Arizona Police Need “Reasonable Suspicion” To Search For Guns
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 3 months ago
Police cannot frisk someone they stop and question absent some “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In their unanimous decision affirming the right to carry a gun without interference, the justices rejected arguments by prosecutors that a simple belief someone is armed and dangerous is enough to justify a frisk, even without any evidence of criminal activity. They said the U.S. Constitution dictates otherwise.
“The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” wrote Justice Rebecca Berch.
“When officers consensually engage citizens on the street without having any evidence of wrongdoing, the mere presence of a weapon does not afford officers constitutional permission to search weapons-carrying individuals,” she said. “To conclude otherwise would potentially subject countless law-abiding persons solely for exercising their right to carry a firearm.”
Berch said police still can ask people if they are carrying a weapon. And they remain free to ask that person to hand it over while they are talking.
But she also said those individuals remain free to walk away.
Good for them. There is no prima facie reason that police should be any more concerned about their own safety than ordinary citizens should be about theirs, and no one has given the right to citizens to demand that police give up their weapons during conversations (although something like that would have saved many lives).
It also doesn’t surprise me one bit that the police and state argued otherwise. I would expect them to. To someone who knows more about the law than I do, please weigh in if you can explain this to me. But it seems that we’ve covered this ground before, and to at least some extent this (warrantless searches) is a recapitulation of things decided in Arizona versus Gant.
|
|
On August 11, 2014 at 12:22 pm, Richard said:
I thought AZ was now a Constitutional carry state? So why was it an issue at all?
On August 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm, robertsgunshop said:
“Berch said police still can ask people if they are carrying a weapon. And they remain free to ask that person to hand it over while they are talking.
But she also said those individuals remain free to walk away.”
If I am doing nothing wrong, I will not hand over my gun and I will walk away. I think that falls under the heading of “tough shit”.
The court was right in their decision, especially since Arizona is a Constitutional carry state. It’s none of their business what I’m carrying as long as I’m not breaking the law. New York got slapped over their “stop and frisk” crap last year. It seems they never learn.
On August 12, 2014 at 1:44 am, Daniel Barger said:
Badgemonkeys fall into two categories in regards to this and similar issues. The first being they don’t know the extent of their authority, they don’t know what the law actually says or means and for the most part they don’t care. They operate under the “bust everyone’s ass and let the lawyers sort it out later” meme. The second category is the badgemonkey who DOES know what the law says, what he is and is not allowed to do and yet goes right ahead and violates the rights of citizens following that same meme of “let the lawyers sort it out”. Both groups operate the way they do for one simple fundamental reason….BECAUSE THEY CAN. They face absolutely no meaningful restrictions, controls, punishments or consequences for their abusive conduct so they really do not give a red rats ass what the law says, what a judge says or anything else. ANY consequences that arise from their misconduct is paid for out of the pockets of the taxpayer. Till such time as this paradigm changes the circumstances will remain the same. What the courts say will remain irrelevant to the badgemonkeys and you interact with them at your own risk….including the very real risk of death.
On August 12, 2014 at 11:28 am, Richard said:
Thanks for the comments, but the question is still unanswered:I thought AZ was now a Constitutional carry state? So why was it an issue at all? Open carry or concealed, he was legal unless he was a felon. Even if a frisk found a weapon, he would not be subject to arrest–so what was the issue?
On August 21, 2014 at 10:15 am, Cold War Gunner said:
The issue ?? Answer, “I’m a cop and can kill you anytime I want for any reason I want, and will be judged innocent of any wrongdoing”