Carrying Concealed Not Legal Grounds to Stop and Search a Person in PA

AmmoLand ^ | 25 December, 2019 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Police in PA no longer have the right to stop and search you, simply because you are carrying a concealed weapon.

[I want the USA back]

He did nothing wrong. Why does the law go after honest, non-violent citizens and declare them criminals?

NRA - Life, since about 1990.

[Bob434]

[[Why does the law go after honest, non-violent citizens and declare them criminals?]]

There’s huge money in bullying people that abide by the law-

[cuban leaf]

I disagree with what the cops are doing, but I understand their thinking.

In a world of toy poodles, a trained Pit Bull needs to be controlled.

[RWGinger]

If he had a concealed carry permit why was he searched?

[Balding_Eagle]

Because the gun wasn’t always concealed.

[Bitman]

Open carry is generally legal.
If he had a concealed carry permit, he was legal to buy carry concealed.

Why was he searched?

[Bitman]

Scratch the ‘buy’

[Tallguy]

“If he had a concealed carry permit why was he searched?”

I surmise that because “open carry” is legal in PA, but transporting a loaded firearm in a vehicle is not legal without a CCL, then the police feel free to use the opportunity to “stop & frisk”. If the motorist doesn’t have a CCL he is in violation of the law. If he does, then he’s free to go barring any other violations.

[Balding_Eagle]

Because the gun wasn’t always concealed.

[TexasGator]

“He did nothing wrong.”

DUI is ok in your book?

[Bitman]

Open carry is generally legal. The gun doesn’t have to be concealed.

[Bitman]

The suspicion of DUI was not the reason he was stopped, but was a result of the stop. He was stopped for suspicion of a firearm, and one that the police did not apparently see, but had been reported to them. Even if the police had seen the firearm, the defendant could have unloaded it and stored it in a locked glove box before the police showed up. Unless they had REASONABLE suspicion that he was committing a crime they had no business stopping him, much less searching him.

Are you OK with being searched because some reports you committing some suspicious level activity?

[Balding_Eagle]

This case isn’t about that at all.

I only answered you because you hadn’t read the article and I realized that your time was much more valuable than mine :<).

[Bitman]

You may want to read the article. This case was about an illegal search based on a report of suspicious activity that was in no way criminal. Let me post that from the article for you... Even viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there exists no basis for a finding that Hicks was engaged in any manner of criminal conduct. Whether the gun was concealed or not, there was no criminal activity. If I could draw you a picture, I would. There was NO criminal activity. Wash, rinse, REPEAT.

[Ken H]

“I disagree with what the cops are doing, but I understand their thinking.”

>>>>>>>>>

Sounds a lot like, “I support the Second Amendment, but _____”

[Ken H]

PA SC =>

“Michael Hicks was deprived of the protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the evidence derivative of his seizure should have been suppressed.”

[Nuc 1.1]

It’s a lot easier than chasing criminals.

[Balding_Eagle]

Like I’ve said, that’s what this case was about.

[TexasGator]

Non sequitur