Does simply being seen with a gun justify a search?

[jdege]

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902.P.pdf

PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge:

On an afternoon in 2014, the Ranson, West Virginia police
department received an anonymous tip that a black man had loaded
a gun in a 7-Eleven parking lot and then concealed it in his
pocket before leaving in a car. A few minutes later, the police
stopped a car matching the description they had been given,
citing a traffic violation. Shaquille Montel Robinson, a black
man, was a passenger in the car. After Robinson exited the
vehicle at police request, an officer frisked Robinson and
discovered a firearm in the pocket of Robinson’s pants.

Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the police may
conduct a limited pat-down for weapons when there is reasonable
suspicion that a suspect is both armed and dangerous. “Armed”
is not a problem in this case: Assuming the credibility of the
anonymous tip, which we may for purposes of this appeal, the
police had reason to believe that Robinson was armed when they
stopped him. But “dangerous” is more difficult, and what makes
it difficult is that West Virginia law authorizes citizens to
arm themselves with concealed guns. Because the carrying of a
concealed firearm is not itself illegal in West Virginia, and
because the circumstances did not otherwise provide an objective
basis for inferring danger, we must conclude that the officer
who frisked Robinson lacked reasonable suspicion that Robinson
was not only armed but also dangerous. Accordingly, we reverse
the district court decision denying Robinson’s motion to
suppress the evidence uncovered by this unlawful search.

[harryset]

Interesting. Anxiously awaiting comments on how Minnesota Law handles this scenario.

[jdege]

I remember, once, removing a firearm from my hip and placing it in the safe I'd had mounted under the driver's seat of my car, in the parking lot of a school, so that I could enter the building to attend a school board meeting.

Truthfully, I expected someone to make an issue of it, but nobody seemed to notice.

[Squib Joe]

There is a lot more to this than those two paragraphs.

The occupants were pulled over for not wearing seatbelts. The officer stated that he didn't want the defendant reaching for his ID (knowing, of course, that he had a gun) so he removed him from the car. After asking if he had a gun, he gave the officer a "weird look" and didn't reply. Only then was he frisked.

By the way, the defendant was a felon in possession of a gun .. not that this mattered, because the officers wouldn't have known that.

[mrp]

The case you quote is from a state which has constitutional carry. This means that everyone is allowed to carry UNLESS they're prohibited, and the court decided that mere possession doesn't create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed because lawful carry is the rule, rather than the exception.

MN is different, and the MN supreme court has ruled that carrying is a crime, and that having a permit is an affirmative defense to the crime. Since lawful carry is the exception rather than the rule, mere possession give the police reasonable suspicion that someone carrying in public is committing a crime.

That's the way it sits right now, right or wrong.

[jshuberg]

^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[harryset]

The case you quote is from a state which has constitutional carry. This means that everyone is allowed to carry UNLESS they're prohibited, and the court decided that mere possession doesn't create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed because lawful carry is the rule, rather than the exception.

MN is different, and the MN supreme court has ruled that carrying is a crime, and that having a permit is an affirmative defense to the crime. Since lawful carry is the exception rather than the rule, mere possession give the police reasonable suspicion that someone carrying in public is committing a crime.

That's the way it sits right now, right or wrong.

Figured it would be something along those lines. Thanks for the information.