A Hypothetical Arrest in Starbucks

[EffieBlack]

Here’s a hypo for folks to consider:

(Law professors LOVE hypos ...)

It is illegal under Pennsylvania law to carry a concealed weapon in public establishments without a valid license to carry. 18 Pa. C.S. Section 6106(b). Assume for the sake of this hypo that Starbucks does not have a separate written policy on gun possession in their stores, but follows state law. Here’s a link to the law: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.006.000..HTM

Now, suppose that just before those two men came into Starbucks and didn’t buy coffee last week, the manager served two other men who DID buy coffee. When she was ringing them up, she noticed that each of them had a gun on his belt under his jacket. Alarmed, as soon as the men left the counter and sat down, the manager went to the phone, called the police and reported that two men in her establishment had weapons on them.

The police arrived a few minutes later.

1. Were the police required to arrest the men on the spot for violating Pennsylvania’s concealed carry law?

2. If your answer is yes, please explain your reasoning.

3. If your answer is no, what should they have done next? Please explain your reasoning.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. What is, if you know, the LEGAL answer to #1?

Not that the cops do the legal thing all the time or even usually

[EffieBlack]

2. Ill tell you later ...

Want to see what other people think first.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. So the answer is of course they should arrest them, in one case the

threat posed is a loss of retail square footage to the rightful owner, Starbucks, of that square footage for the time the men would be there and in the other a potential gunning down of dozens of innocent human beings, all being shot dead.

[EffieBlack]

11. Nope

Please see my answer below.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. I meant they should arrest someone illegally carrying loaded weapons into public place

and NOT the alleged loiterers.

Oh WAIT your premise says conceal is legal with permit, I misread and thought you said illegal.

[EffieBlack]

16. Gotcha

[IronLionZion]

4. Police would ask them to show their permits

if white.

If they don't have a permit, then the police should arrest them. Or at least confiscate the weapons and require them to come to the station to retrieve it with a proper permit.

You've been around people with concealed weapons and didn't know it.

There are tons of whites who open carry large assault rifles or holstered handguns in Starbucks with no problem.

[EffieBlack]

13. Exactly

They didn’t have to just take the manager’s word for it. They were duty-bound to investigate the situation themselves and to confirm that the men were actually in violation of the law. It would be crazy for the to just walk in like they were Starbucks’ private bouncers and arrest the men because a manager told them to.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I shouldn't complicate the scenario but

assume they are undercover cops.

By the way - BREAKING NEWS -

Link to tweet

TEXT

The Associated Press
✔
@AP

The Latest: Philadelphia's police commissioner apologizes to two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks, says he "failed miserably" in the messaging around the arrests. http://apne.ws/CkbNSbq
12:30 PM - Apr 19, 2018

Philadelphia police commissioner says he "failed miserably" in Starbucks arrests messaging

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) --The commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department says he "failed miserably" in his message after the controversial arrests of two black men at a Starbucks in Center City last week.

Commissioner Richard Ross staunchly defended the arrests in the days afterward. However, in an apology delivered during a news conference on Thursday, he said he was not aware of the Starbucks business model, that people "spend long hours in Starbucks and aren't necessarily expected to make a purchase." He said it's reasonable to believe the arresting officers didn't know that either.

"I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law and not that they didn't do anything wrong. Words are very important," he said.

He said that the issue of race is not lost on him and that he shouldn't be the person making things worse. Ross said the police department did not have a policy for dealing with similar situations, but does now, and it will be released soon.

http://6abc.com/police-commissioner-says-he-failed-in-starbucks-arrests-messaging/3366099/

[EffieBlack]

6. Too late - his earlier comments have been embraced and regurgitated by white apologists everywhe

[BumRushDaShow]

7. This was phase 1 of the grand "walk back". He still has some more to do.

[EffieBlack]

8. You didnt complicate it - youre right in pocket

[BumRushDaShow]

9. And you know what?

I bet some DUers wouldn't even consider that as a possibility, so no pity for these "officers in plain clothes". There have been far too many cases of "friendly fire", even after the officers attempted to pull out their badges to establish identity to the uniformed cops.

A black man "reaching into his waistband" (even for an ID or police badge) is a death sentence.

[EffieBlack]

10. The Answer

Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2018, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

The correct answer is No - the police are NOT required to - in fact they should not and MUST not arrest them on the spot without investigating further.

The Concealed Carry Law prohibits people from carrying a concealed weapon in public without a license. Therefore, if the men have valid licenses, they are in full compliance with the law. The manager did not ask whether the men had licenses before she called the police. Nor did she tell the police when she called that they did not have licenses.

Given the police did not have enough information to know whether the men were actually n compliance with the law, they would be required to confirm whether the men had licenses before arresting them for violating the law.

And there’s ANOTHER twist to this - one that BumRushDaShow picked up on. The law lists several categories of people - including law enforcement officers - from the license requirement. It’s possible that these men were off-duty cops or military officers on duty or someone else on the list. If so, they are not violating the law.

If the police had shown up and employed the “the manager said they broke the law and we have to take her word for it and have no choice but to arrest them and if they’re actually innocent they can sue later” rule that many DUers think should apply in the Starbucks case, they would find themselves hauling two law-abiding citizens or even two police officers who hadn’t broken any law off to jail.

This is exactly applicable to the Starbucks case. The men were charged with “defiant trespass,” under Pennsylvania law. But that law, while defining trespass as entering or staying on the premises without permission despite being asked to leave, it also - like the CCW law - provides a list of exemptions. One of those exemptions is for any person in a business open to the public who complied with all “lawful conditions” imposed by the owner on the public to enter or remain on the premises.

In the Starbucks case, the manager claimed that the men were trespassing and, on at first glance, it may appear that they were since they were on the premises even though the manager wanted them to leave. But - just as in the CCW example - the police were required to confirm that they did not fall within one of the exceptions to the definition of trespasser. Had they done so, they would have very quickly determined that there was no requirement that anyone purchased anything in order to be on the premises. Since this was the only condition offered by the manager, and that condition didn’t exist, the men were in full compliance with the store’s conditions for occupancy anrpd therefore, we’re not trespassing.

So, just as it would have been wrong for the police to arrest and throw in jail two men for legally carrying concealed weapons it was wrong for the police to arrest and throw into jail two men for trespassing when they had every right to be on the premises.

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. I misread the premise when I said arrest the ridiculous idiots carrying guns like they are cowboys

as in it is legal with permit.

Your observation or conclusion is of course correct

The only reason one would think the cops would arrest black men in situations where white men arent, is fear of the super humans, as they are thought to be by some


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Dr1a%2B4G8L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Thank you for that excellent example and reasoning

It always pays to be knowledgeable of the law, although in many cases for POC, our knowledge of the law often doesn't mean squat when the cops don't know it (or care), and that really needs to change.

I.e., "talking back" explaining the law quickly becomes "failure to follow orders" and eventually morphs into "resisting arrest".

[MineralMan]

12. An excellent example.

Thanks!

[BumRushDaShow]

18. To underscore your scenario, I recall this case -

And this is in NYC!!!

Plainclothes officers in trouble - didn't recognize off-duty chief

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, May 10, 2008, 1:02 AM



At least one cop has been disciplined for ordering the NYPD's highest-ranking uniformed black officer out of his auto while the three-star chief was off-duty and parked in Queens, the Daily News has learned. "How you can not know or recognize a chief in a department SUV with ID around his neck, I don't know," a police source said.

Chief Douglas Zeigler, 60, head of the Community Affairs Bureau, was in his NYPD-issued vehicle near a fire hydrant when two plainclothes cops approached on May 2, sources said. One officer walked up on each side of the SUV at 57th Ave. and Xenia St. in Corona about 7 p.m. and told the driver to roll down the heavily tinted windows, sources said. What happened next is in dispute. In his briefing to Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Zeigler said the two cops, who are white, had no legitimate reason to approach his SUV, ranking sources said. After they ordered him to get out, one officer did not believe the NYPD identification Zeigler gave him.

The cops gave a different account:

When one officer spotted Zeigler's service weapon through the rolled-down window, he yelled "Gun!" according to sources who have spoken with the officers. Both cops raised their weapons and ordered the driver out of the car, sources said. Instead of saying he was an armed member of the NYPD, Zeigler shouted, "Don't you know who I am?" the sources said.

When one cop reached over to check the identification badge around Zeigler's neck, the chief pushed him away, sources said. Only then did Zeigler tell the two officers his name and rank, those sources said. Zeigler, in his discussions with Kelly, said the officers never yelled "Gun!" sources said. One cop got into a heated argument with the chief even after seeing the ID, sources said. That cop was stripped of his gun and badge and placed on modified duty last night, sources said. The status of the second officer was unclear.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/plainclothes-officers-trouble-didn-recognize-off-duty-chief-article-1.327540

White privilege. But you know, this is only an "isolated incident". And then over there is another "isolated incident" and up that way is another "isolated incident" and....

[EffieBlack]

19. They just never learn

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Ain't that the truth!