United States v. Brown, 3:22-cr-30056

On Jan. 23, 2022, Officer Aaron Morgan, parked ~100 yards from Route 3 Liquor, observed James A. Brown at the store's purchase window using binoculars and reported seeing a firearm under Brown’s armpit.
Officer Morgan testified he saw a barrel, a tactical light, and later an extended magazine as Brown moved the weapon into his front pant pocket.
Morgan called dispatch, waited for backup, and—when joined by four other officers—approached with weapons drawn, ordered Brown to raise his hands, handcuffed him, and recovered a Taurus G3 9mm with an extended magazine and 31 rounds.
Brown was taken to the Sauget Police Department; officers learned he had a prior felony conviction after he was already secured. Brown was later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Brown moved to suppress, arguing the stop, seizure, and search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Government argued Morgan had reasonable suspicion and probable cause based on his observation and the high-crime location.
The court found Morgan’s testimony about his detailed observations from 100 yards (even with binoculars) not credible, held that mere public possession of a firearm in Illinois does not automatically establish criminality, concluded officers lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause at the time of detention, and granted suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Brown	Morgan saw Brown carrying a gun (barrel, tactical light, extended magazine) at the purchase window in a high-crime area	Morgan’s observations were unreliable; the stop lacked particularized suspicion	No reasonable suspicion; stop was unconstitutional
Whether officers had probable cause to arrest/search Brown	Visible firearm established probable cause; later-confirmed facts (no registration, felony status) justify arrest	At time of detention officers lacked facts showing illegality (licensure/felon status unknown)	No probable cause at time of arrest; detention unlawful
Whether evidence seized should be suppressed	Evidence admissible because seizure/arrest were supported by observation of a firearm and public-safety concerns	Evidence obtained from unconstitutional seizure must be suppressed	Suppression granted; evidence excluded

United States v. Jackson, 300 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2002) (probable-cause requirement for searches and arrests)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
United States v. Williams, 731 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2013) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry under the totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) (need for particularized, objective basis to stop an individual)
United States v. Uribe, 709 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2013) (Government bears burden to establish reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in a high-crime area alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
People v. Jenkins, 193 N.E.3d 722 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021) (possession of a firearm outside the home does not automatically amount to criminal conduct)
People v. Thomas, 129 N.E.3d 584 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019) (caution against an "arrest first, determine licensure later" approach)