The caller\u2019s report to the police that defendant was handling a gun in an apartment building\u2019s parking lot didn\u2019t state a crime in an open carry state. The detention was without consent or reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30949 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Early in the encounter, defendant asked Officer Soto \u201cwhat law have I broken?\u201d and she replied \u201cwe’re trying to figure out what’s going on.\u201d This reply carries the implication that defendant was not free to leave until the officer \u201cfound out\u201d the answer to her inquiry. \u201cThe line between a consensual conversation and a seizure is crossed when police convey to an individual that he or she is suspected of a crime.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
. . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court recognizes that the facts of this case present a challenge for law enforcement. As the Magistrate Judge found, carrying a firearm (even in hand) is not illegal in Oklahoma. See 21 O.S. \u00a71272(A)(6). Obviously, however, it could be a matter of seconds before such lawful conduct could transform into criminal conduct \u2014 although the same could be said of a person carrying a holstered gun. The defendant cites United States v. Daniels, 101 F.4th 770 (10th Cir. 2024), which held that guns being taking in and out of pockets in the parking lot of an apartment complex “may be odd, but it is not obviously illegal.” Id. at 778. The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of a suppression motion. Ultimately, this court agrees with defendant that “the mere fact that a non-emergency caller stated someone was engaged in the apparently legal act of carrying a firearm cannot provide grounds for a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct.” (#39 at 10).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The caller\u2019s report to the police that defendant was handling a gun in an apartment building\u2019s parking lot didn\u2019t state a crime in an open carry state. The detention was without consent or reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2025 … Continue reading