,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
In an en banc decision (with dissenters), the 11th Circuit ruled that an officer who did a stop-and-frisk could seize a bullet found during the frisk as a weapon. Majority disputes that they're crafting a categorical rule, saying context matters media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f… 
Judge William Pryor, writing the majority opinion, writes that the bullet threatened the safety of the officers because of what could happen if the bullet were loaded into a gun (the person being frisked didn't have a gun on his person, but guns were found nearby)
There are two concurring opinions, one by Newsom and one by Branch (joined by Grant) arguing for an even broader rule — so we see the court's three newest judges wanting to go farther than Pryor's majority opinion. Pryor, Newsom, and Grant are on Trump's SCOTUS shortlist
There are multiple dissents. This one from Judge Jill Pryor (not related to Judge William Pryor), which is joined by three other judges, says the majority tips the scales too far in favor of law enforcement
