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

[spencer60]

Sorry, I should have said that what I was talking about were traffic stops. That's where a cop can frisk on the suspicion of a weapon even if there's no other probable cause or the persons consent.

I think GA also prevents a police officer from making contact solely to verify that a firearm is being legally carried as well. There has to be something else that causes the contact.

 

[palmettomoon]

Sorry, I should have said that what I was talking about were traffic stops. That's where a cop can frisk on the suspicion of a weapon even if there's no other probable cause or the persons consent.

I think GA also prevents a police officer from making contact solely to verify that a firearm is being legally carried as well. There has to be something else that causes the contact.

This is correct. They aren't allowed to stop you and ask if you are carrying illegally or legally.

 

[Vaziik]

Sorry, I should have said that what I was talking about were traffic stops. That's where a cop can frisk on the suspicion of a weapon even if there's no other probable cause or the persons consent.

I think GA also prevents a police officer from making contact solely to verify that a firearm is being legally carried as well. There has to be something else that causes the contact.

It doesn't apply just to vehicle stops. If an officer has something called ARS (Articulable Reasonable Suspicion) they can do a Terry frisk as well. However, this doesn't mean cops can just come up and search people whenever they want. If an officer can't explain why he/she did a frisk then whatever was found will get thrown out in court.

 

[Clarke123]

It doesn't apply just to vehicle stops. If an officer has something called ARS (Articulable Reasonable Suspicion) they can do a Terry frisk as well. However, this doesn't mean cops can just come up and search people whenever they want. If an officer can't explain why he/she did a frisk then whatever was found will get thrown out in court.

Then a civil suit for assault can be filed against the LEO?

 

[palmettomoon]

Then a civil suit for assault can be filed against the LEO?

Typically whatever explanation the 'officer' gives as his/her articulable reasonable suspicion in court is accepted by the judge as qualified reason. You're ****ed.

 

[Ken Ford]

Sorry, I should have said that what I was talking about were traffic stops. That's where a cop can frisk on the suspicion of a weapon even if there's no other probable cause or the persons consent.

I think GA also prevents a police officer from making contact solely to verify that a firearm is being legally carried as well. There has to be something else that causes the contact.

Officers still have to have reasonable articulable suspicion before a pat down.
IE they must display certain actions, mannerisms or emotions before a frisk. Prior knowledge of the individuals propensities to violence is another reason, although you had better be able to verify that with evidence that will stand up in court.

 

[Ken Ford]

Then a civil suit for assault can be filed against the LEO?

Yes you can, however most will tell you why they wanted to frisk you that way.
How many people do you know (not heard about on the internet) that have had LE just walk up and frisk for no reason?

 

[Clarke123]

Yes you can, however most will tell you why they wanted to frisk you that way.
How many people do you know (not heard about on the internet) that have had LE just walk up and frisk for no reason?

I hear you ... Today's norm (not just for some LEOs, but lots of the younger generation) is do what you want, regardless of what is right .... you just get a slap on the hand because "you didn't intend to do anything wrong". Hey officer, gosh I didn't realize I was going 25 MPH over the speed limit .. I really didn't intend to do so ...why are you giving me a ticket?! How does anyone learn to do things right if there are no consequences ... monetary consequences often lead to corrections in policy and procedures!

 

[Sigo]

"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.

The article leaves out some info, so I am stretching a bit... IF the officer ran his tag or name before the search, it may have come back with his record. Not sure if Robinson was on parole, probation or what his felony record was for. Did Robinson act aggressively, suspiciously or in any way present a potential for a threat?

I am not sure why the officer decided to search him rather than leave him in his car while he wrote the ticket (like all have done to me). If I were a police officer and knew I had pulled over a convicted felon, and had any reason to fear he was a potential threat, I may have searched him also. If I was pushing for this decision, I would have shied away from having this case ANYwhere near my case. Robinson is a textbook example of those who ignore gun laws.

 

[gh1950]

Then a civil suit for assault can be filed against the LEO?

In most cases, no. Even though the search may be illegal, and the evidence discovered suppressed. the courts have granted LEO broad immunities, which as a practical matter make it impossible to sue a LEO in these circumstances.