DC: Shaquille Robinson vs U.S.

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5662
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

DC: Shaquille Robinson vs U.S.

Postby ELB » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:16 pm

This case is being appealed from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. Five state Attorney Generals from West Virginia (lead, I believe), Texas, Indiana, Michigan, and Utah filed an amicus curiaebrief urging the SCOTUS to accept the case and rule in favor of the defendant.

The question that the AGs present is:

Whether, in a State that permits residents to legally carry firearms while in public, a law enforcement officer’s belief that an individual stopped during a lawful Terry stop has a firearm on his or her person provides a sufficient basis—standing alone—for the officer to conclude that the armed individual is “presently dangerous” and thus allow the officer to lawfully engage in a warrantless “frisk” of that individual.


The amicus curiae brief: http://www.ago.wv.gov/Documents/2017.07 ... Amicus.PDF

Some commentary: Indiana AG: Citizens Don't Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When Exercising 2nd Amendment Rights
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: DC: Shaquille Robinson vs U.S.

Postby srothstein » Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:58 pm

I started to say that I thought they would lose and SCOTUS will accept the rule of the 4th Circuit. After all, the real requirements of Terry have all but been ignored lately by a lot of police and court cases. If anyone read the requirements of Terry, the NY Stop and Frisk program could never have passed court muster, but it did until someone claimed racial profiling was being applied. Terry has always required a suspicion of crime to justify the stop and a separate specific articulable reason for the officer to be in fear from this specific stop. The only cases I knew of that had been thrown out were cases where the frisk was done for general rule purposes such as I always frisk people I stop for suspicious activity.

I also thought about the actual facts in the Terry case. The officer saw Terry and thought he was casing a store so he stopped him to see what he was doing. Then he saw a bulge he believed was a firearm and searched him to find it. All he really had was a suspicious person with a gun. This pretty much matches the case being appealed. He had a valid Terry stop (suspicious person) and he thought the person had a gun. Since SCOTUS is the one who came up with Terry, I did not have much faith in their making the fine point distinction that the gun then was illegal to carry and now is.

But the amicus brief is very well laid out IMO. It does point out that this is a distinction now and it makes a big difference. And, much more importantly, the brief lays out a good case for a major difference by relying on other decisions that say that you cannot be made to sacrifice one right just to use another. It points out that this very statement was part of one of the 4th Circuit justices' concurrence (carrying a gun means you must forfeit some 4th Amendment rights).

Now I have some hope that the SCOTUS will decide this case the way it should be decided. The police must articulate a specific fear pertinent to this specific case. Just having a gun is not enough.

Well, I can hope, can't I?
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5662
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: DC: Shaquille Robinson vs U.S.

Postby ELB » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:48 am

srothstein wrote:I started to say that I thought they would lose and SCOTUS will accept the rule of the 4th Circuit. After all, the real requirements of Terry have all but been ignored lately by a lot of police and court cases. If anyone read the requirements of Terry, the NY Stop and Frisk program could never have passed court muster, but it did until someone claimed racial profiling was being applied. Terry has always required a suspicion of crime to justify the stop and a separate specific articulable reason for the officer to be in fear from this specific stop. The only cases I knew of that had been thrown out were cases where the frisk was done for general rule purposes such as I always frisk people I stop for suspicious activity.

I also thought about the actual facts in the Terry case. The officer saw Terry and thought he was casing a store so he stopped him to see what he was doing. Then he saw a bulge he believed was a firearm and searched him to find it. All he really had was a suspicious person with a gun. This pretty much matches the case being appealed. He had a valid Terry stop (suspicious person) and he thought the person had a gun. Since SCOTUS is the one who came up with Terry, I did not have much faith in their making the fine point distinction that the gun then was illegal to carry and now is.

But the amicus brief is very well laid out IMO. It does point out that this is a distinction now and it makes a big difference. And, much more importantly, the brief lays out a good case for a major difference by relying on other decisions that say that you cannot be made to sacrifice one right just to use another. It points out that this very statement was part of one of the 4th Circuit justices' concurrence (carrying a gun means you must forfeit some 4th Amendment rights).

Now I have some hope that the SCOTUS will decide this case the way it should be decided. The police must articulate a specific fear pertinent to this specific case. Just having a gun is not enough.

Well, I can hope, can't I?


Thanks for the informative reply.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Topic author
ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5662
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: DC: Shaquille Robinson vs U.S.

Postby ELB » Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:45 pm

This is an analysis of the 4th Circuit's decision upholding the conviction of Robinson (not an analysis of the appeal I linked to in the OP).

It may help sorting out the specifics of the law being considered.

http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2017/07/21/ ... ideration/
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Return to “Federal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests