4th Circuit, US v Robinson: Being armed not sufficient for Terry search

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,581
    Hazzard County
    Decision here

    "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."

    "Today in West Virginia, in other words, there is no reason to think that public gun possession is unusual, or that a person carrying or concealing a weapon during a traffic stop is anything but a law-abiding person who poses no danger to the authorities."

    "[W]e conclude that in states like West Virginia, which broadly allow public possession of firearms, reasonable suspicion that a person is armed does not by itself give rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous for Terry purposes."

    Cliff notes:
    -Individual spotted loading and concealing handgun before getting into a car by an anonymous concerned citizen who called the police
    -Police found and stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction
    -Cooperative passenger Terry frisked for weapon and a handgun was found on his person
    -Passenger then recognized as a convicted felon and arrested.
    -The court found the Terry frisk was not justified because Terry requires the person be suspected of being both armed and dangerous, and nothing the passenger was reported to have done was illegal for ordinary people (presumed to have a CCW).

    So, if you're in a shall-issue state, the police need to articulate that you could be dangerous before you can be searched for a possible firearm, and suspected possession of a firearm is not sufficient. I wonder how useful this will be towards localities hostile towards carry harassing any OC or CCer they encounter.
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    Good case law reinforcing the prior. Didn't another circuit hear a similar case and rule the same?
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,496
    Westminster USA
    Didn't Terry also say the officer had to be able to articulate that he had RS to think a crime was about to occur, was afoot, or had occurred?

    good ruling
     

    Mr. Ed

    This IS my Happy Face
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2009
    7,920
    Edgewater
    Decision here

    "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."

    "Today in West Virginia, in other words, there is no reason to think that public gun possession is unusual, or that a person carrying or concealing a weapon during a traffic stop is anything but a law-abiding person who poses no danger to the authorities."

    "[W]e conclude that in states like West Virginia, which broadly allow public possession of firearms, reasonable suspicion that a person is armed does not by itself give rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous for Terry purposes."

    Cliff notes:
    -Individual spotted loading and concealing handgun before getting into a car by an anonymous concerned citizen who called the police
    -Police found and stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction
    -Cooperative passenger Terry frisked for weapon and a handgun was found on his person
    -Passenger then recognized as a convicted felon and arrested.
    -The court found the Terry frisk was not justified because Terry requires the person be suspected of being both armed and dangerous, and nothing the passenger was reported to have done was illegal for ordinary people (presumed to have a CCW).

    So, if you're in a shall-issue state, the police need to articulate that you could be dangerous before you can be searched for a possible firearm, and suspected possession of a firearm is not sufficient. I wonder how useful this will be towards localities hostile towards carry harassing any OC or CCer they encounter.

    All the usual IANAL disclaimers, BUT...

    IF the suspect was stopped for a legitimate traffic infraction (I'll side with LEO on this one... most of us do stuff that could result in being stopped on most days even if it is a chickensh1t reason), WAS a convicted felon, AND LEO ran his ID through the system, AND it came back that he was a prohibited person, LEO has every right to perform pat down. Sounds like the only sticking point is that they did the pat down before he came back a prohibited person. Isn't it SOP to run the driver's license through the system for all traffic stops? And if they did,wouldn't the suspect have come back a prohibited person?

    Or did I miss the point that maybe the dispatcher should have ignored the concerned citizen's report of the guy loading and concealing a gun (which isn't a crime in and of itself). I.E., LEO had no right to stop the guy in the first place based on a citizens complaint?
     

    Blaster229

    God loves you, I don't.
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2010
    46,662
    Glen Burnie
    All the usual IANAL disclaimers, BUT...

    IF the suspect was stopped for a legitimate traffic infraction (I'll side with LEO on this one... most of us do stuff that could result in being stopped on most days even if it is a chickensh1t reason), WAS a convicted felon, AND LEO ran his ID through the system, AND it came back that he was a prohibited person, LEO has every right to perform pat down. Sounds like the only sticking point is that they did the pat down before he came back a prohibited person. Isn't it SOP to run the driver's license through the system for all traffic stops? And if they did,wouldn't the suspect have come back a prohibited person?

    Or did I miss the point that maybe the dispatcher should have ignored the concerned citizen's report of the guy loading and concealing a gun (which isn't a crime in and of itself). I.E., LEO had no right to stop the guy in the first place based on a citizens complaint?

    You missed the whole thing, it was the passenger and not driver of the vehicle. :D Nice big ol paragraph though.. lol
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,656
    Messages
    7,290,153
    Members
    33,496
    Latest member
    GD-3

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom