Here is a summary and analysis of the decision in United States v. Coe (No. 24-4111) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Nov. 12, 2025). You can read the opinion by clicking here.

Summary

Facts

  • Officer Dquan Walker (a Richmond, Virginia police officer) was on routine patrol at night and observed defendant Davonte J. Coe sitting in the driver’s seat of a car parked just outside the entrance to a convenience store known for drug activity. 
  • Coe was holding plastic baggies which appeared to contain cocaine. There were other occupants in the car (including a front-passenger). 
  • Officer Walker drew his firearm, opened the driver-side door, and as Coe began to exit the vehicle, Walker grabbed Coe and pinned him to the car. When Walker holstered his firearm and drew his taser, Coe struggled and threw the baggies in front of the car. During the altercation, Walker observed a firearm in Coe’s waistband. 
  • Coe was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to (1) dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, and (2) suppress the firearm on Fourth Amendment/excessive-force grounds. The district court denied both motions and Coe entered a conditional guilty plea. 

Procedural posture

  • Coe appealed the two denials (dismissal of indictment; suppression of the gun) to the Fourth Circuit. 
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed. 

Holdings

  1. Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1): The Fourth Circuit held that because Coe did not contend that his prior conviction (which triggered the prohibition on firearm possession) had been pardoned, or that the law defining that conviction had been invalidated, his challenge fails. In short, the statute stands as applied to him. 
  2. Fourth Amendment / suppression motion: The Court assumed (for sake of argument) that some of Walker’s conduct could constitute a Fourth Amendment “seizure,” but held that under the totality of the circumstances the stop/arrest was not constitutionally unreasonable. The Court emphasized the standard from Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)) for excessive-force and seizure reasonableness. 
    • Because Walker reasonably believed Coe was committing a serious drug offense (cocaine possession) in a location known for drug activity, and because Walker was alone and out-numbered, drawing his firearm briefly for under 30 seconds was within the reasonableness standard under the circumstances. 
    • The Court also strongly rejected as a justification the officer’s stated philosophy of always drawing a gun “whenever there’s any type of crime that’s committed … because you never know what that person has.” The Court called that philosophy unacceptable and made clear officers do not have carte blanche to draw firearms simply on suspicion of a crime. 

Analysis

Strengths / what the decision underscores

  • The decision reinforces that § 922(g)(1) remains constitutionally valid (in the Fourth Circuit) when applied to persons with prior convictions who have not been pardoned or whose conviction has not been invalidated. This aligns with prior Fourth Circuit precedent (see discussion in the opinion) and limits broad Second Amendment challenges to felon-possession prohibitions.
  • On the Fourth Amendment front, the Court applies a fact-sensitive “objectively reasonable” test for officer use of force and weapons drawing consistent with Graham v. Connor. It demonstrates that even a drawn firearm does not necessarily render a stop or seizure unreasonable, especially in context of observed drug activity and dangerousness.
  • The Court’s admonition of the officer’s sweeping “always draw a gun” philosophy is notable: while they ruled for the Government in this instance, they explicitly rejected broad, prophylactic justification for weapons drawing. That helps delineate boundaries for future excessive-force claims.

Potential weaknesses / caution points

  • Because the Court accepted many of the factual findings made by the district court (and viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the Government), some might view the decision as heavily fact-bound. For example, had the officer been supported by backup, or if fewer facts suggested immediate danger, the outcome might differ.
  • The Court’s assumption (for purposes of its analysis) that the drawing of the firearm was a “seizure” did not require it to address other aspects of the suppression motion (e.g., probable cause, warrant requirement, scope of search). The decision thus leaves some issues open for future cases — especially where officers draw weapons but fewer aggravating facts exist.
  • From a civil rights or policing perspective, there may be concern that the “driver holding baggies” + “known drug location” + “other people present” constellation of facts produces a low threshold for drawing a firearm under Fourth Amendment reasonableness. Critics may argue that allowing the gun-draw so readily could undermine the intended limits on force.

Implications for future cases

  • Individuals challenged under § 922(g)(1) will likely continue to have uphill Second Amendment arguments, absent a pardon or invalidation of their prior conviction; this case adds another published affirmation of that rule in the Fourth Circuit.
  • For suppression and excessive-force challenges, the decision affirms the logic that a drawn firearm is neither per se unconstitutional nor automatically fatal to a motion to suppress — the context (officer’s perception of risk, suspect’s actions, location, time) matters a great deal.
  • The strongly-worded rebuke of the “always draw a gun” philosophy sends a message to law-enforcement agencies and officers: your subjective policy or mindset won’t justify weapon use — only the objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment will. That could be cited in civil-suit and policy contexts.
  • The case may serve as a precedent for other circuits (or lower courts) when evaluating whether, in drug-oriented stops, a single officer drawing a gun for a brief moment is reasonable. The published nature of the decision (and its timing) may raise awareness.

 

If this case is helpful to you, then please be sure to review the case of Nazario v. Gutierrez by clicking here. as well as the related blog post available by clicking here.

 

The Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, severe burns, commercial plane crashes and commercial trucking crashes nationwide, and especially in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. James E. Girards is a private pilot licensed to fly single- and multi-engine aircraft in both visual and instrument conditions. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.

 

Post A Comment