(Reuters) - A rare full panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case concerning some weighty questions about the scope of police power.

The federal government's arguments in United States v. Weaver push for an interpretation of law that would extend the range of Constitutionally permissible actions police officers can take during an investigative stop, a move that seems to contradict President Joe Biden and his administration's stated goals on criminal justice reform and racial equity.

The case has drawn amicus briefs arguing against the government's position from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Legal Aid Society and other public advocacy groups.

The White House didn't respond to my questions for this column.

U.S. v. Weaver began after Syracuse, New York, police officers in 2016 found a gun and drugs on Calvin Weaver, a passenger in a vehicle they stopped, according to an earlier 2nd Circuit ruling, which held that the evidence against Weaver was illegally obtained.

Cops pulled over the car because the driver pulled up to a stop sign before turning on his indicator lights and making a right turn. New York laws require drivers to signal 100 feet prior to the turn. (Research by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 2012 found that "drivers across the country don't use their turn signals nearly half of the time when changing lanes, and people fail to signal a quarter of the time" when making turns, according to the organization's report and a CBS News article in May that year).

Officers also testified that they saw Weaver enter the vehicle. They said he had stared at them for "probably a few seconds" while walking to the car, and had pulled up on the waistband of his pants. Later, Weaver appeared to be concealing something in his pants as they approached the vehicle, they said.

Weaver was ordered out of the car, told to put his hands on the trunk and spread his legs. Officers said he pushed his pelvic area against the car as they tried to frisk him. They discovered a loaded gun after handcuffing him and continuing the search.

One central issue in the en banc appeal is whether the police search officially began when Weaver was ordered out of the car and told to assume the position (Weaver's argument), or whether the stop actually began when officers physically placed their hands on Weaver (the government's position).

Weaver is arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to pat him down during the stop-and-frisk. His public defenders and the various civil rights groups have also argued that the original traffic stop lacked reasonable grounds in the first place.

Michael Barnett, an attorney and public information officer at the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of New York, which is handling the case, told me officials are "not going to have a comment" when I asked whether there's a contradiction between the government's arguments and Biden's stated policy goals.

I talked with Ashok Chandran, an attorney who worked on the NAACP-LDF's brief, about why this case could represent a step backward for police reform. His answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.

REUTERS: What are your thoughts on whether there's a contradiction between the government's arguments here and Biden's words on criminal justice reform?

CHANDRAN: I think it's a disappointing position to see the government take, particularly given what we're seeing in terms of national attention to policing and the ways we know police can profile and stigmatize Black and brown communities.

That's where our brief tried to draw from the experience of our clients, in particular, to express that (a frisk) is not just a kind of minimal intrusion into someone's privacy.

REUTERS: In your view, what's the central problem with the way the judges who've dissented in this case have viewed the law?

CHANDRAN: The government has argued here that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car, and to conduct a frisk – that none of the conduct after Mr. Weaver was asked to assume the position was necessary (to justify the search).

There is a line of cases that says police can order people to do minimal things during traffic stops, like ordering you out of your car. The Supreme Court has said police can do that to protect themselves in case someone has a weapon.

One of the questions in this case is whether that doctrine also allows an officer to tell someone to "assume the position," or to frisk them.

But just think, if I live in a neighborhood that's overpoliced, and where police have violated people's right and haven't been held accountable, then I'm going to interpret an armed officers orders as one: I have no choice, and two: I could be harmed for not complying.

The argument that a search doesn't begin until they put their hands on you is kind of ridiculous on its face.

REUTERS: What's your own view of the basis for the traffic stop that was challenged in this case?

CHANDRAN: That's the other part of this case that I think is an important part of the conversation.

Making eye contact, being in a high crime area, those are considered to be lawful grounds for reasonable suspicion, but a 'high crime area' is a wholly subjective determination that police departments make. There's no objective metric required. On top of that, police and the government in numerous different cases have pointed to making eye contact, or not making eye contact, as a basis (for a lawful stop), so we're trying to highlight in the briefs just how subjective all those factors are. There's reams of social science and judicial opinion that recognize those are really flawed metrics for assessing whether someone's involved in criminal activity.

Author's note: James Egan, a lawyer with the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York who represented Weaver, didn't respond to my questions for this column. Carina Schoenberger is representing the government in the case.

Opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence and freedom from bias.