Opinion ID: 2980569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Firearm Seizure

Text: Finally, Gregory claims that, even if the entire encounter was consensual, he was illegally searched when Kersey allegedly asked if he had any weapons and subsequently confiscated the firearm Gregory was carrying in his jacket.1 At the outset, it is important to note that this encounter remained consensual when Bunch and Gregory arrived at the residence and were joined by Kersey and Johnson. At this point, Gregory learned of the ruse and was told the true reason for the meeting. Although Gregory’s freedom of movement was in some sense limited, as he was at his isolated residence without his own vehicle, he was not physically restrained, and the officers did not use any physical force or engage in any threatening or intimidating behavior. Because of the cold weather, the three men sat in Kersey’s vehicle to discuss the investigation, with Gregory sitting in the front passenger seat. By all accounts, the encounter and discussion between Gregory and the two officers was non-confrontational and non-hostile. 1 The government argues in its brief that Gregory has waived this claim by failing to develop an argument. See United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832, 846 (6th Cir. 2006). While Gregory’s argument on this specific point is rather perfunctory, the claim can still be quickly addressed on the merits. -6- There are differing accounts of the events leading to the confiscation of Gregory’s firearm. Gregory claims that Kersey initiated the search by “ask[ing] [him] if [he] had anything on his persons [sic] that would . . . be harmful or violent,” while Kersey suggested that Gregory volunteered the information that he was carrying a firearm without any prompting from the officers. Significantly, Gregory does not claim that Kersey simply frisked him and found the gun. Even assuming that Gregory’s account is true, his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. During a consensual encounter like this one, “law enforcement officers may . . . ask general questions without having any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, so long as the officers refrain from the type of intimidating behavior that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person was not free to leave.” United States v. Waldon, 206 F.3d 597, 603 (6th Cir. 2000). When Kersey asked Gregory if he was carrying a weapon, that question did “not transform the [consensual encounter] into a seizure.” Mitchell v. United States, 233 F. App’x 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2007). Gregory voluntarily answered this question in the affirmative, at which point Kersey, who was aware of the active domestic violence order against Gregory, had a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that Gregory unlawfully possessed a firearm in his jacket. Avery, 137 F.3d at 352. Kersey was then entitled to search Gregory and confiscate the illegally held weapon. Therefore, Gregory’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.