Mike wrote:
This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.
I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).
What the hell is going on in this country. When will the madness end? This needs to be taken higher, for god's sake there already is Flordia vs J.L. as Mike's says.
RAS and ID request in exempted or licensed places:
My argument (Opinion only) would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity for just engaging in that practice.
For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime, i.e. they know the person not to have a license.
The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)
U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
Syllabus
A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.
2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.
(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.
428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.
(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.
(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.
382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.
__________________
*The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, these are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney.
“The charge of every citizen of a free state is to be ever vigilant of the government’s role as their servant and not allow it to become their master.” Brian Jeffs, 2008
).
