Jon S. Vernick, JD, MPH¹, Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH¹, Matthew W. Pierce¹, Sara B. Johnson, MPH², and Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH³. (1) Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, Hampton House, Room 594, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996, 410-955-7982, jvernick@jhsph.edu, (2) School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N. Broadway, Room 580, Baltimore, MD 21205, (3) Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, 5th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996

PURPOSE New devices are being developed that scan individuals at a distance to determine if they are carrying concealed firearms. Police use of such devices raises serious Fourth Amendment constitutional concerns. Judges often use legal “tests” to determine the constitutionality of injury prevention laws or programs. We combine empirical and legal research to inform the relevant legal test for the constitutionality of gun scanners.

METHODS Legal research identified the appropriate legal test to be applied. A random-digit-dial telephone survey (n=1232) of U.S. adults residing in cities with a population>200,000 was then conducted to inform the constitutional inquiry. Respondents were asked about: overall support for the devices; support for specific uses of the devices; privacy concerns.

RESULTS The Supreme Court has determined that for a Fourth Amendment “search” to have occurred, the target of police surveillance must have an “expectation of privacy ... that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” In our survey, 86% of respondents generally favored police use of the scanners. However, only 55% supported random use of the scanners on the street; half (49%) agreed that gun scanners would intrude on an individual’s privacy.

CONCLUSION High overall support could suggest to a court that gun scans do not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, and are therefore constitutional. More likely, however, lesser levels of support for random scans, and concerns about privacy, would cause a court to conclude that a reasonable expectation of privacy does exist. Use of empirical data could lend additional credibility to these judicial determinations.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session, participants will

• understand how empirical data can inform the decisions judges make about the legality of injury interventions;
• be able to describe new concealed weapon detection technology and its relationship to gun violence prevention.

Keywords: Firearms, Methodology

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.