Lawful Concealed Carriers are "Dangerous" to Cops, says the 4th Circuit.

[rikilii]

To be clear, the general risk that is inherent during a traffic stop does not, without more, justify a frisk of the automobile’s occupants. But the risk inherent in all traffic stops is heightened exponentially when the person who has been stopped -- a person whose propensities are unknown -- is “armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against” the officer in a matter of seconds. Terry, 392 U.S. at 23. As such, when the officer reasonably suspects that the person he has stopped is armed, the officer is “warranted in the belief that his safety . . . [is] in danger”

Accordingly, we conclude that given Robinson’s concession that he was lawfully stopped and that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed, the officers were, as a matter of law, justified in frisking him and, in doing so, did not violate Robinson’s Fourth Amendment rights.

And from the concurring opinion:

In sum, individuals who carry firearms--lawfully or unlawfully--pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large.... [I]t is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions.../144902A.P.pdf

[richief]

What a frickin abortion of Logic!

[Mentch171]

Must be the Maryland part of the circuit that gives them that logic.

[markshere2]

Yeah- the most lawful segment of society...far more law-abiding than the general LEO population.... is a danger to LEOs.

Fucking boneheads.

[PocketProtector]

We are dangerous to their tyranny wet dream. Thank you FFs. !!

[bigandy1966]

So what does this mean? stop and frisk , then disarmament is OK "for the safety of the officer"?

[Vmax540]

Two sides to every story ?
https://foac-pac.org/U-S-V-Robinson:...-News-Item/720

[GunLawyer001]

Two sides to every story ?
https://foac-pac.org/U-S-V-Robinson:...-News-Item/720

Whatever the facts of the particular stop, the decision is over-broad, and provides an answer to "why wouldn't you tell an officer that you're legally armed"?

That answer is, because by doing so you forfeit your 4th Amendment rights, at least in that circuit.

[rikilii]

Whatever the facts of the particular stop, the decision is over-broad, and provides an answer to "why wouldn't you tell an officer that you're legally armed"?

That answer is, because by doing so you forfeit your 4th Amendment rights, at least in that circuit.

Not to mention the fact that none of the 5 factors listed there were factors in the decision. According to the 4th Circuit, if a cop pulls you over, and has reason to believe you are armed, he can frisk you (and presumably disarm you).

But the more important element of this is the conclusion that, as a matter of law, a person carrying a concealed firearm, even legally, is "dangerous".

[rikilii]

Must be the Maryland part of the circuit that gives them that logic.

2/3 of the judges on the 4th Cir. were appointed by Democrats.