probably the worst brief yet in the chicago gun case

[bossy22]

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/us_conf_mayors.pdf

most of their quotations are very selective. At one point they talk about how in heller the court recognized the problem of gun violence in urban areas but forget the big "BUT" (but a total prohibition on handguns for self-defense in the home is still unconstitutional)

chicago will most likely eventually lose....the only variable is how much money will they spend to find out they lose

[Israfel4]

1. King Daley will expend

all the taxpayers money to no end to fight this battle. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and cost Chicago millions upon millions.

[Statistical]

3. Hopefully they lose double.

Alan Gura sued city of DC for legal fees under a federal law that allows fees to be collected against the govt in civil rights cases.

So likely Chicago will spend tens of millions and lose then be sued by plantiff's lawyers and payout tens of millions.

Repeat that in dozens upon dozens of cases and eventually a billion or so dollars later maybe just maybe the Democrats who support the anti-rights groups will tire of it.

The anti-rights zealots will never change but maybe the rank and file voters for who this is not a holy crusade will tire of it.

It took 5 lawsuits before city of Norfolk finally accepted they can't just make up stuff and hassle law abiding gun owners. Not one, or two, or three but five and part of the lawsuit was mandatory 100% training for Norfolk Police Dept on gun laws in the commonwealth of Virginia.

[X_Digger]

2. Gah!!

In speaking of New York gun law:

"When applicable law does not ban carrying a firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk even when there is reason to believe that a suspect is armed or dangerous because there is no indication of a violation of law."

That statement would make sense if NY did not have a legal concealed carry license (though rarely given to mere peons.) The fact is, though, NY does have concealed carry, so a 'suspicious bulge' cannot be presumptive of breaking the law unless one admits the bias in the licensing system, which amounts to racial profiling.

ie, cops wouldn't have the "suspicious bulge" excuse to randomly stop and search people. (apologies to the LEOs in the gungeon, but the reasonable suspicion for a terry stop in NYC scares the bejeesus out of me as an incredible invasion of 4th amendment.)

[paulsby]

5. there is no reasonable suspicion

to stop (terry) based on a bulge, or even seeing a gun (like when a person bends over to get into a car and you get a flash of the gun).

PER-I-OD

i've been a cop in WA a long time. i teach my recruits this.

carrying a gun is NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime

[Indy Lurker]

6. except in Illinois

where carrying a gun is a crime.

[X_Digger]

7. Yup, and apparently NYC (according to the OP link)

At least that's what the brief asserts. They go into great detail about the 'stop and frisk' program in NYC and how it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I suppose the same would be said for WI, since that's the other state that has no concealed carry.

[benEzra]

8. Particularly in an environment in which EVERYBODY carries a cell phone.

If a bulge on your beltline is probable cause to search for a weapon, then lights in your house must be probable cause to search your home for illegal plants.

[paulsby]

9. the standard isn't "probable cause"

we are referring to frisks incident to terry type stops (see: Terry v. Ohio).

the standard is reasonable suspicion.

the frisk is not a method to gather evidence, it's a method to increase safety.

[benEzra]

10. True, I definitely misspoke. Reasonable suspicion is indeed the standard.

But spotting a bulge on the beltline is in and of itself not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, either, given that 98% or more of those bulges are cell phones and keychains.

I am under the impression that a Terry frisk could only be done in the course of another LEO interaction, i.e. you can Terry frisk me if you stop me for jaywalking or detain me for questioning because you see me casing a store (the original scenario in Terry v. Ohio), but that you can't stop and Terry frisk people as a fishing expedition. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[paulsby]

11. correct

fwiw, at least where i work, spotting a bulge is reasonable suspicion of nothing.

if you are already IN a terry stop, and you saw a bulge, that is arguably RS for a pat frisk.

your last paragraph is correct.

a frisk (with a few exceptions) is only justifiable given a stop for some other reason.

most exceptions would have to do with freezing and controlling scenes. for example, if you are executing a search warrant in a house, it's reasonable to frisk everybody, even if no particularized suspicion is attached to an individual not mentioned on the warrant.

but yes, you first have a stop of some sort, and then the question is whether you can frisk or not. we refer to factors leading to a frisk as... "frisk factors". factors to consider (not exhaustive) are...

1) time of day
2) area of stop (high crime area, etc.)
3) officer's knowledge of violent propensity by the subject (past acts, etc.)
4) gang affiliation
5) nature of the suspected crime (iow do you have RS for robbery or RS for littering)
6) number of officers present compared to suspects present
7) statements made by subject
8) body language of suspect (favoring one side, blading stance, etc.)

[jody]

4. What works in Cheyenne may work in Chicago. n/t