Fourth Circuit: US v. Billy Curry, Jr.

Suspicionless stop and search of person in proximity to audible gunshots was not justified under the emergency aid exception within exigent circumstances, as such a stop would require firm knowledge of the crime and a close geographical association with the place of the crime.

CJ, concur:  Dissent's approach risks overpolicing, country at a moment of reckoning.

Concur: Sociology and predictive policing not a basis for law.

Concur: Scotus dictum sets standard for special needs exigency, searches must be discretionless and systematic.

Concur: Predictive policing = racial profiling.

Dissent 1: Having to stop and wait to get the details of the crime undercuts predictive policing, results in communities under-served by police.

 Dissent 2: Upon reasonable suspicion of exigency, police must balance the gravity of the risk against the right infringed.

(Amended opinion presumably corrects typo from "waiving Constitutions in the air" to "waving Constitutions in the air,  per Google archive of old file.) 

US v. Billy Curry, Jr.