LA4: Merely having a concealed firearm isn’t RS for a frisk

“The State asserts that the evidence should not be suppressed because the NOPD was entitled to conduct a La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1, ‘Terry stop’ on Mr. Green, which would have revealed the firearm. See Terry v. Ohio, …. However, the mere concealment of a firearm, in and of itself, is not an offense subject to an arrest. Thus, we find the State failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably or by an independent source. … Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by suppressing the evidence seized and finding no probable cause.” State v. Green, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 638 (La. App. 4 Cir. Apr. 16, 2024).

“The Estate claims Rudolph, Holewinski, Symonds, and Turkiewicz failed to protect Wallmow from himself. Claims like these can fall under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment, depending on the person’s status. ‘Before a finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment protects an arrestee; after such a finding, the Fourteenth Amendment protects a pretrial detainee.’ … Because the standards are often interchangeable, we need not always decide which standard applies to dispose of a case. … [¶] This case is one of those. We have not decided the applicable constitutional provision where, as here, the injured party came in on a probation hold and awaited adjudication at the time of the harm.” Est. of Wallmow v. Oneida Cty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9294 (7th Cir. Apr. 17, 2024).*