Gun owners’ guide to the 4th Amendment: Stop and Frisk

[JohnPierce]

Gun owners’ guide to the 4th Amendment: Stop and Frisk
----------------------------------------------------------------
No warrant is required for a Terry Stop, nor is there a requirement for probable cause such as would be a prerequisite for obtaining a warrant. Rather, a Terry Stop requires only “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” If the officer wishes to search or “frisk” the person he is seizing, they must also have reasonable suspicion that they “may be armed and presently dangerous” but this is not required to simply seize the person.

Returning to the issue from the perspective of a law-abiding gun owner, the question I am often asked is whether or not the simple act of openly carrying a properly holstered handgun gives rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to initiate a Terry Stop. The answer to that question varies somewhat from state to state.

Excerpt ... Read more

 

[FreedomRings]

Impressive Article, pertinant and appreicated

What are your thoughts on the Corrigan vs DC Case.
Charges Dropped, D.C. refuses to return Firearms to Iraq Vet

-FreedomRings

 

[harrygunner]

Good issue.

There was a demonstration in NYC this past weekend about this crime against the Fourth Amendment. NYC uses "Stop and Frisk" to offend the Second Amendment.

 

[JohnPierce]

What are your thoughts on the Corrigan vs DC Case.
Charges Dropped, D.C. refuses to return Firearms to Iraq Vet

-FreedomRings

I find their treatment of him to be nothing less than sickening.

 

[JohnPierce]

What are your thoughts on the Corrigan vs DC Case.
Charges Dropped, D.C. refuses to return Firearms to Iraq Vet

-FreedomRings

But he has one of the best firearms attorneys available so I have faith that he will get the best outcome possible.

Note that I am not predicting how good the outcome will be given the jurisdiction, only that Richard will get him the best POSSIBLE outcome.

No one with any sense should ever live in that cesspit.


John

 

[DaisyCutter]

It comes down to the "totality of the circumstances".


"Reasonable suspicion" is generally very low by statute. "Probable cause" is much higher.


Reasonable suspicion is whether a reasonable person would be suspicious. The officer should be able to articulate the facts that give rise to reasonable suspicion, it just can't be a "hunch", he needs to state specifically what gave him that hunch.

The pat down is for officer safety. It's not a search. It's a pat to identify any weapons, so they can be secured while an investigation takes place. The pat down isn't meant to find contraband, but if specific contraband is identified, then it can be seized and the suspect can be charged for it.


EX: A dude dressed in dark clothing slinking down a dark alley in the middle of the night. His hands are shaking, he's nervous. His eyes are looking past me for an escape route. He's suspicious. I'm going to pat him down. When I feel something I recognize as a meth pipe in his pocket, then I can grab it and charge him for paraphernalia WITHOUT consent.


EX: A dude dressed in gym gear leaving the gym in the middle of the night. Not suspicious.



It's not rocket science. Many police officers have good instincts. Many cops identify bad guys correctly, but lack the verbal skills to say specifically why they feel something/someone is suspicious.



I've pulled over cars that haven't committed a single driving violation. EX: It's 2AM, I'm cruising along and I see an appoaching car. The front end dips because the driver stabs the brake when he identifies me. The car signals and turns right, into a neighborhood. I run the license plate, and it's registered in a different city. I follow the car, and it makes a bunch of random turns, signalling carefully each time. The car isn't speeding. Clearly, there is no defined destination, because the car has turned back onto it's own path a couple times. I'll make that traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion there was a violation I couldn't see, because the driver reacted to my presence and tried to avoid me.


I typically don't secure guns during traffic/foot stops, unless I'm going to make an arrest or the person seems really sketchy. I figure if someone is going to try to shoot me, then they won't tell me they have a gun up front. If they're going to drive off with a warning, then they won't have any motive to harm me. Plus, it conveys the message that I'm confident and secure in my ability to defend myself. The average schmo who warns me he's got a gun isn't going to be what hurts me. I'll get rid of him as fast as possible and try to find a genuine predator.

I don't think I've ever taken a gun off a driver who's told me he has a gun. There have been cases where I've seen a gun, and asked the driver if he has a gun, and he's said "No". In that instance, I'll take the gun. His brain is going a mile a minute for a reason, hopefully he's obsessing over a potential speeding ticket, and it's not because there is a corpse in the trunk.

 

[DaisyCutter]

What are your thoughts on the Corrigan vs DC Case.

It PO's me. I'd like to Code Red some fellow cops over that one. They took a non-criminal dude who was likely indifferent,or maybe even a LEO supporter, and victimized him by exploiting a technicality found in a law book.

Before a cop acts, even when citing legal statute, he needs to ask himself:

Is this immoral?
Is this unethical?
Is this illegal?


There is a time and place to jamb a person up. If all you can arrest Al Capone for is tax evasion, then that's what you got to use. Corrigan ain't Capone. Those DC LEO's need to learn some discretion.

 

[brboyer]

[snip]

Reasonable suspicion is whether a reasonable person would be suspicious.

Um, er, no....
A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

I've pulled over cars that haven't committed a single driving violation.
. . .
I'll make that traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion there was a violation I couldn't see . . .

 

[ec4321]

It's not rocket science. Many police officers have good instincts. Many cops identify bad guys correctly, but lack the verbal skills to say specifically why they feel something/someone is suspicious.

That's ashamed, because they must be able to articulate it or it doesn't meet the standard for RS. You can't just say, sorry I am not very good at articulating it.

I've pulled over cars that haven't committed a single driving violation. EX: It's 2AM, I'm cruising along and I see an appoaching car. The front end dips because the driver stabs the brake when he identifies me. The car signals and turns right, into a neighborhood. I run the license plate, and it's registered in a different city. I follow the car, and it makes a bunch of random turns, signalling carefully each time. The car isn't speeding. Clearly, there is no defined destination, because the car has turned back onto it's own path a couple times. I'll make that traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion there was a violation I couldn't see, because the driver reacted to my presence and tried to avoid me.

Too me, that's far from reasonable suspicion. Suspicion of what illegal act?

Signalling carefully? Now following the law is suspicious? You can't win in that scenario. Don't signal. Lights. Signal. Lights.

" Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity"

What criminal activity do you reasonably suspect them of being involved in?

 

[Deanimator]

I've pulled over cars that haven't committed a single driving violation. EX: It's 2AM, I'm cruising along and I see an appoaching car. The front end dips because the driver stabs the brake when he identifies me. The car signals and turns right, into a neighborhood. I run the license plate, and it's registered in a different city. I follow the car, and it makes a bunch of random turns, signalling carefully each time. The car isn't speeding. Clearly, there is no defined destination, because the car has turned back onto it's own path a couple times. I'll make that traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion there was a violation I couldn't see, because the driver reacted to my presence and tried to avoid me.

Do that to me and you'll wish you'd never put on a badge. I promise I'll pull you through every legal and administrative knothole imaginable and some you probably can't imagine. I am ALWAYS ready to record any LEO encounter. God help you if you lie in an official report.

If you can't see it, or even any sign of it, you're just fishing. Try to hook me and you'll find out what it's like to handfish for goliath tigerfish.

If you haven't been sued to atoms yet, it's only pure dumb luck.

 

[Striker]

The average schmo who warns me he's got a gun.....

"schmo" is that the typical LE terminology in use in your jurisdiction? I'm many things, but "schmo" is not one of them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

More than enough bickering and chest thumping for one thread.