• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fourth Circuit opinion: "Man with a gun"

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

I prefer the dissent by Judge Gregory, in U.S. v. Griffin:
The majority opinion brings the Fourth Amendment two steps closer to a death by a thousand cuts. Today’s decision leaves us teetering on the brink of a per se rule that any face-to-face dialogue between the police and an informant, however scant, is sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop in a "man with a gun" case. It then gives expansive meaning to Michigan v. Long’s limited authorization for conducting vehicle searches in connection with a Terry stop. Because I believe that today’s decision relies on an overbroad reading of this Court’s precedent and contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270 (2000), I respectfully dissent.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

I'm of the opinion that the search of the vehicle was invalid since the suspect was handcuffed and in the rear of the squad car. Thus there was little to support a finding of "a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the reasonable inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons."

There seems to be some disagreement within the 4th Circuit (besides the instant case) on whether or not the suspect being handcuffed and in the rear of a patrol car still is "dangerous" and "may gain immediate control of weapons". A few of those cases may be in the process of moving to SCOTUS for consideration as I sit typing this and speculate if this case will join the others seeking resolution of the question.

Combine that with decisions from other Circuits that have laid down that being handcuffed in the read of a patrol vehicle precludes any reasonable belief that the suspect continues to be dangerous or continues to be be able to gain immediate control of weapons in some other vehicle and the need for SCOTUS to resolve the matter becomes clear.

I would not yet hold this case as being the controlling decision on the questions in the 4th Circuit.

stay safe.

skidmark
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

skidmark wrote:
I'm of the opinion that the search of the vehicle was invalid since the suspect was handcuffed and in the rear of the squad car. Thus there was little to support a finding of "a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the reasonable inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons."

There seems to be some disagreement within the 4th Circuit (besides the instant case) on whether or not the suspect being handcuffed and in the rear of a patrol car still is "dangerous" and "may gain immediate control of weapons". A few of those cases may be in the process of moving to SCOTUS for consideration as I sit typing this and speculate if this case will join the others seeking resolution of the question.

Combine that with decisions from other Circuits that have laid down that being handcuffed in the read of a patrol vehicle precludes any reasonable belief that the suspect continues to be dangerous or continues to be be able to gain immediate control of weapons in some other vehicle and the need for SCOTUS to resolve the matter becomes clear.

I would not yet hold this case as being the controlling decision on the questions in the 4th Circuit.

stay safe.

skidmark
They did address this in the opinion, the majority cited other cases that opined if the suspect were not arrested, he would then be able to retrieve a weapon hidden in the car. As I was reading it, it reminded me of the case we saw a few months ago where the police argued that if the man with the gun had been told to leave but he did not, then he would have been committing the crime of trespassing. I think the judge laughed that one out of the courtroom, however.

TFred
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
They did address this in the opinion, the majority cited other cases that opined if the suspect were not arrested, he would then be able to retrieve a weapon hidden in the car. As I was reading it, it reminded me of the case we saw a few months ago where the police argued that if the man with the gun had been told to leave but he did not, then he would have been committing the crime of trespassing. I think the judge laughed that one out of the courtroom, however.

TFred

The Fourth Circuit seems to favor a potentially dangerous standard, instead of the Terry presently dangerous standard.

Officer safety seems to be their prime concern, not our constitutional rights.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
They did address this in the opinion, the majority cited other cases that opined if the suspect were not arrested, he would then be able to retrieve a weapon hidden in the car. As I was reading it, it reminded me of the case we saw a few months ago where the police argued that if the man with the gun had been told to leave but he did not, then he would have been committing the crime of trespassing. I think the judge laughed that one out of the courtroom, however.

TFred


The Fourth Circuit seems to favor a "potentially dangerous" standard, instead of the Terry "presently dangerous" standard.

Officer safety seems to be their prime concern, not our constitutional rights.

Our state Supreme Court has been better in upholding our constitutional rights.
 
Top