• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

States ask Supreme Court to halt unjustified searches of lawful gun owners

"States ask Supreme Court to halt unjustified searches of lawful gun owners".....so they choose a case that sounds like a text book example of Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1967) involving a brief stop/seizure of a convicted felon for violating state law, even though it's a minor traffic violation, while in possession of a firearm? Sounds like a real winner to me. :wacko:

Of course there could be some very important details left out of that article. But if not, I wonder if SCOTUS will even consider hearing the case? :pop2:


 
"The filing comes in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case of Shaquille Montel Robinson, who was stopped and searched by police in West Virginia for not wearing a seatbelt and found with a gun in his pocket." Sounds like a good case to take to the SCOTUS and I hope that they do rule on it.

I'd be interested in knowing why the cops felt like it was necessary to search somebody when it seems like all he was doing was not wearing his seat belt.:pop2:
 
"The filing comes in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case of Shaquille Montel Robinson, who was stopped and searched by police in West Virginia for not wearing a seatbelt and found with a gun in his pocket." Sounds like a good case to take to the SCOTUS and I hope that they do rule on it.

I'd be interested in knowing why the cops felt like it was necessary to search somebody when it seems like all he was doing was not wearing his seat belt.:pop2:

My thoughts exactly.
 
This has been the law for decades. If an officer has any concern that you have a weapon, legal or not, they are allowed to do a 'protective' frisk of the occupants and anything within their immediate reach.

They aren't allowed to reach into pockets though, but if they detect a weapon during a frisk they can then search that particular location.

If the weapon is legal they must give it back at the end of the encounter (assuming no arrest was made), but they still have the right to search if they choose to, no warrant or consent required.

This could be an interesting case. I could see it going either way...
 
This has been the law for decades. If an officer has any concern that you have a weapon, legal or not, they are allowed to do a 'protective' frisk of the occupants and anything within their immediate reach.

They aren't allowed to reach into pockets though, but if they detect a weapon during a frisk they can then search that particular location.

If the weapon is legal they must give it back at the end of the encounter (assuming no arrest was made), but they still have the right to search if they choose to, no warrant or consent required.

This could be an interesting case. I could see it going either way...

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on this issue a few years ago.

North Carolina allows open carry with no permit. The accused was accosted by a police officer, in a group. The accused was not doing anything illegal, and was not the object of the LEO's investigation. LEO noticed that the accused was open carrying a pistol. LEO used that as a justification for a search. I forget right now, but I think drugs were discovered, anyway accused gets arrested for non-firearms offense.

The N.C. Supreme Court ruled that the lawful carrying of firearm did not provide any basis for further investigation, including a pat down.

So while this is non-binding precedent on the federal courts, it shows that the facts are not that far fetched for the defendant.

I'll try to locate the case when I get more time.
 
Back
Top Bottom