Opinion ID: 1886819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dickerson's Voluntary Departure from His Trailer Placed Him Outside Any Arguable Home Possession Exception to the Concealed Carry Statute.

Text: In denying Dickerson's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon charge, [2] the trial judge found that the constitutional right to bear arms did not permit Dickerson to carry a concealed weapon, because concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. This Court reviews a claim of constitutional error de novo. [3] Dickerson claims that Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution [4] guarantees a person's right to carry a concealed weapon on one's own property, or, alternatively, a more limited right to carry a concealed weapon in one's own home. Dickerson argues that he lawfully possessed a concealed gun inside his trailer, and that his forcible removal from his home by Trooper Martin precludes holding him criminally liable for that crime. Dickerson relies on State v. Stevens, [5] an Oregon Court of Appeals case. In Stevens, the defendant was hiding in his home underneath a pile of clothing with a switchblade knife in his rear pocket. The police arrested the defendant and after taking him outside, discovered the knife in his pocket. The defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The Oregon appellate court reversed the conviction, reasoning that: First, the simple act of carrying a concealed switchblade within one's own home is not the type of unrestrained rights-exercising that poses a clear threat to public safety and that can therefore be regulated [consistent with the Oregon Constitution]. Second, the state's interpretation would restrict the manner in which one could carry a legal weapon from room to room within one's home and would inhibit an act that is so intrinsic to ownership and self-defense that it would unreasonably interfere with the exercise of one's constitutional right to possess the switchblade. We therefore hold that [the concealed carry statute] applies only to the carrying of concealed weapons outside one's own home. [6] The State responds that this Court has rejected the proposition that the constitutional right to bear arms restricts enforcement of the concealed carry statute. [7] The State also argues that: (1) Dickerson's argument for home possession exception conflicts with the public safety rationale of the concealed carry statute, and (2) whether there should be a home possession exception to the concealed carry statute is an issue for the legislative branch, not the courts. Assuming, without deciding, that the Delaware Constitution permits carrying a concealed deadly weapon inside one's home without a license, that claim, even if valid, does not help Dickerson. Because Dickerson took his concealed handgun outside of his trailer, he carried it outside of his home. Thus, we need not decide whether Delaware should follow Stevens, whose holding is limited to situations where the defendant carries a concealed weapon in his own home. [8] Assuming, without deciding, that Dickerson had a right to carry a concealed weapon inside his own home, the issue is whether Dickerson had any legal excuse for taking the concealed gun outside his trailer. Specifically, did Dickerson leave his trailer voluntarily or was he forcibly removed from the trailer by Trooper Martin? Dickerson argues that he was under arrest when Martin first showed up at his door, therefore was compelled by Trooper Martin to leave his trailer, and that such compulsion excuses his criminal liability. Dickerson's argument fails because it conflates being under arrest with being forced to leave his trailer. A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (and, therefore, is under arrest), where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave under all the circumstances surrounding the incident. [9] Even if a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave, that does not establish that Dickerson was compelled to step outside his trailer. Dickerson points to no evidence that Trooper Martin compelled him to do that. The evidence establishes only that Trooper Martin asked Dickerson to: (1) explain the earlier incident between him and Frank; (2) show his hands; and (3) state whether he had any weapons. Dickerson could have answered Trooper Martin's questions from inside his trailer. Dickerson voluntarily left his trailer while carrying a concealed handgun. He therefore cannot establish a colorable defense to Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon.