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
OMG.. this morron got lucky he didnt get shot by the police or robbers trying to take his gun away from him.. really? walking around Philly with an open firearm trying to give the cops hard time for some cheezy popularity on youtube? this redneck is a hazzard to himself and the others.. thats why there are so many voices for tighter gun laws thanks to irresponsible idiots like that! eventually making it more difficult for us responsible owners to really defend our lives!!
Between the five and seven minute marks I heard a lot of “crunching.” What was that? Please tell me that wasn’t the officers trying to destroy the evidence of their incompetence.
“Get on your knees, slave.”
Nice work Philly P.D.
Real good nationwide publicity.
Although the firearm was legal, look at the difference in this confrontation, where the suspect had a handgun in public, and that of John T. Williams who was gunned down by officer Ian Birk in Seattle, for walking down the street whittling a piece of wood with a 3 inch knife. (see earlier blog post.)
Though the officers here may have responded differently, their response was a lot more thoughtful and restrained than the officer in Seattle.
As of May 16, 2011, Officer Trent Scott was still employed by the Fairhope Police Department. -from OS’s courthouse news link
Unbelievable… (While he’s “still employed”, I wonder if he’s sitting at a desk, for now…)
Some things just cannot be believed. News story out of Fairhope, Alabama:
“A police officer beat an elderly man who called 911 to report an accident and stop a drunken driver from leaving the scene of a crime, according to a complaint in Baldwin County Court.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/18/36669.htm
Read their own directives! You gotta be kidding? Years ago, in Philadelphia, I was entitled to a reduced fare, but every time I got on a bus or trolley, I was challenged. I argued and ended up only paying the reduced fare every time, but it was upsetting. So I called SEPTA to complain and was told that the reduced fare rules had been posted and that I should pay the regular fare,then write a letter requesting a differential refund. I refused, but I guess I’m lucky i wasn’t beaten to death.
Here’s how it works: A notice is posted on a bulletin board, and then it’s read when somebody gets around to it, if ever. If law enforcement were run like a law school, officers would be told, “Hey, you have to know this stuff.”
Cops are threat to life and limb.
Defund your local police. Have as few of them as possible. Make them work out of humble offices and facilities. Forbid jailing anyone for non-violent charges. Outlaw swat team invasions in private homes. Outlaw the charge of “resisting arrest”. Teach cops humility by taming their police-state powers. Ban the taser. No tanks. No military training. And no lavish retirement packages.
Don’t like the risk? Find other work. Perhaps at Victoria’s Secrets or some other dainty little place.
I believe it is important to note what a judge said in Commonwealth (Pa) v. Hawkins about police interventions with armed citizens:
“The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania,4 it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the
Commonwealth’s fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes — which it does not —
such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.”
The NRA was contacted early on in the case, they never got back with a reply.
They now, of course, are publishing the incident.
Don’t expect the NRA to be there to defend gun rights.
Currently the PPD are taking positive steps to prevent their officers from violating the rights of others.
There is no law pertaining to the open carry of firearms in PA ther is only a law that states one must have a LTCF to do so in Philadelphia.
The right to carry openly has been an established right in PA since the 1700’s and perhaps earlier.
Related:
Marine Survives Two Tours in Iraq, SWAT Kills Him
As I have been following this from the beginning, I can tell you that that recording is only the tip of the iceberg.
It was 2 months after it was posted on youtube that a warrant was issued for his arrest. The warrant squad attempted to arrest Mark at his place of business. Luckily he wasn’t there. He turned himself in a couple days later and was then charged with the alleged crimes.
The DA is stating that these charges were levied because, upon further review, Mark was putting other citizens in danger when the backup officers were called to the scene with lights and sirens blaring.
While I will stipulate that Mark should have complied a little quicker, you have to remember that the officers were shouting contradicting orders. Telling him to get on his knees and then telling him that if he moves they are going to shoot them. What would you do?
As of right now Mark has a pending criminal case for those charges and is working on a civil lawsuit as well.
As for the NRA, there is no guarantee they are going to get involved. When all of this was in it’s infancy, the NRA and the ACLU were contacted. To the best of my knowledge, nothing came of it. Now that it’s going full-out viral, they might want to step into the ring, but who knows. Before they couldn’t be bothered.
“The Police Department heard about the YouTube clips. A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney’s Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police.” – Philadelphia Daily News 05/16/2011
Nothing was going to happen until the PPD realized that this was going to be a huge embarrassment to the department. There was another article (and I’m having trouble locating it right now) that mentioned that the investigation was launched as the request of Police Commissioner Ramsay.
Right now, the prosecuting ADA in this is Bryan Lentz. He lost his congressional seat and was given a job in the Philly DA’s office. Lentz is notoriously anti-gun.
In regards to the recording, the cops saw they were being recorded and at one point you can hear a series of bangs. This was the officers trying to turn off the device with no luck.
So this is far from over and it’s going to be some fun reading on PAFOA.org for the next couple of months.
That internal police memo is not law nor is it legally correct.
The mere act of carrying a holstered gun is not reasonable suspicion to Terry stop the victim, but that memo asserts the opposite.
The Philadelphia police Department is playing with fire here; someone is going to get killed (and the taxpayers raped).
The District Attorney, Seth Williams, has shown himself to be unworthy of his job.
Too bad he’s immune from suit!
Blouise,
Thanks… 😉
anon nurse,
It’s yours … by the way, in certain instances such a listening device could be of assistance as long as legal within the jurisdiction … 😉
1) We get to pay ridiculous salaries for cops.
2) We get to pay ridiculous pensions for cops.
3) We get to pay for legal defense for the same cops when they act like d-bags.
4) We get to pay for settlements (or at least insurance) when they are punished once in a while for being d-bags.
5) We are expected to provide respect without it having been earned.
6) We are expected to enjoy getting beaten and having our rights violated.
7) We get to pay for the chiefs and PR people who will defend the same d-bags who violate our rights.
8) We get to pay for prosecutors who will charge us if we filmed ourselves getting abused.
9) We are expected to treat them like heroes when most die in car accidents and when they are not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
10) We are expected to mock other countries for their terrible legal systems and police.
Loggers, pilots, and fisherman have far more dangerous jobs with far fewer perks like only following the law when it is convenient.
The new digital voice recorders are not much bigger than a cigarette lighter and can record more than eight hundred hours. Battery life is about two days of non-stop use, so it is easy to walk around with one recording ever second of your day for less than $60.00. I can carry one in my shirt pocket and it takes up less than half the space of my cell phone.
Any incident like this should be tweeted with #copwatch (or as appropriate #tsawatch #professorwatch)
I am curious how he was recording this.
I also find it curious that the cops after telling him the recording is illegal, actually let the recording continue.
His recording of this should of course be legal.
OT, sort of…
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/russ-feingold-potential-senate-candidate-rips-democrats-for-corruption.php
Telling him, “Get on you knees!” already seems abusive, to me. Of course, that could be because I had knee surgery last week.
How legal is something, actually, when doing it means the police can stop you and make you “assume the position” while they check your papers?