Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: The Fourth Circuit’s holding in this matter warrants review for the additional and important reason that that it allows officers to conduct searches for weapons despite the fact that the officers’ reasonable suspicion went only to drug use. Blanket rules of reasonable suspicion based upon drug use alone violate this Court’s precedent and the Fourth Amendment, which require greater respect for individual liberty from search and seizure. Moreover, as this Court articulated in Richards v. Wisconsin, stereotypical inferences about drug use and firearm risk create both “over-generalization” and bootstrapping concerns that would allow the reasonable suspicion requirement to expand so broadly that it would provide no meaningful check on potential Fourth Amendment violations. Finally, the Fourth Circuit’s holding denies Petitioner independent appellate review (i.e., without deference to the trial court determination) of ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion, as this Court requires pursuant to Ornelas v. United States.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners.

Argument: The Fourth Amendment requires that police corroborate an anonymous tip that someone is driving irregularly before they stop the car. Uncorroborated anonymous tips lack the indicia of reliability necessary to establish reasonable suspicion. Because of the nature of road travel, uncorroborated, anonymous tips are especially unreliable. Anonymous tips cannot corroborate themselves. 911 technology cannot boost an anonymous tip’s reliability. This Court should not adopt an irregular driving exception to the Fourth Amendment. Empirical evidence and practical concerns militate strongly against such an exception. An irregular driving exception would increase the risk of police abuse.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner (on petition for writ of certiorari).

Argument: The decision below merits review because, given the expansion of lawful public carrying, it opens the door to unchecked racial profiling. Over the past two decades, and especially in recent years, states have been expanding the rights of their citizens to carry firearms in public. The per se rule endorsed below allows for unchecked racial profiling, as officers encounter more citizens who are—or may be—legally armed. The decision below merits review because it sets the Fourth Amendment against state policy judgments, the common law, and this Court’s precedent. The per se assumption endorsed by the Fourth Circuit undermines the considered policy judgments of state legislatures. A per se assumption is inconsistent with the common law and rests on a faulty reading of precedent.

Fourth Amendment Forum Milton Hirsch, David O. Markus August/September 2000 39 Hop on the Bus, Gus Defense attorneys who view all forward progress in the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with skepticism, have been left wide-eyed and gasping by the 1999-2000 October term. In its two