What the “Characteristics of an Armed Person” Framework Gets Wrong

In police departments across the nation, officers are being trained to identify “characteristics of an armed person”—visual indicators that a person might be carrying a gun. But as Assistant Professor of Law Amanda Savage argues in The Pseudoscience of Gun Hunting, her article published this spring in the Columbia Law Review, this framework includes characteristics that are so broad and so vague that it encourages unconstitutional policing tactics.

The characteristics that purportedly suggest gun possession include a bladed stance (standing at an angle), seasonally inappropriate clothing, wearing a fanny pack, wearing a heavy coat unbuttoned or unzipped, and many others—all common things with completely innocuous explanations. This policing framework, Savage argues, gives officers unbridled discretion to stop and frisk whomever they choose because nearly everyone exhibits characteristics of an armed person.

“This article stems from my experience as a public defender, defending people against whom this policing tactic was used. My hope is that this article will help bring to light the unconstitutional nature of this policing framework and give advocates on the ground a tool in their fight against it,” says Savage.

The article exposes connections between this policing framework and extreme instances of police violence and articulates the growing tension between the Second and Fourth Amendment in the context of policing gun possession. “Policing tactics like this one,” Savage explains, “purport to promote public safety, but in actuality, harm it.”

Savage’s work on this piece was recently featured on the Public Defenseless podcast.