United States v. Antoine Richmond, 924 F.3d 404

Background

Officers in Milwaukee saw Antoine Richmond late at night with a noticeable bulge in his shirt pocket; they suspected a firearm based on experience.
Richmond walked to the front porch of a duplex, opened the outer screen door, and placed a dark object on the doorframe between the screen and closed front door.
Officers approached; one officer partially opened the screen door from the porch and observed a .40 caliber handgun on the threshold. Richmond was then asked and admitted he was a felon and was arrested.
Richmond moved to suppress the gun, arguing the officer’s act of opening the screen door was a warrantless search of curtilage without justification; the district court denied suppression after two evidentiary hearings.
The Seventh Circuit majority affirmed, holding officers had reasonable suspicion and that a narrowly tailored Terry-area search to neutralize a weapon threat was lawful; Chief Judge Wood dissented, arguing Jardines/Collins bar such a curtilage search absent probable cause or a warrant.

Issues

Issue	Richmond's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory intrusion on the porch/curtilage	Richmond: Bulge and walking home do not amount to reasonable suspicion; could lawfully possess a gun (concealed-carry)	Officers: Totality (late night, high-crime area, bulge, evasive change of course, hiding object) gave particularized, objective suspicion of unlawful armed conduct	Held: Yes — totality supported reasonable suspicion to investigate
Whether opening the screen door to check the object was an unconstitutional search of the home/curtilage	Richmond: Opening screen door was a warrantless search of curtilage (Jardines/Collins) and requires probable cause/warrant	Officers: Protective Terry-area search for weapons is allowed when suspect may gain immediate access to a weapon; search was narrowly confined	Held: Yes — narrowly tailored Terry-area protective search was reasonable
Scope and reasonableness of the search (area limited to weapon discovery)	Richmond: No Terry exception authorizes searching the home/curtilage without warrant; lesser intrusions not addressed	Government: Search was limited to the only area where a weapon could be accessed and lasted momentarily	Held: Search confined to threshold area and brief; constitutional under Terry balancing
Whether precedent bars curtilage searches on less than probable cause	Richmond: Jardines and Collins forbid warrantless searches of curtilage absent a warrant or exception	Government: Jardines/Collins differ because they involved no immediate safety threat and sought evidence other than weapons; Terry-line cases (Long, Cady, Buie) permit protective area searches	Held: Majority: Terry/Long/Cady/Buie control this safety-driven context; dissent: Jardines/Collins control and would forbid search

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing investigatory stop and limited protective frisk for weapons)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (front porch/curtilage search implicates Fourth Amendment; implied visitor license limited)
Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (automobile-exception does not authorize entry into curtilage without warrant)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (area searches of vehicle passenger compartment under Terry principles)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweeps incident to arrest grounded in Terry/Long safety concerns)
Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir.) (permitting protective area searches within a suspect’s control under Terry reasoning)
United States v. Pace, 898 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir.) (applying Terry to curtilage/garage context)
United States v. Leo, 792 F.3d 742 (7th Cir.) (rejecting officer-safety justification where suspect was restrained and could not access weapon)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (appellate review: legal questions de novo; factual findings for clear error)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (evasive behavior in high-crime area relevant to reasonable suspicion)