Fourth Circuit: Open-Carry not Suspicious

Peaceful John · May 15, 2013

Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying a Firearm in an Open-Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion and Provides Thorough Analysis of the "Free to Leave" Standard of Seizure

http://www.fedagent.com/columns/cas...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm - which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

danb · May 15, 2013

Peaceful John said:
Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying a Firearm in an Open-Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion and Provides Thorough Analysis of the "Free to Leave" Standard of Seizure

http://www.fedagent.com/columns/cas...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm - which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

Thanks for posting this.

Haides · May 15, 2013

This was posted earlier too, I believe. Some say it's a sorta-split with Wollard, but it helps our chances regardless.

danb · May 15, 2013

Haides said:
This was posted earlier too, I believe. Some say it's a sorta-split with Wollard, but it helps our chances regardless.

hows it a split?

Haides · May 15, 2013

I said "sorta" split. Lol.

Somebody had a really good post about it that i can't find at the moment. I'll link to it if i find it.

gmhowell · May 15, 2013

I see the potential for a lot of butt hurt the next time an open carrying video shows up on MDS.

:popcorn:

Mark75H · May 15, 2013

The ruling was about unwarranted search, not 2A ... nothing to do with Woolard. No split, no help to us at all.

FlatsFlite · May 15, 2013

Making a connection is a stretch ... this is about carrying in a state where it is legal and would have never made it to appeal if he was carrying in Maryland.

Legal in NC =not reasonable cause
Not legal in MD=just cause go strait to jail.

fleaman64 · May 15, 2013

IMO if you serve the time for the crime all your rights under the Constitution should be restored.

rem87062597 · May 15, 2013

FlatsFlite said:
Making a connection is a stretch ... this is about carrying in a state where it is legal and would have never made it to appeal if he was carrying in Maryland.

Legal in NC =not reasonable cause
Not legal in MD=just cause go strait to jail.

This would impact open carry of long guns though, by my reading. Now, the only question is who has the balls?

Mark75H · May 15, 2013

fleaman64 said:
IMO if you serve the time for the crime all your rights under the Constitution should be restored.

That's why we have 2 classes of crimes ... for misdemeanors, that is supposed to be true. Commit a crime of a higher level and loose rights. At what level should there be a difference? No level?

danb · May 15, 2013

rem87062597 said:
This would impact open carry of long guns though, by my reading. Now, the only question is who has the balls?

You don't just need balls, you need to be independently wealthy to survive job and career loss during appeal. And if you are independently wealthy, why the heck do you live in high-tax maryland in the first place?

MDFF2008 · May 15, 2013

This is interesting, because the judges in Woollard ruled that "man with a gun" calls would place an undue burden on police officers.

Biggfoot44 · May 16, 2013

I'm not sure if Greg meant to say what I'm taking from his post. The AG's throwaway line about people w/ permits confusing police was well down in importance in the 4th Circut's deliberations if they paid any attention at all. However , once carry IS establish , Black will go a long way to shut down routine harrasment.

aireyc · May 16, 2013

Mark75H said:
That's why we have 2 classes of crimes ... for misdemeanors, that is supposed to be true. Commit a crime of a higher level and loose rights. At what level should there be a difference? No level?

No level, but the punishment should be strict. Rob a bank with a gun, get 15-20 years no parole. Get released and you have rights restored. Commit another crime with a gun, you get life without parole.

The primary reason you hear for people being against the above idea is the cost of housing prisoners. We need to reform the jails so that it's truly hell to be locked up no matter the reason, thus deterring crime in the first place. Under the current system, you have people who would rather be in jail than on the streets. Something is wrong there.

Jails should also have a means to make money and pay for expenses. If it were up to me, prisoners would only be given bare necessities for life: A cell with a window, a mat to sleep on, required nutrients from bland food, water, means to shower, a toilet, and that's it. Solitary for 23 hours a day. They'd have the option of taking up a job within the facility for 8 hours through which privileges can be purchased, such as better food, electricity for the cell, etc. This would effectively teach responsibility and work ethic to those who didn't learn it in the normal world. Those diagnosed with severe mental health problems would be sent to a mental health facility with less severe conditions.

Once you satisfy your time, all rights are restored. If you're stupid enough to commit a similar crime again, you're a danger to the rest of society, and should be punished accordingly.

This idea that you can limit someone's right to self-defense for life due to a stupid mistake is really a cause for concern.

Dogabutila · May 16, 2013

gmhowell said:
I see the potential for a lot of butt hurt the next time an open carrying video shows up on MDS.

I already pointed this out to a few folk but they dismissed my argument because I don't have experience being a police officer or in court.

mdshooter9090 · May 16, 2013

I just want to say that sometimes guys like this man and the 2 Business Owners that were dealing Cocaine and had a GPS attached to their Truck/Car illegally by the Police help freedom - as crazy as it sounds.

Same goes for Rev. Phelps, even though some of you may not like it.

Dogabutila · May 16, 2013

Hey man Rosa Parks wasn't clean as a whistle either. Not all heroes are perfect.

press1280 · May 16, 2013

Black should have helped Woollard, but it didn't. What it does do is prove the 4A is much better protected than the 2A, and will protect against OC harassment(where OC is legal).

Mark75H · May 16, 2013

aireyc said:
No level, but the punishment should be strict. Rob a bank with a gun, get 15-20 years no parole. Get released and you have rights restored. Commit another crime with a gun, you get life without parole.

The primary reason you hear for people being against the above idea is the cost of housing prisoners. We need to reform the jails so that it's truly hell to be locked up no matter the reason, thus deterring crime in the first place. Under the current system, you have people who would rather be in jail than on the streets. Something is wrong there.

Jails should also have a means to make money and pay for expenses. If it were up to me, prisoners would only be given bare necessities for life: A cell with a window, a mat to sleep on, required nutrients from bland food, water, means to shower, a toilet, and that's it. Solitary for 23 hours a day. They'd have the option of taking up a job within the facility for 8 hours through which privileges can be purchased, such as better food, electricity for the cell, etc. This would effectively teach responsibility and work ethic to those who didn't learn it in the normal world. Those diagnosed with severe mental health problems would be sent to a mental health facility with less severe conditions.

Once you satisfy your time, all rights are restored. If you're stupid enough to commit a similar crime again, you're a danger to the rest of society, and should be punished accordingly.

This idea that you can limit someone's right to self-defense for life due to a stupid mistake is really a cause for concern.

This is what logically follows your argument: there is no level where the threat of punishment should deter a crime and no monsters on the street that should be without guns.

Here is a contradiction within your opinion ... parole boards release some inmates BECAUSE the law will not allow them to carry and be under other constitutional restrictions; association etc. Under your scheme, there can be no parole ... everyone would have to serve the max and jails would be even more crowded.

Fourth Circuit: Open-Carry not Suspicious

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Not Banned Yet

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Annapolis, MD

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics