simmonsjoe wrote:
SNIP In every single case you have quoted, officer safety was jeopardized due to RAS OF A CRIME. im MIMMS and BAKER it sure was whether the gun was illegally carried! Why?? because RAS of unlawful carry(a crime) was the reason given for the search! Unlawful possession of a firearm is a severe threat to officer safety!
Again, I'm not particularly replying to SJ. In this case I am more clearing up an untruth for other readers.
One could sort of argue that the
Baker search was based on suspicion of an
illegally carriedgun, since the stop occuredon US Park property where any gun would be illegal,as I understand it.
But not
Mimms. The reason for the search in
Mimms was not suspicion of an illegally carried gun. The reason given for the search is quoted inMimms:
While on routine patrol, two Philadelphia police officers observed respondent Harry Mimms driving an automobile with an expired license plate. The officers stopped the vehicle for the purpose of issuing a traffic summons. One of the officers approached and asked respondent to step out of the car and produce his owner's card and operator's license. Respondent alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a large bulge under respondent's sports jacket. Fearing that the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked respondent and discovered in his waistband a .38-caliber revolver loaded with five rounds of ammunition. (emphasis added by Citizen).
If you read
Mimms you will seecourt did not say the LEO should have first determined whether the gun was legally or illegally carried. The court did not say the cops should have first demanded
Mimms LTCF to see if he was legally carrying before frisking him and seizing the gun. Also, you will see the court did not say the search was justified because the gun was an illegally carried gun. The court said:
The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed, and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer.
Notice the court does not say the bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude Mimms was
carrying illegally and thus dangerous.
Now that I think about it, in none of the cases I've read did the court require the cops to first determine whether a gun was legally carried before searching or seizing it.
Bottom line, during a legal seizure (detention, traffic stop, etc.) dangerousness trumps the issue of legal carry because of time--imminent-ness. While the cops would bescrewing around trying to determine whether the carry is legal, they couldbe shot.
