The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has overturned the conviction of a man stopped by police after an officer noticed the outline of a gun under his clothing, ruling that carrying a handgun in public is no longer presumptively illegal and cannot alone justify an investigative stop.
In a decision issued Thursday, a three-judge panel vacated Marc Anthony Quarles’s weapons convictions and sent the case back to D.C. Superior Court, finding that Metropolitan Police Department officers lacked the reasonable, articulable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment when they chased and tackled him.
The incident began when two uniformed officers, Officers Zelesnick and Griffin, watched Quarles walk past their parked cruiser. Zelesnick testified that he saw what he “immediately perceived to be a magazine imprinting from the right side of [Mr. Quarles’s] hip, through his clothing.”
The officer, who noted he had recovered around 100 firearms during his career and described himself as “a big Second Amendment guy,” believed the rectangular shape was a handgun handle and magazine. However, Zelesnick acknowledged he did not know whether the item might have been a wallet or a bag, nor did he know whether Quarles had a concealed carry permit.
After Quarles walked into and out of a nearby carry-out restaurant, the officers followed him in their cruiser, stepped out, and approached him on foot. Griffin called out “yo, my man, yo” multiple times. Quarles did not answer, ran down an alleyway, and was tackled roughly 15 seconds later by Griffin. Police recovered a handgun from his hip and arrested him.
Trial Judge Jason Park had previously denied Quarles’s motion to suppress the weapon, ruling that the officer’s visual identification combined with Quarles’s flight showed a consciousness of guilt.
Writing for the appellate court, Associate Judge McLeese rejected that reasoning, pointing to major legal shifts following U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
“In light of these developments, the mere fact of possession of a handgun, without more, no longer creates reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing sufficient for an investigative stop,” McLeese wrote. He noted that while D.C. once banned almost all handguns, the District now provides a legal pathway for qualified residents to obtain concealed carry licenses.
The court also found that Quarles running away did not bridge the legal gap under the specific circumstances. While flight can be a factor in evaluating suspicion, the judges emphasized that Quarles did not bolt immediately upon seeing police, but only after armed officers followed him across the street and closed in while calling out to him.
“There was thus a reason other than consciousness of guilt for Mr. Quarles to have fled,” the opinion stated, adding that innocent people may run to avoid unwanted or intimidating police confrontations. The court also observed that racial dynamics and apprehension among African American men during police interactions provide a recognized, non-criminal context for flight.
Because the officers were not responding to a crime report, had no prior information about Quarles, and saw no furtive waistband adjustments before the chase, the court ruled the stop unlawful and ordered the seized handgun suppressed. Judges Beckwith and Deahl joined McLeese in the decision.
READ: All-Clear Given At Central High School In Brooksville After Suspected Swatting Call
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
