Should a person forfeit certain constitutional rights just because he or she chooses to carry a firearm lawfully in public? That’s exactly what a federal appellate judge declared this week in a case involving police stop-and-frisk.
The case is United States v. Robinson and it was heard by all 16 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The facts in the case are not sympathetic to the criminal defendant. Police received a tip that a man was riding in a car with a concealed firearm in his pocket. Police stopped the car after observing that the occupants were not wearing seatbelts (a pretext, of course, but constitutional under Supreme Court precedent). Police frisked the defendant and discovered the gun, leading to his arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Police are permitted under the Fourth Amendment to frisk a person for weapons if they reasonably suspect him to be “armed and dangerous.” The defendant conceded that the stop was proper, but argued that the search was unconstitutional because when police officers conducted the frisk, they had no reason to believe he was dangerous—for all they knew, he had a concealed carry permit and was lawfully carrying the firearm. A three-judge panel of Fourth Circuit judges agreed.
[excerpted]
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/316859-fourth-circuit-judges-turn-legal-contortionist-over-open
