United States v. Ducksworth, 2025 WL 3292614 (5th Cir. 2025)
This is a case about two men with hard objects between their legs. Just because the hard object in one man’s groin was a gun, did that give reasonable suspicion for the officer to pat down the crotch of his companion, revealing another gun?
An officer in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, stopped a car for a defective tag light. The driver was unable to provide identification or proof of insurance, and the officer told him to exit the car. During a protective pat-down, the officer felt a “hard, solid object in between his legs.” The driver initially denied the object was a weapon, but eventually admitted it was a firearm. The officer handcuffed the driver and placed him in his patrol car.
“It would be beyond folly for our court to ask police officers to ignore the clear relevance of discovering a hidden firearm on the driver.”
The officer then approached the passenger, Andrew Ducksworth, who told the officer he was paralyzed from the waist down. The officer instructed Ducksworth to raise his arms for a pat-down, also mentioning that the driver had a gun in his pants. During the frisk, the officer felt a hard object between Ducksworth’s legs and said, “you’ve got one too.” Like the driver, Ducksworth denied the object was a firearm. The officer handcuffed him. Once backup arrived, the officers removed a loaded gun from Ducksworth’s pants, and he was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Ducksworth moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the frisk. The trial court denied the motion. At a bench trial, Ducksworth stipulated to all elements of the offense, presented no evidence, and was found guilty. Ducksworth then appealed the denial of the motion to suppress the firearm.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
On appeal, Ducksworth argued the officer’s pat-down was unlawful because the driver’s dishonesty about and possession of a firearm could not be imputed to Ducksworth. This was a matter of first impression for the 5th Circuit, though the court noted the 1st Circuit “has held, however, that a driver’s possession of a firearm may give rise to reasonable suspicion to pat-down his passenger, at least when coupled with other circumstances.” The court agreed with its sister court “that it would be beyond folly for our court to ask police officers to ignore the clear relevance of discovering a hidden firearm on the driver — especially when the driver lied about having a weapon.”
The court appellate court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the driver’s deception about possessing a concealed firearm, the high-crime area, and the officer’s safety concerns in being a single officer outnumbered by two suspects, there was reasonable suspicion for the pat-down. In response to Ducksworth’s challenge to the lack of evidence that he was in a “high crime area,” the court stated, “courts generally accept officers’ testimony about whether an area is one with a high incidence of criminal activity.” (Note: In U.S. v. Hawkins, did the court accept the officers’ testimony about a “high crime area”?)
- Blog Articles
