This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
believe that Chisholm was planning a crime, and were unfamiliar with his criminal history.
Therefore, under the circumstances, the only information available to the officers at the time of
the seizure was their view of a bulge that might be a firearm.
According to Chisholm, however, this Court’s precedent makes clear that possession of a
firearm, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion under the Fourth
Amendment to justify an investigative detention. Rather, there must be other indicators of
criminality before officers may rely on the possession of a firearm in the reasonable suspicion
analysis. He argued that because the officers’ only basis for detaining Chisholm was the
possibility that he possessed a firearm, that fact, standing alone, was insufficient to establish
reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Chisholm asserted that the
motion to suppress should be granted, the firearm recovered during the unlawful detention must
be excluded from evidence, and the conviction for possession of a firearm by a violent felon
should be dismissed.
The trial court, however, rejected Chisholm’s argument. Instead, the court ruled in favor
of the Commonwealth, finding the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Chisholm based on
the totality of the circumstances. The trial court determined that the seizure occurred when
Officer McLaughlin grabbed Chisholm’s wrist and therefore relied on officers’ belief Chisholm
possessed a firearm, along with his alleged nervous demeanor, his backward steps, and the
characterization of the area as high crime. The court credited Officer McLaughlin’s and Officer
Smith’s testimony that they observed an L-shaped bulge in Chisholm’s waistband consistent with
a firearm. It also found that carrying a concealed firearm is presumably a misdemeanor unless
one has a permit to carry under Code § 18.2-308.
The court further considered the officers’ testimony that the encounter occurred in a high
crime area known for violent offenses. The court also credited Officer Smith’s testimony that
-5-Jump to an indexed page (25 of 25)