United States v. Shaquille Robinson

GTOGUNNER · Jan 23, 2017

I am not totally surprised, but I think think this one needs to go to 1st street NE. Not so much the loss, but the dicta that will be quoted forever.
Nothing about lawful Gun Carriers being more law abiding than even cops. If you carry, you are MORE dangerous.

GTOGUNNER · Jan 23, 2017

Elliotte said:
It was really interesting to listen to the discussion. It sounded like for much of the discussion everyone was approaching it as a 4A matter only when a huge aspect of the case is 2A. Does lawfully exercising a right make a person dangerous?

According to this court, Yes

Kharn · Jan 23, 2017

The dissent really rips into the majority. Hopefully the SC gives some guidance.

press1280 · Jan 23, 2017

Haven't read the opinion but is there a circuit split which would make it more likely for SCOTUS review?

danb · Jan 23, 2017

GTOGUNNER said:
I am not totally surprised, but I think think this one needs to go to 1st street NE. Not so much the loss, but the dicta that will be quoted forever.
Nothing about lawful Gun Carriers being more law abiding than even cops. If you carry, you are MORE dangerous.

It does not really say this. All it says is:

The danger justifying a protective frisk arises from the combination of a forced police encounter and the presence of a weapon, not from any illegality of the weapon’s possession.

It's hard to disagree with this logic. Police encounters can be contentious.

243hunter · Jan 23, 2017

press1280 said:
Haven't read the opinion but is there a circuit split which would make it more likely for SCOTUS review?

Would US v Deberry out of the 7th circuit apply. Basically says that procession of a gun by itself is not probable cause.

Not_an_outlaw · Jan 23, 2017

Inigoes said:
Opinion today, Affirmed

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

The 4CA doesn't trust you with a firearm!

Thanks for posting. I guess all under cover police are at the risk of being exposed. You could use that as an opposing argument.

press1280 · Jul 26, 2017

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-1532.htm

Looks like a cert petition will be coming soon. WV and 3 other states have already filed an amicus brief in support of Robinson: https://www.theet.com/statejournal/...cle_be3edd4b-a82f-555f-926b-7c85eb300a11.html

GTOGUNNER · Jul 28, 2017

press1280 said:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-1532.htm

Looks like a cert petition will be coming soon. WV and 3 other states have already filed an amicus brief in support of Robinson: https://www.theet.com/statejournal/...cle_be3edd4b-a82f-555f-926b-7c85eb300a11.html

Good.... This was a bad decision as I said a few posts back.

esqappellate · Jul 28, 2017

GTOGUNNER said:
Good.... This was a bad decision as I said a few posts back.

Here is the cert petition. It is very well done. But, I don't have much hope that the petitioner will win. But, I am hoping that I am wrong.

lazarus · Jul 28, 2017

GTOGUNNER said:
Good.... This was a bad decision as I said a few posts back.

Sounds like a bad decision to me. So if I am out hunting and run across a DNR officer, they can frisk me because I have a gun?

Maybe I misread the opinion completely, but it does seem to be, if you've got a gun, cops can pat you down at will?

jbrown50 · Jul 29, 2017

lazarus said:
Sounds like a bad decision to me. So if I am out hunting and run across a DNR officer, they can frisk me because I have a gun?

Maybe I misread the opinion completely, but it does seem to be, if you've got a gun, cops can pat you down at will?

They don't have to even see the gun. They can frisk you simply because they've been TOLD that you have a gun. You don't have to be breaking any laws at the time.

rambling_one · Jul 29, 2017

One has to wonder why CA4 is so damn anti carry when every state but Maryland is shall issue. A simple look at the record would show lawful carriers aren't the problem.

MDvet · Jul 29, 2017

This case reminds of New York City's stop and frisk, which was deemed unconstitutional. But somehow, when there might be a gun, it's okay.

jcutonilli · Jul 30, 2017

lazarus said:
Sounds like a bad decision to me. So if I am out hunting and run across a DNR officer, they can frisk me because I have a gun?

Maybe I misread the opinion completely, but it does seem to be, if you've got a gun, cops can pat you down at will?

jbrown50 said:
They don't have to even see the gun. They can frisk you simply because they've been TOLD that you have a gun. You don't have to be breaking any laws at the time.

rambling_one said:
One has to wonder why CA4 is so damn anti carry when every state but Maryland is shall issue. A simple look at the record would show lawful carriers aren't the problem.

MDvet said:
This case reminds of New York City's stop and frisk, which was deemed unconstitutional. But somehow, when there might be a gun, it's okay.

This is what is known as a Terry stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop it is known as stop and frisk in NYC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City The practice (not the law) was found unconstitutional due to racial profiling. It is still done in NYC, just not to the extent that it was done before the lawsuit.

A Terry stop requires two things reasonable suspicion of some type of criminal activity and a reasonable suspicion of being armed.

If you are hunting, the arm would likely be open carried, so there would need reasonable suspicion of another concealed weapon in order to justify a frisk.

They cannot just frisk you if you have a gun, you need both requirements (reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and reasonable suspicion of being armed)

jbrown50 · Jul 30, 2017

jcutonilli said:
This is what is known as a Terry stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop it is known as stop and frisk in NYC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City The practice (not the law) was found unconstitutional due to racial profiling. It is still done in NYC, just not to the extent that it was done before the lawsuit.

A Terry stop requires two things reasonable suspicion of some type of criminal activity and a reasonable suspicion of being armed.

If you are hunting, the arm would likely be open carried, so there would need reasonable suspicion of another concealed weapon in order to justify a frisk.

They cannot just frisk you if you have a gun, you need both requirements (reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and reasonable suspicion of being armed)

In Shaquille Robinson's case he was stopped an frisked simply because someone reported that he had a gun in his pocket and he was in what was considered to be a high crime area. He wasn't committing any crimes at the time. It wasn't even a Terry Stop. That's why the AGs from those states are petitioning the SCOTUS to look at it. It was a bad court decision.

Many jurisdictions have encouraged this "if you see a gun report it" stuff but as long as the person is an otherwise lawful individual they shouldn't be considered dangerous simply because they've been reported to have a gun. Should there be heightened awareness? Yes.

Heightened awareness from a report is one thing but law enforcement should be aware for their own safety that every person they encounter could be armed, reported or not.

jcutonilli · Jul 30, 2017

jbrown50 said:
In Shaquille Robinson's case he was stopped an frisked simply because someone reported that he had a gun in his pocket and he was in what was considered to be a high crime area. He wasn't committing any crimes at the time. It wasn't even a Terry Stop. That's why the AGs from those states are petitioning the SCOTUS to look at it. It was a bad court decision.

Many jurisdictions have encouraged this "if you see a gun report it" stuff but as long as the person is an otherwise lawful individual they shouldn't be considered dangerous simply because they've been reported to have a gun. Should there be heightened awareness? Yes.

Heightened awareness from a report is one thing but law enforcement should be aware for their own safety that every person they encounter could be armed, reported or not.

He was stopped because of a traffic violation and he fit a description of someone with a gun. That fulfills both criteria for a Terry stop according to the court. The report of the gun does not appear to be sufficient to stop him, but the traffic violation does. The report of the gun provides the reasonable suspicion of being armed. He was arrested because he is a felon in possession of a gun. That is the crime he was committing and arrested for.

While I don't like the search, it does not seem to be totally unreasonable given the circumstances. There is more to the circumstances then he simply had a gun.

Inigoes · Jul 30, 2017

jcutonilli said:
He was stopped because of a traffic violation and he fit a description of someone with a gun. That fulfills both criteria for a Terry stop according to the court. The report of the gun does not appear to be sufficient to stop him, but the traffic violation does. The report of the gun provides the reasonable suspicion of being armed. He was arrested because he is a felon in possession of a gun. That is the crime he was committing and arrested for.

While I don't like the search, it does not seem to be totally unreasonable given the circumstances. There is more to the circumstances then he simply had a gun.

Possession of a gun is legal in WV. The tip was called in about man with a gun, and the only thing that the police could do is a traffic stop after a minor infraction.

Where as Terry is about a crime has or about to take place.

press1280 · Jul 30, 2017

I don't think he was the driver either.

jcutonilli · Jul 30, 2017

Inigoes said:
Possession of a gun is legal in WV. The tip was called in about man with a gun, and the only thing that the police could do is a traffic stop after a minor infraction.

Where as Terry is about a crime has or about to take place.

Pg 2 of the cert petition.

"As is relevant here, Terry
also permits officers, after a lawful stop, to conduct a
limited search when officers have a “specific and
articulable” reason to believe that the person they
have stopped is “armed and presently dangerous to the
officer or to others.” [Terry v Ohio] at 21, 30."

The court found that the tip provided a specific and articulable reason.

Felons cannot posses guns even in WV.

United States v. Shaquille Robinson

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

President, MSI

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics