There is an interesting audio recording (below) from a man, Mark Fiorino, 25, who was confronted by a Philadelphia police officer about carrying a gun in public. Fiorino is allowed to open carry in the city, but the officers appeared completely ignorant of their own directives and became increasingly hostile to Fiorino’s effort to show them that he was lawfully carrying the weapon. After concluding that he was right, he was released . . . only to be charged later with disorderly conduct based on his effort to show the officers that they were wrong about the law.
Fiorino carries a .40-caliber Glock on his hip in plain view. Sgt. Michael Dougherty spotted the gun and pulled his own weapon — shouting “Yo, Junior, what are you doing?”
What follows is an audio tape of the confrontation. The officers become increasingly profane and insulting — particularly after learning that they have been taped. Dougherty asked, incorrectly, “Do you know you can’t openly carry here in Philadelphia?: Fiorino responds by saying, correctly, “Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms. It’s Directive 137. It’s your own internal directive.” He is right. You can carry if you have a concealed weapons permit (a slightly higher standard than the rest of the state).
I will not hide my unease about open carry laws and I am sympathetic with the difficulty that it poses for officers who have to determine if someone is a danger to themselves and others. However, the conduct of these officers in this case should be a matter of internal discipline. Instead, as is often the case with taped police encounters, the prosecutors are now seeking to convict Fiorino on a different charge after confirming that he was right. He is now being charged despite the fact that he never raises his voice and remains calm throughout the encounter.
Here is the directive that Fiorino referenced:
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 PHILADELPHIA1. 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 VUFAVIOLATION 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.
The District Attorney’s Office is pressing charges with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. I believe those charges are wildly excessive and retaliatory.
While he should have followed the directions of the officers in dropping to his knees, it is hardly the conduct to support a criminal charge. For gun owners, the prospect of being constantly told to drop to their knees while staring down a gun barrel may seem like retaliation by the police department, which is clearly hostile to the right created by law. There are ample reasons to oppose open carry laws, but the government has affirmed this right for citizens like Fiorino. There is an obvious need for better training of officers on the existence of the right. Moreover, regardless of the legitimate need to investigate, these officers were plainly unprofessional in their language and treatment of Fiorino.
Source: Philly
Jonathan Turley
Blouise,
Yep. I’d like to borrow that, if you don’t mind…
I found a link to a Philadelphia law firm that specializes in suing the police department for abuse and wrongdoing. It is pretty bad when a law firm can make a living off one chronic defendant.
anon nurse,
There are times I feel like I’m watching two locomotive engineers playing chicken … the only possible outcome is a train wreck.
Blouise,
Thanks for that…
re: … “…the only thing missing is a slice of apple pie …”
There’s a joke, or is it a bumper sticker… — and I think it was a cop who passed it along to me: “Bad cop, no doughnut.”
(I’m guessing that there might have been an apple “something or other” (an apple fritter maybe?) in one of the cop cars…)
I checked Fiorino’s original post wherein he explained why he was carrying a recording device and why it was turned on.
“I have learned to always keep my recorder on me and recording when I am in public in Philadelphia, due to the over-zealous nature of the police, and today, I am glad I followed that rule.”
We have a 25 year old male, walking down the street towards the autoparts store from his mother’s house. According to his post: “I was visiting my mother today in Philadelphia to help her around the house and spend time with her.”
My goodness … mom, a gun, car parts, a dumb flatfoot, and a recording device … the only thing missing is a slice of apple pie …
Evers, a police spokesman is talking “set-up” as in the cops were set up by Fiorino and catch this … “Cops who raced to the scene could have gotten into a car accident or injured pedestrians.” (Evers)
…gun rights, dumb cops, and YouTube … America
Anyone know anything about the following? Innocent scuba diving accident, or was there more to it? I have no idea… I saw it while looking at Michaelb’s link…
Michaelb
Thanks for posting part 2…
Police ignorant of their own local laws – doesn’t exactly scream “confidence in law enforcement”, does it?
While this guy was legally allowed to openly carry a firearm, it is open carry laws that give me the heebie jeebies … if one wants to carry their gun wherever they go, fine but I don’t see the purpose in allowing one to advertise, “GUN HERE!”
There is part 2 http://youtu.be/igt-vp7VF0E
The police are stupid and they do stupid things in conjunction with a willing and submissive DA. How the hell can they force you to get on your knees when you have a legal right to carry the weapon? That doesn’t make sense. Oops, there I go again trying to find reason in what the bad cops do.
If the Philadelphia PD thinks they can make this go away quickly, they have another think coming. Look at this. By charging Firoino for making them look bad, they have now upped the ante. The charges have brought this to the attention of far more people than just those who knew about the YouTube recording. It is all over the blogs today.
Also, the NRA will be opening their legal pocketbook as well. I have no way of knowing if Firoino is a member, but probably will not make a lot of difference if he is or not. The NRA is capable of mounting a formidable defense for him far in excess of what a municipal judge–or the prosecutor–is used to seeing.
The directive itself is wrong on the law. There is no such thing as a “CONCEALED CARRY FIREARMS LICENSE” we have a “License to Carry Firearms” and nowhere on it does it say concealed. It allows us to carry in or on a vehicle without the restrictions imposed, it allows us to carry in declared emergencies without firearms being seized, and it allows us to carry concealed (and carry at all in Philadelphia).
That’s ok….they have a new tool….now….its the same old Sct…..
Supreme Court: No warrant needed if police discern destruction of evidence
The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 on a Kentucky case in which police broke into an apartment after smelling marijuana and hearing sounds suggesting evidence was being destroyed.
The justices said in certain emergency circumstances a warrant is not necessary, provided that law enforcement officials act reasonably in compliance with Fourth Amendment protections and do not threaten to violate them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0516/Supreme-Court-No-warrant-needed-if-police-discern-destruction-of-evidence
AY,
Well, I try my best to slam some common sense into my co-workers on a daily basis. Teach them how to be professional without taking anything personal from others, sometimes there are some that I can’t “save” from their own destruction when they act like jack booted thugs.
They did not issue a warrant until this hit the Internet and went viral. One must not make them look stupid, I suppose, or they will charge you with something. Even if they have to make it up out of whole cloth.
This is a little like those arrests for “Driving While Black” or “Driving While Hispanic.” A citizen is in a no-win situation because charges like disturbing the peace are so vague and flexible in interpretation.
Recall that some law enforcement agencies want to make it illegal to record an officer at all. They need to keep in mind that practically every teenager in the country has a cell phone camera and is tech savvy enough to know how to upload to YouTube. Not to mention ubiquitous security cameras.
ChaZ,
Does it really surprise you?
“Get down on your knees!” — from the vid
That’s where they want us… and that’s where they have us.
(The guy was perfectly calm. There was absolutely no reason to have handled it in this manner.)
As I’ve said: They record us, we record them. They take video of us, we take video of them. Mass surveillance of us, mass surveillance of them… Sad isn’t it, that it’s become “us vs.. them”…
(And let me add… there are still some great people in law enforcement…)
Oh man, that prosecutor doesn’t know what he’s getting into. NRA will, for free of charge, provide lawyers to defend Fiorino.
I know that some people will feel uneasy about open carry, but after living in Arizona for over five years, I have carried both concealed and open carry with my guns. I noticed that if I open carried while riding my motorcycle, virtually everyone was nice to me and didn’t cut me off. So I consider that a bonus.
Sadly, open carry means you lose your tactical advantage. If you walk into a store while open carry, the perps will see your guns and make a mental list to take you out first before robbing the store. So, yeah concealed carry is way better than open carry.
Besides, those cops are frickin’ stupid. They should know their gun laws well than over react. To this day, it still amazes me how many cops I know are not knowledgeable about the laws that they’re supposed to be enforcing.
Seems like we need a law making it illegal to record police – that would solve these sorts of problems.
*SIGH*
“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.”
Seems like the cops set up probable cause….