CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Just happened across this gem, and decided to share it.
US v Ubile (can't figure out the exact citation on it - clickification here).
The police responded to an anonymous tip that someone in a parade crowd had a gun. The concealed gun turned out to be unregistered and had the serial number defaced.
The court ruled that the mere presence of a gun does not meet the burden of Terry v Ohio, unless some other evidence leads the officers to believe the person is dangerous or engaged in some criminal activity. The convictions were thrown out, as the evidence was gathered during an unlawful search/seizure.
One thing that is particularly interesting is what the court has to say about the presumption that a person is not licensed to possess a firearm (my emphasis added):
Following the logic presented here, even a reliable tip that a firearm is concealed does not meet the burden of Terry v Ohio, unless the officers have some reason to believe the person does NOT have a license to conceal a firearm.
Just happened across this gem, and decided to share it.
US v Ubile (can't figure out the exact citation on it - clickification here).
The police responded to an anonymous tip that someone in a parade crowd had a gun. The concealed gun turned out to be unregistered and had the serial number defaced.
The court ruled that the mere presence of a gun does not meet the burden of Terry v Ohio, unless some other evidence leads the officers to believe the person is dangerous or engaged in some criminal activity. The convictions were thrown out, as the evidence was gathered during an unlawful search/seizure.
One thing that is particularly interesting is what the court has to say about the presumption that a person is not licensed to possess a firearm (my emphasis added):
Code:
At a hearing on this motion, the Government presented no evidence suggesting that Leonard or Officers Jackson and Garcia knew anything about Ubiles other than the information with which the anonymous informant had provided them. Leonard stated that no one had told them anything that would lead them to believe (1) that Ubiles posed a danger to himself, the other officers, or the crowd; (2) that Ubiles had brandished the gun or machete in his possession; or (3) that Ubiles did not have a license to carry the gun in his possession. See App. at 71-73. Leonard testified merely that he was "very concerned about the situation" and therefore stopped and frisked Ubiles. Id. at 65.