SCOTUS Appeal Rejection Indicates Being Armed Not Grounds for Police Detention

The defendant was arrested for DUI after someone saw him on camera tuck a handgun away. The officers contacted him because he was armed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that carrying a handgun alone was not a reason to detain the man, so the DUI charges were thrown out. The state appealed to SCOTUS who declined to hear the appeal.

Read the full article here.

The short version is that the US Supreme Court signaled it does not believe merely carrying a gun is a reasonable basis for a detention. By rejecting an appeal like this, judges and prosecutors are put on notice that essentially the issue is dead. Any appeals that went up to SCOTUS would likely face the same fate, so why waste the time with the case?

Case law works by judges nullifying laws or actions at the bench. Laws may still stand, actions may still occur, but case law is predicated that if higher courts won't have it, the lower courts should abide by the higher precedence. In other words, if Dad said no, don't bother asking Mom, because even if they disagree, you'll be in trouble for asking twice.

Now this doesn't mean some beat cop won't do what he wants or some prosecutor in a place like California won't file charges, but the outcome in court is likely to be in your favor. An actual ruling would be much better, but we'll take what we can get. Carrying a gun is normal in society today, unlike how it was demonized for the past 100 years. It's no reason to be detained.