I started to say that I thought they would lose and SCOTUS will accept the rule of the 4th Circuit. After all, the real requirements of Terry have all but been ignored lately by a lot of police and court cases. If anyone read the requirements of Terry, the NY Stop and Frisk program could never have passed court muster, but it did until someone claimed racial profiling was being applied. Terry has always required a suspicion of crime to justify the stop and a separate specific articulable reason for the officer to be in fear from this specific stop. The only cases I knew of that had been thrown out were cases where the frisk was done for general rule purposes such as I always frisk people I stop for suspicious activity.
I also thought about the actual facts in the Terry case. The officer saw Terry and thought he was casing a store so he stopped him to see what he was doing. Then he saw a bulge he believed was a firearm and searched him to find it. All he really had was a suspicious person with a gun. This pretty much matches the case being appealed. He had a valid Terry stop (suspicious person) and he thought the person had a gun. Since SCOTUS is the one who came up with Terry, I did not have much faith in their making the fine point distinction that the gun then was illegal to carry and now is.
But the amicus brief is very well laid out IMO. It does point out that this is a distinction now and it makes a big difference. And, much more importantly, the brief lays out a good case for a major difference by relying on other decisions that say that you cannot be made to sacrifice one right just to use another. It points out that this very statement was part of one of the 4th Circuit justices' concurrence (carrying a gun means you must forfeit some 4th Amendment rights).
Now I have some hope that the SCOTUS will decide this case the way it should be decided. The police must articulate a specific fear pertinent to this specific case. Just having a gun is not enough.
Well, I can hope, can't I?