permit from a reciprocal state which does not specify the permit is for "concealed carry") is to be arrested, and their weapon seized and properly entered as evidence.

In PA, they issue a "License to Carry Firearms" Nowhere on the card does the word "concealed" appear. Nowhere in PA statute does it specify that this card is ONLY for concealed carry--in fact quite the opposite is true. In PA, you need one of these cards to legally transport a firearm in your vehicle--openly or concealed. (18 PA CS §1606)

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.006.000..HTM

Therefore, since PA does not issue a card, ID, certificate, or other instrument that is labeled as or statutorily referred to as a "concealed carry license", then ANY PA resident with a PA LTCF would be in violation of the Philly Ban.

And ANY resident of a reciprocal state that issues an instrument called a "permit" (such as NC, where I live, or Utah) would ALSO be in violation of the Philly Ban, because a "Permit" and a "License" are two VERY different legal documents, and the terms are NOT interchangeable.

Between sloppy LE training, unconstitutional investigative procedure, legally illiterate Directive drafting, and a Public Relations machine for the PPD that is socially suicidal, inarticulate, ignorant of PA statutory wording and downright obfuscatory, I predict that Philly is in for a RAFT of the proverbial fecal matter when these cases start hitting the Court.

Hopefully this particular incident will be the FIRST in sudden rash of such Official Misconduct in the City of Brotherly Love, and the heavy-handed processes of PPD will soon reach such a fever pitch that the Fine People of Pennsylvania will DEMAND the Philly government and Police be reined in by the State Legislature and brought in-line with the rest of the state.

I hope that Mark Fiorino's attorney will, in addition to his case, file an additional complaint with the USDOJ that his client is the victim of an egregious 14th amendment violation, in light of the fact that NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of PAFOA's "Philly March" last week--most of whom were CLEARLY OCing--were stopped, detained, harassed, or otherwise molested--DESPITE the fact they were CLEARLY OCing, and none of them had their PA LTCF's displayed...

Philly PD must be training in Baltimore MD. The certainly have the same disregard for the Rule of Law, and they obviously have the same level of politeness and sense of Honor and Duty...

Statkowski said:

Here's Directive 137 in its entirety:

This "directive" contains numerous 4th Amendment violations, assumes guilty until proven innocent, etc.

Click to expand...

Not to mention half a dozen or so spelling errors, several of which are in legally-critical terms...

PPD is apparently populated in large part by people who are either unable or unwilling to read and write correctly and properly...

Dreamer said:

Not to mention half a dozen or so spelling errors, several of which are in legally-critical terms...

PPD is apparently populated in large part by people who are either unable or unwilling to read and write correctly and properly...

Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed the spelling errors. I'd be embarrassed if I were the public relations officer for the PPD. Thanks for taking the time to fill me in. Very good info here.

Yes, that's right. Just move to the back of the bus like they tell you to. Get away from that lunch counter. Don't drink at that water fountain. Don't cause a commotion. They're just doing their job.

Also note....

No real mention on how to handle an open carrier from out of state using a reciprocal license/permit (say, VA)... If PPD doesn't know PA law on LTCF, they probably don't have a CLUE on reciprocity...

Dreamer said:

I hope that Mark Fiorino's attorney will, in addition to his case, file an additional complaint with the USDOJ that his client is the victim of an egregious 14th amendment violation, in light of the fact that NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of PAFOA's "Philly March" last week--most of whom were CLEARLY OCing--were stopped, detained, harassed, or otherwise molested--DESPITE the fact they were CLEARLY OCing, and none of them had their PA LTCF's displayed...

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This

The Philly PD and prosecutor have made so many self-incriminating statements against penal interest and taken so many self-incriminating actions that they are dead meat in civil court.

Statkowski said:

A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

Click to expand...

What "separate license" does the Philadelphia PD think there is?

Do they stop all drivers to see if they have a license - after all their vehicle is exposed.
Is everyone that walks with a gas can and arsonist until the officer is satisfied otherwise?

Grapeshot said:

What "separate license" does the Philadelphia PD think there is?

Click to expand...

Up onto last week, the head of the Gun Permit Unit for many years, Lt. Lisa King, did not know that OC was legal. (Or so she claims.)
And you expect them to know about licenses?

We also need to remember that in Philly--unlike in ANY other place in PA--the Sheriff does not process LTCF applications--the Philly PD does. And the LTCF permitting policies for Philly are some of the most bizarre in the state of PA. In fact they look a LOT more like the way they do things in Maryland than anything that goes on in any County of Pennsylvania.

It is the official policy of PPD to deny permits to people who have unpaid parking tickets, or have been arrested but not convicted of crimes, or have expunged convictions--NONE of which are "disqualifying" under PA law, or Federal law.

It is also official policy for the PPD to REVOKE a LTCF if the victim has their firearm stolen. Yes that is correct--if you have a LTCF, and your gun is stolen, PPD thinks that the way to keep you safe is to REVOKE YOUR LICENSE...

That's like making a mugging victim wear a t-shirt that says "I Carry Cash".

PPD is an organized criminal enterprise, and needs to be prosecuted under Federal RICO statutes...

BTW, here is the form that new LTCF holders receive in Philly when they are issued their new permits. It is full of lies, violate the PA Constitution and Statutes on several counts, and is fundamentally a huge steaming pile of anti-gun BS. Read it and weep for our brothers and sisters in Philly:

**Philly LTCF Letter**

And let us also not forget from where the current Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey came. Before coming to Philly, he was the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia from 1998-2006 (a period when DC was one of the murder capitals of the country, and the crack epidemic was rampant...)--a position from which he resigned in disgrace.

And--you just can't make this stuff up--before DC, Ramsey was the Deputy Superintendent of Chicago Police Department.

And --even MORE rich--Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor-elect of Chi-town, is apparently courting Ramsey to "come home to roost" as "top cop" of Chicago now. Birds of a feather, indeed...
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Emanuel-Met-Privately-With-Ramsey-118790799.html

Ramsey is a career criminal. He has been successfully prosecuted in DC District Courts for numerous 4th Amendment Civil Rights violations while Chief of DC-MPD--actions which cost the Taxpayers of DC nearly $2million in settlements. The fact that Philly actually WANTED him to be their Commish is a testament to the rampant corruption and disregard for the Rule of Law held by Philly's municipal government and the Mayors office. They actually WANTED a guy who was a proven civil rights violator to be their "top cop".

'nuff sed...

So how's that "gun control" thing working out for you Philly?