Edited to remove the bickering tone that was unintended-
The facts of any given case- once it's decided at the SCOTUS level (or so I'm given to understand from the resident lawyers, and Gura briefs) is more about the principle than the specific facts of the specific case being reviewed. As you can see I linked the first case- which cited the second- and explained the meaning of that case- by an assumedly knowledgeable source in a Justice of the Supreme Court- that without reasonable suspicion one cannot be stopped, and may continue about your business. As a practical matter, one does have to stop, and prove there is no reason for suspicion because it's hard to enjoy the money your estate would win if you were right.
On the comparable facts-
The Sgt did not attempt to flee. There was no mention of this being a high crime neighborhood. Or a neighborhood at all. Drugs were never mentioned, so certainly no correlation/causality could be introduced that drugs = guns or the inverse. Exercise of a right is not grounds for reasonable suspicion- ergo that officer has the herculean task of proving even reasonable suspicion before making that Sergeant a moderately rich man. It has long been established that the mere presence of a firearm does not mean criminal activity is likely.
Can you explain how one would come up with a reasonable suspicion the Sgt was about to commit a crime in the middle of nowhere with his rifle that was on a sling, and not being actively handled?
Last edited by JimDandy; April 30, 2013 at 05:38 PM.