Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, at <http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm> (last visited November, 17, 2003).+(last+visited+November,+17,+2003).>Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Firearms and Crime Statistics: Summary Findings, at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm> (last revised April 18, 2003).+(last+revised+April+18,+2003).>Google Scholar

Cook, P.J. Ludwig, J., Gun Violence: The Real Costs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

See “Gun Violence and Gun Carrying” and accompanying references.Google Scholar

See “New Concealed Weapon Detection Tech-nology” and accompanying references.Google Scholar

U.S. Const. amend. IV.Google Scholar

See “Constitutionality Of Suspicionless Gun Scans” and accompanying referencesGoogle Scholar

Smith, T.W., 2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings (Chicago: University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, 2001).Google Scholar

Hemenway, D., “The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-defensive Gun Uses: A Case Study of Survey Overestimates of Rare Events,” Chance, 10, no. 3 (1997): 6–10; Hemenway, D. Azrael, D.R., “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Use: Results of a National Survey,” Violence and Victims, 15 (2000): 257–72; Cook, P.J. Ludwig, J. Hemenway, D., “The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Gun Uses per Year,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16 (1997): 463–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diaz, T.,—Making a Killing (New York: The New Press, 1999): At 169–71.Google Scholar

Kleck, G. Gertz, M., “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86 (1995): 150–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vernick, J.S. Hepburn, L.M., “State and Federal Gun Laws: Trends for 1970–99,” in Ludwig, J. Cook, P.J., eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003): 345–403, at 360.Google Scholar

Lott, J.R. Jr. Mustard, D.B., “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (1997): 1–68; Lott, J.R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, 2d. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Black, D.A. Nagin, D.S., “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies, 27 (1998): 209–19; Ludwig, J., “Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data,” International Review of Law and Economics, 18 (1998):239–54; Donohue, J. J., “The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws,” in Ludwig, J. Cook, P.J., eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003): 287–341.Google Scholar

Maltz, M.D. Targonski, J., “A Note on the Use of County-level UCR Data,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18 (2002): 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, , supra note 8.Google Scholar

Hood, M.V. III Neeley, G.W., “Packin' in the Hood? Examining Assumptions of Concealed-Handgun Research,” Social Science Quarterly, 81 (2000): 523–37.Google Scholar

Harlow, C.W., Firearm Use by Offenders: Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, NCJ 189369 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001): At 10.Google Scholar

Decker, S. Pennell, S., Arrestees and Guns: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research Preview, 1995); Lizotte, A.J. Krohn, M.D. Howell, J.C. Tobin, K. Howard, G.J., “Factors Influencing Gun Carrying Among Young Urban Males Over Adolescent-Young Adult Life Course,” Criminology, 38 (2000): 811–34; Wilkinson, D.L. Fagan, J., “What We Know About Gun Use Among Adolescents,” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, no. 2 (2001): 109–32; Freed, L.H. Webster, D.W. Longwell, J. et al, “Factors Preventing Gun Acquisition and Carrying Among Incarcerated Adolescent Males,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 155 (2001): 335–41.Google Scholar

Decker, Pennell, , supra note 19.Google Scholar

Wilkinson, D.L., Guns, Violence, and Identity Among African American and Latino Youth (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2003).Google Scholar

Fagan, J., “Policing Guns and Youth Violence,” The Future of Children, 12, no. 2 (2002): 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherman, L.W. Rogan, D.P., “Effects of Gun Seizures on Gun Violence: ‘Hot Spots’ Patrol in Kansas City,” Justice Quarterly, 12 (1995): 673–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGarrell, E.F. Chermak, S. Weiss, A., Reducing Gun Violence: Evaluation of the Indianapolis Police Department's Directed Patrol Project, NCJ 188740 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research Preview, 2002).Google Scholar

Cohen, J. Ludwig, J., “Policing Crime Guns,” in Ludwig, J. Cook, P.J., eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003): 217–39.Google Scholar

Wilson, J.Q., “Just Take Away Their Guns: Forget Gun Control,” New York Times Magazine, March 20, 1994, at 46–47.Google Scholar

National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Technology Beat (June 1996).Google Scholar

Id.; Hansen, M., “No Place to Hide,” ABA Journal, 83, (August 1997): 44–48.Google Scholar

See “Constitutionality Of Suspicionless Gun Scans” and accompanying references.Google Scholar

Paulter, N.G., Guide to the Technologies of Concealed Weapon and Contraband Imaging and Detection, National Institute of Justice, NIJ Guide 602–00, (February 2001).Google Scholar

National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Technology Beat, (October 1997).Google Scholar

National Institute of Justice, supra note 28; Paulter, , supra note 31.Google Scholar

Hansen, M., supra note 29; National Institute of Justice, supra note 28.Google Scholar

Paulter, , supra note 31.Google Scholar

National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Justnet: Justice Technology Information Network: NLECTC Virtual Library, at <http://www.nlectc.org/virlib/InfoDetail.asp?intInfoID=202> (last visited November 18, 2003).+(last+visited+November+18,+2003).>Google Scholar

National Institute of Justice, supra note 28.Google Scholar

Nacci, P.L. Mockensturm, L., “Detecting Concealed Weapons,” Corrections Today, 63, no. 4 (2001): 1–4; Paulter, , supra note 31.Google Scholar

National Institute of Justice, supra note 28; Paulter, , supra note 31.Google Scholar

See generally, LaFave, W.R. Israel, J.H., Criminal Procedure, (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1992): 103–243. Of course, other constitutional provisions could still limit police actions if, for example, gun scanners were used to unfairly target racial or ethnic minorities.Google Scholar

Katz, v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Google Scholar

Id. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring).Google Scholar

See “Constitutionality of Suspicionless Gun Scans,” and accompanying references.Google Scholar

Webster, D.W. Vernick, J.S. Frattaroli, S., “Public Attitudes Concerning New Law Enforcement Technologies and Related Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence,” (unpublished final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, on file with authors) (February 2003): At 42.Google Scholar

Id. at 50–52.Google Scholar

Id. at 45.Google Scholar

Id. at 44–45.Google Scholar

Id. at 43, 46.Google Scholar

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).Google Scholar

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).Google Scholar

Id. at 124 n.24 (1984) (“[T]he reason [the search in Place] did not intrude upon any legitimate privacy interest was that the governmental conduct could reveal nothing about noncontraband items. That rationale is fully applicable here.”).Google Scholar

LaFave, W.R. et al., Criminal Procedure, 2d. ed., § 32(b), at 60 (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1992); Harris, , supra note 62, at 29; Iraola, R., “New Detection Technologies and the Fourth Amendment,” South Dakota Law Review, 47 (2002): 8–32, at 25–26; Kamin, S., “Law and Technology: The Case for a Smart Gun Detector,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 59 (1996): 221–62, at 241; Simmons, R., “From Katz to Kyllo: A Blueprint for Adapting the Fourth Amendment to Twenty-First Century Technologies,” Hastings Law Journal, 53 (2002): 1303–58, at 1353.Google Scholar

B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he level of intrusiveness is greater when the dog is permitted to sniff a person than when a dog sniffs unattended luggage … [and] the level of intrusiveness … is critical to whether the actions of government officials constitute a search.”).Google Scholar

Id. at 1267 (internal citations omitted).Google Scholar

Paulter, , supra note 31, at 31.Google Scholar

Liptak, A., “In the Name of Security, Privacy for Me, Not Thee,” New York Times, November 24, 2002, at 4–1.Google Scholar

Miller, C.J., Annotation, Employment of Photographic Equipment to Record Presence and Nature of Items as Constituting Unreasonable Search, 27 A.L.R. 4th 532, 533 (1984).Google Scholar

The obvious objection to analogizing speed guns to gun scanners is that the speed guns target the vehicle and not the person. But this distinction is tenuous when applied, for example, to motorcycles. One could just as well argue that the gun scanner targets the gun and not the individual.Google Scholar

United States v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d. Cir. 1975) (“The magnetometer search is indiscriminate and the presence of sufficient metal willy-nilly leads to the body or baggage search.”).Google Scholar

Harris, D.A., “Superman's X-Ray Vision and the Fourth Amendment: The New Gun Detection Technology,” Temple Law Review, 69 (1996): 1–60, at 20–21.Google Scholar

Dow Chemical v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986).Google Scholar

Id. at 238.Google Scholar

Slobogin, C., “Technologically-Assisted Physical Surveillance: The American Bar Association's Tentative Draft Standards,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 10 (1997): 383–463, at 400; Harris, , supra note 62, at 23.Google Scholar

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709–710 (1983); see also Harris, , supra note 62, at 33.Google Scholar

Id. at 707.Google Scholar

United States v. Beale, 736 F.2d 1289, 1291 (9th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115 (1984).Google Scholar

Id. at 119.Google Scholar

Place, 462 U.S. at 706 (concluding that the initial seizure of Place's luggage was permissible because the police reasonably suspected that his luggage contained narcotics); Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 119 (noting that even before the government reopened the Fed Ex package, “it was virtually certain that it contained nothing but contraband”).Google Scholar

Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 138 (internal citations omitted).Google Scholar

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).Google Scholar

Id. at 40.Google Scholar

Id. at 47 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Id. at 35–6.Google Scholar

Id. at 37.Google Scholar

Id. at 31 (internal citation omitted).Google Scholar

Id. at 38.Google Scholar

See, e.g., United States v. 37.29 Pounds of Semi-Precious Stones, 7 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 1993) (stating that illegal narcotics are intrinsically illegal to possess) abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 1650 Ashton, Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, 47 F.3d 1465, 1470 (6th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar

Vernick, Hepburn, , supra note 12.Google Scholar

LaFave, , supra note 54; Harris, , supra note 62, at 56–58; Iraola, , supra note 54, at 25 n.135; Simmons, , supra note 54, at 1353 n.10.Google Scholar

In holding that a police officer had probable cause to believe that a man carrying a concealed weapon was not licensed (and was thus in violation of Washington D.C.’s concealed carrying laws) the D.C. Court of Appeals explained it was “common knowledge … that with very rare exceptions licenses to carry pistols have not been issued in the District of Columbia for many years and are virtually unobtainable.” See Bsharah v. United States, 646 A.2d 993, 996 n.12 (D.C. 1994). And in holding that an arrest based on an anonymous tip that a juvenile was carrying a concealed weapon was improper, the Florida Supreme Court cited Florida's “shall issue” statute and noted that in Florida “individuals are permitted to carry concealed weapons with a proper license.” J.L. v. State, 727 So.2d 204, 209 (Fla. 1999). The court did not, however, specifically state that the fact that Florida was a “shall issue” as opposed to a “may issue” or “prohibited” state made any difference. See id.Google Scholar

Hood, Neeley, , supra note 17.Google Scholar

People v. Superior Court for County of Santa Barbara, 2 Cal.App.3d 197, 202 n.7 (1969); see also People v. Tarkington, 273 Cal.App.2d 466, 468–69 (1969) (“For the purpose of probable cause at least, the existence of a license which validates the possession of what would otherwise be contraband need not be disproved by the investigating officer. It is the burden of the person possessing the weapon to show his license.”).Google Scholar

Commonwealth v. Couture, 552 N.E.2d 538, 540–41 (Mass. 1990).Google Scholar

Vernick, Hepburn, , supra note 12.Google Scholar

Sternberg, D.E., Annotation, Burden of Proof as to Lack of License in Criminal Prosecution for Carrying or Possession of Weapon Without License, 69 A.L.R. 3d 1054, 1057 (1976).Google Scholar

In California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Washington, D.C., defendants have the burden of proving or providing evidence that they were licensed to carry a gun. See People v. Superior Court for County of Santa Barbara, 82 Cal. Rptr. 463, 466 n.7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); Lively v. State, 427 A.2d 882, 884 (Del. 1981); State v. Jenkins, 997 P.2d 13, 32–33 (Haw. 2000); Harris v. Sate, 716 N.E.2d 406, 412 (Ind. 1999); State v. Bowdry, 337 N.W.2d 216, 218–19 (Iowa 1983); Com v. Jones, 361 N.E.2d 1308, 1311 (Mass. 1978); People v. Henderson, 218 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Mich. 1974); State v. Ingram, 488 A.2d 545 (N.J. 1985); State v. Neary, 409 A.2d 551 (R.I. 1979); State v. Clarke, 396 S.E.2d 827, 827–28 (S.C. 1990); City of Seattle v. Parker, 467 P.2d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970); Chapman v. United States, 493 A.2d 1026, 1029 n.4 (D.C. 1985).Google Scholar

In Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, the state has the burden of proving that the defendant did not have a license to carry a concealed gun. See DKF v. State, 651 So.2d 48, 50 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Smith, 518 A.2d 956, 960 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986); State v. Morales, 908 P.2d 1258, 1261 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996); State v. Brust, 974 P.2d 734, 737 (Or. Ct. App. 1999); Com v. Lopez, 565 A.2d 437, 439–440 (Pa. 1989); State v. Hodges, 305 S.E.2d 278, 284 (W. Va. 1983).Google Scholar

Georgia, Minnesota, and New York have also considered the issue, but their courts have provided mixed signals. Compare Jordan v. State, 304 S.E.2d 522, 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983) (“A prima facie case is established by proof that the defendant carried a pistol in a public place and he bears the burden of proving he has a valid license.”) with Head v. State, 221 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ga. 1975) (reversing conviction for carrying a concealed weapon because the State did not introduce evidence showing that defendant was unlicensed); compare State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298, 304 (placing the burden on the defendant to come forward with some evidence of a permit) with State v. Burg, 648 N.W.2d 673, 678–79 (declining to follow the method of statutory construction in State v. Paige); and compare People v. Psilakis, 538 N.Y.S.2d 623, 624–25 (N.Y. 1989) (requiring defendant to introduce evidence that he was licensed) with People v. Ressler, 754 N.Y.S.2d 485, 488 (N.Y. 2003) (requiring only that defendant “assert[] as a defense that he possessed an appropriate firearms license”).Google Scholar

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2002).Google Scholar

18 U.S.C. § 925(c) (2002).Google Scholar

18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2) (2002).Google Scholar

See Waters v. Barry, 711 F. Supp 1125, 1138 (D. D.C. 1989) (noting that a curfew ordinance that criminalized the public presence of those under age eighteen would have given police officers probable cause to arrest any individuals that the officers reasonably concluded looked like a minor).Google Scholar

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000).Google Scholar

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 76 (2001).Google Scholar

Id. at 74 n.7.Google Scholar

Dery, G. III, “Remote Frisking Down to the Skin: Government Searching Technology Powerful Enough to Locate Holes in Fourth Amendment Fundamentals,” Creighton Law Review, 30 (1997): 353–392, at 387; Flores, S.S., “Gun Detector Technology and the Special Needs Exception,” Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 25 (1999): 135–156, at 152; see also Harris, , supra note 62, at 7; Iraola, , supra note 54, at 27.Google Scholar

Flores, , supra note 101, at 153–54.Google Scholar

Id. at 153; see also Harris, , supra note 62, at 28.Google Scholar

Wisconsin, Griffin v., 483 U.S. 868, 875 (1987).Google Scholar

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 80 (2001).Google Scholar

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 82–83 (2001) (italics omitted).Google Scholar

Flores, , supra note 101, at 153; Dery, supra note 101.Google Scholar

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 81 (2001); Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 322 (1997).Google Scholar

Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 84.Google Scholar

Id. at 81–83 (detailing the extensive involvement of the police in the drug-testing program and concluding that the “immediate objective of the [drug tests] was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes”) (italics omitted).Google Scholar

Sitz, Michigan v., 496 U.S. 444 (1990); see also United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (upholding suspicionless vehicle checkpoints near the Mexico border to prevent illegal immigration).Google Scholar

Sitz, 496 U.S. at 455.Google Scholar

In Ferguson, the Court stated that “the [Sitz] Court explicitly distinguished the cases dealing with checkpoints from those dealing with ‘special needs.’” Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 83 n.21 (2001). In truth, the language in Sitz was not particularly explicit, see Sitz, 496 U.S. at 450 (stating that the special needs cases were “in no way designed to repudiate [the Court’s] prior cases dealing with police stops of motorists on public highways”), which is probably why some courts before Ferguson treated Sitz as a “special needs” case. See, e.g., Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 186 F.3d 469, 477 n.7 (4th Cir. 1999) rev’d, Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001); Pierce v. Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 873 n.8 (5th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar

Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 83 n.21 (2001) (distinguishing Sitz and other checkpoint cases from drug tests by stating that “[the checkpoint cases] involved roadblock seizures, rather than the intrusive search of the body or the home”) (internal citation omitted).Google Scholar

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000).Google Scholar

Id. at 47.Google Scholar