Officer Frisk Allowed, Even with Concealed Carry Law

A person that is lawfully stopped by an officer may be subject to a frisk, even if the state grants concealed-carry permits to its citizens

United States v. Robinson, 2017 BL 18217, 4th Cir. en banc, No. 14-4902, 1/23/17.

The Fourth Circuit held that officers may frisk lawfully stopped citizens in states that grant concealed-carry permits, following the jurisprudence developed under Terry v. Ohio, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and their progeny. The purpose of a frisk is to prevent the violent use of a weapon, so an officer frisk is warranted even if the person’s possession of a gun is allowed under the state’s concealed-carry laws. Even if there is a concealed-carry law in place, it does not necessarily prevent the danger that an encounter with a law enforcement officer imposes.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Robinson_No_144902_2017_BL_18217_4th_Cir_Jan_23_2?1486503049

Driver’s Consent to Search a Car Does Not Give Consent to a Passenger Frisk

A Terry Frisk of a passenger in a vehicle must be associated with a legitimate concern for the officer’s safety, not because consent was given to search a vehicle 

Sellman v. State, 2016 BL 274588, Md., No. 84, 8/24/16.

   The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a frisk of a passenger without a reasonable suspicion that the passenger posed a danger is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Even when consent was given to search the car, the permission did not extend to a search of the passengers without reasonable suspicion that they were armed and dangerous.

   During argument, the state contended that the high crime area of the stop and the time of night warranted a frisk, citing that residents have complained about numerous thefts at the apartment complex and the passengers appeared overly nervous, providing conflicting statements. The court disagreed with this argument, however, finding that generalized concerns were not enough for reasonable suspicion. “The officers did not observe furtive gestures, evasive maneuvers, bulges, bags or containers, or any instruments associated with the suspected crime of the theft, i.e., theft of property from cars.”

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Sellman_v_State_No_84_2016_BL_274588_Md_Aug_24_2016_Court_Opinion.