Tuckson v. United States, 77 A.3d 357

Tuckson was arrested for possession of a prohibited weapon (an ASP baton) and impersonating a police officer after officers observed a baton in his car door pocket during a window-tint check.
Police stopped a vehicle outfitted with police-like equipment and clothing; plate and ownership raised suspicion that the car was not a police vehicle.
Tuckson parked illegally in front of a fire hydrant, raised questions about his conduct, and denied having guns.
Upon opening the driver’s door for a tint check, officers observed the ASP baton, prompting his arrest and a subsequent search of the car.
Under a jacket on the front passenger seat, the officers found a loaded pistol and extra ammunition, which formed the central evidence for the firearms charges.
The trial court found some probable cause for detentions/arrests and allowed the car search under Gant-based considerations; the appellate court ultimately reversed the convictions and suppressed the gun and ammunition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause to arrest for possession of a prohibited weapon	Tuckson contends there was probable cause to arrest for possession of a prohibited weapon.	Tuckson maintains there was insufficient probable cause to arrest for possession of a prohibited weapon.	No probable cause; suppress the gun and ammunition.
Whether baton was a dangerous weapon under DC law	Tuckson argues baton was not inherently dangerous and lacked requisite intent to use as a weapon.	The government contends baton could be a dangerous weapon given its potential use.	Batons are not inherently dangerous; no probable cause to arrest under §22-4504(a) or §22-4514(b).
Probable cause to arrest for impersonating a police officer	Officers had probable cause to believe Tuckson impersonated a police officer.	No evidence of fraudulent design; arrest not supported by probable cause.	No probable cause to arrest for impersonating a police officer.
Automobile exception applicability	Automobile exception could justify a warrantless search if probable cause existed that the car contained contraband.	Automobile exception not properly raised and not applicable here.	Declines to affirm on this basis; does not apply.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits and applies automobile exception post-arrest search to particular contexts)
Scott v. United States, 243 A.2d 54 (D.C. 1968) (dangerous weapon definitions and intent considerations)
Strong v. United States, 581 A.2d 383 (D.C. 1990) (factors for determining intent to use an object as a dangerous weapon)
Broadie v. United States, 452 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (surrounding circumstances can establish intent to use a baton as a weapon)
Purce v. United States, 482 A.2d 772 (D.C. 1984) (appellate guidance on circumstances and probable cause)
DeFillippo v. United States (Michigan v. DeFillippo), 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (probable cause to arrest and is-probable cause standard language)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause determinations are reviewed de novo on appeal)
Reis v. United States, 906 F.2d 284 (7th Cir. 1990) (automobile context and police paraphernalia can support search)