Court Affirms Denial of Motion to Suppress Relying on Findings Made by the District Court

US v. Coe: An officer saw Coe sitting in a car outside a convenience store known for “drug activity” and saw Coe holding what appeared to be plastic baggies with cocaine in them. The officer drew his gun, opened the car door, grabbed Coe as he started to get out and “pinned him to the car.” The officer holstered his gun and got his taser, after which Coe started to struggle and “threw the baggies in front of the car.” In the struggle, the officer saw a gun in Coe’s waistband. Coe unsuccessfully moved to suppress the firearm and entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Coe’s motion to suppress. The “centerpiece of Coe’s argument” is that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by pointing his firearm at Coe “with no safety, with his finger on the trigger.” However, the court noted that the district court never made a finding that the officer pointed the gun at Coe while he had his finger on the trigger. Furthermore, Coe did not argue that the district court clearly erred in not making such a finding. As a result, “based on the findings the district court did make,” the court concluded that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment as it was “not constitutionally unreasonable” for him to briefing draw his gun under the circumstances. The court did note the officer’s “declared philosophy” during the suppression hearing that he always goes into a situation with his gun drawn (“because you never know what that person has”), stating that “is not the law, and we denounce such views in the strongest possible terms.”