Source: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61394
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:49:03+00:00

Document:
Can't believe I missed this one. Fourth Circuit decided a case back in late February involving a convicted felon in WV that was arrested subsequent to a traffic stop in a "high crime area." The police conducted a Terry Stop, found a gun on Mr. Robinson, but the court held that, since carriage of concealed firearms is legal in WV, the mere fact that someone is carrying or may be carrying does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry Stop. The gun was suppressed as the LEO who had patted down Mr. Robinson did not have reasonable suspicion that Mr. Robinson was both armed and dangerous. Not a question of whether he was armed. The conjunction, however, is a problem as there is no conceivable way that the LEO could have had reasonable suspicion that the subject was also dangerous, which, if not, renders any evidence unlawfully obtained and therefore must be suppressed.
On an afternoon in 2014, the Ranson, West Virginia police department received an anonymous tip that a black man had loaded a gun in a 7-Eleven parking lot and then concealed it in his pocket before leaving in a car. A few minutes later, the police stopped a car matching the description they had been given, citing a traffic violation. Shaquille Montel Robinson, a black man, was a passenger in the car. After Robinson exited the vehicle at police request, an officer frisked Robinson and discovered a firearm in the pocket of Robinsonâs pants.
Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the police may conduct a limited pat-down for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that a suspect is both armed and dangerous. 'Armed' is not a problem in this case: Assuming the credibility of the anonymous tip, which we may for purposes of this appeal, the police had reason to believe that Robinson was armed when they stopped him. But 'dangerous' is more difficult, and what makes it difficult is that West Virginia law authorizes citizens to arm themselves with concealed guns. 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. Accordingly, we reverse the district court decision denying Robinsonâs motion to suppress the evidence uncovered by this unlawful search."
Edited by skinnyb82, 03 May 2016 - 10:41 AM.
How did the anonymous tipster know the gun was loaded? Just because the rule of safety says so does not make it so.
This decision is valid only in states where carrying a firearm is presumptively lawful. Illinois is presumptively unlawful.
On an afternoon in 2014, the Ranson, West Virginia police department received an anonymous tip that a black man had loaded a gun in a 7-Eleven parking lot and then concealed it in his pocket before leaving in a car.
Note it says "had loaded a gun," not "had a loaded gun."
The way it's worded, it's implying that the anonymous tipper saw him load the gun before putting it in his pocket.
"This appeal presents the question of whether a law enforcement officer is justified in frisking a person whom the officer has lawfully stopped and whom the officer reasonably believes to be armed, regardless of whether the person may legally be entitled to carry the firearm. Stated otherwise, the question is whether the risk of danger to a law enforcement officer created by the forced stop of a person who is armed is eliminated by the fact that state law authorizes persons to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm."
The "forced stop" was for not wearing a seat belt. The conclusion of the en banc majority was that "armed" always means "armed and dangerous" or at least it does so in a motor vehicle. The government's position was that, outside of a motor vehicle, carrying a weapon (concealed or openly) where it is legal to carry a weapon does not constitute reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio.
By the way, Robinson was frisked outside of the motor vehicle and one of the police officers had already drawn his handgun out of the holster which may be a significant factors if the cert petition is granted. Another significant factor might be that this was a pretextual stop over an infraction.
Many of you know of my opposition to concealed carry but this is not a Second Amendment question, it is a Fourth Amendment question which the en banc majority got very wrong, in my opinion.
On April 7th, the lawyer for Robinson filed a request to extend the deadline for filing his cert petition. These requests are usually granted and I don't think this case will be an exception.
The briefs, oral arguments, and en banc decision are at my website here.
I will post the cert stage briefs as they become available. I have no doubt that when the cert petition is filed, SCOTUSblog will create a case page as well.
Have the amicus filed in support of Robinson by States of West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Texas, and Utah. Can't seem to find the petition, though, since SCOTUSblog isn't doing much updating due to the recess. The irony of the WV AG being the one who drafted it is not lost on me.
This case simply makes no sense. First, I have no idea how United States v. Black stands as binding circuit precedent in any way, shape, or form. But they don't mention they're overturning it. No mention was made by anyone. A traffic stop is different that an OC jurisdiction where a dude is standing on the street? They contradicted themselves. The only possible line of thinking behind those joining Niemeyer is that the Second Amendment doesn't protect lawul carry so there is no right being infringed. But that's not the controlling opinion. It can't possibly stand if the 2A protects lawful carriage so there's that question, if even asked, but that's what it boils down to.
Found the cert petition on the website for Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Jeffrey L. Fisher is Robinson's counsel of record. That dude is high profile. He represented the petitioner in Riley v. California where SCOTUS unanimously held that the warrantless search of a phone subsequent to arrest is unconstitutional.
In a state that permits residents legally to carry firearms while in public, whether, or under what circumstances, an officer’s belief that a person is armed allows the officer to infer for purposes of a Terry search that the person is "presently dangerous."
Apparently they have distinguished between a citizen standing on the street (Black) and an individual operating or riding in a vehicle (Robinson). Illinois Supreme Court ruled in People v. Colyer that reasonable suspicion of a gun being present is enough to justify a Terry frisk. CA7 ruled in United States v. Leo that the officer cannot develop reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk based solely on RS that a gun is present. Meh, all of the courts all over the country have split on this. Time to put it to bed.
This case demonstrates that, in the area of Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment law, the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly is losing control over the decisions of the lower federal courts. Circuit court judges, in particular, seem to feel free to disregard binding Supreme Court constitutional decisions by devising clever interpretations which allow them to substitute their judgment for the judgment of this Court.
The problem I see, is that the brief is a lot of red meat for firearms rights advocates, but doesn't make (IMO) a particularly strong legal case.
The ACLU was opposed to the terrorist watch list issue last year as well due to the lack of due process.
So . . . now what happens? And what are the ramifications?
If a licensed person can be frisked as dangerous why did the state license him/her?
I assume that's before their permit status has been verified. It wouldn't make sense to frisk someone allowed to carry by law.
That was the argument made in the amicus filed by the State of West Virginia. The CA4 controlling opinion presumes that the licensee is armed and dangerous (they justified it with some nonsense about anonymous MWAG calls), yet that is precisely why someone is a licensee...because the licensee IS NOT a dangerous individual (prohibited class or has a record of arrests).
Fortunately, Illinois cannot do that. Not unless Aguilar is overturned. AFAIK we're the only state where carry outside the home has been ruled a constitutional right by both the state supreme court as well as the federal circuit with jurisdiction over the state. Well, I believe we're the only state that has one decision at the state level and another at the federal level, I could be wrong. There's already a volume of case law from state appellate courts deciding that the mere sight of a gun or an MWAG call where nothing other than "there's a man....with a gun!" is alleged (no "he's brandishing it" etc). And there's United States v. DeBerry (or was it DuBerry, I forget).
Edited by skinnyb82, 03 November 2017 - 04:11 PM.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.