So, on the face of it you might think this is a case about cops seeing a guy walking down the street with a suspicious bulging his pants that looks like a gun
(it was-- in fact with an extended magazine in it.)
The cops stopped this guy, patted him down, took his gun, asked him if he had a permit to carry (required in that state, Louisiana, at that time) and he said "no."
Then the cops searched him and found drugs. Arrested him for both the weapons and the drug offenses.
The federal District Court had no problem with this stop and later arrest-- believing that the presence of a gun out on the street automatically justifies the cops to detain (TERRY STOP) the person, disarm him and question the person to determine whether he has the papers that make gun carrying legal under those circumstances.
The 5th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected that line of thinking, affirming and supporting both the Second Amendment and the 4th Amendment in a way that really should be read verbatim rather than summarized by me here.
HOWEVER, spoiler alert...
..... the Court of Appeals didn't "reverse" the ultimate decision of the court below because the District court decision was right for other reasons. Those other reasons being the other circumstances that connected the person who was stopped --let's call him drug thug #2-- with his lifelong homeboy and near-brother, drug thug number #1. In the course of investigating drug thug #1 they came to learn that #2 was a close associate of his and wherever they would find DT #2 they were very likely to find DT #1 as well.
Number 1 had an active warrant for his arrest, although both of these guys had criminal histories (drugs & weapons) and the cops knew about that before they approached either one of them.
THAT is what the appellate court said would justify the stop the patdown and the ultimate arrest of this guy, not simply the fact that he was walking down the street with a pistol on his hip or in his pocket. A TERRY stop-and-frisk could not be justified if cops didn't already know something of the background of the guy that they saw with the Glock Fo-tay and extendo-clip,
and further knew that he was a close associate of a fugitive drug felon.
(it was-- in fact with an extended magazine in it.)
The cops stopped this guy, patted him down, took his gun, asked him if he had a permit to carry (required in that state, Louisiana, at that time) and he said "no."
Then the cops searched him and found drugs. Arrested him for both the weapons and the drug offenses.
The federal District Court had no problem with this stop and later arrest-- believing that the presence of a gun out on the street automatically justifies the cops to detain (TERRY STOP) the person, disarm him and question the person to determine whether he has the papers that make gun carrying legal under those circumstances.
The 5th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected that line of thinking, affirming and supporting both the Second Amendment and the 4th Amendment in a way that really should be read verbatim rather than summarized by me here.
HOWEVER, spoiler alert...
..... the Court of Appeals didn't "reverse" the ultimate decision of the court below because the District court decision was right for other reasons. Those other reasons being the other circumstances that connected the person who was stopped --let's call him drug thug #2-- with his lifelong homeboy and near-brother, drug thug number #1. In the course of investigating drug thug #1 they came to learn that #2 was a close associate of his and wherever they would find DT #2 they were very likely to find DT #1 as well.
Number 1 had an active warrant for his arrest, although both of these guys had criminal histories (drugs & weapons) and the cops knew about that before they approached either one of them.
THAT is what the appellate court said would justify the stop the patdown and the ultimate arrest of this guy, not simply the fact that he was walking down the street with a pistol on his hip or in his pocket. A TERRY stop-and-frisk could not be justified if cops didn't already know something of the background of the guy that they saw with the Glock Fo-tay and extendo-clip,
and further knew that he was a close associate of a fugitive drug felon.
