Guy displaying gun late at night on a deserted street in a high-crime area can be stopped by police, court rules

A gun police say they found in a man's car on a Dorchester street can be used as evidence against him in an upcoming trial, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled today.

A Superior Court judge had tossed the gun as evidence against Joshua Edwards in his pending trial on a variety of charges, including gun-related ones, because the mere fact that somebody is showing a gun in public is not illegal, even in Massachusetts - unless he has no license - and that that was simply not enough to warrant police "seizing" him while they investigated what was going on.

But the state's highest court said it wasn't just that a witness saw him pull out a gun around 1:30 a.m. on March 17, 2013 on Armandine Street, but several other issues that, when combined, warranted the way police boxed Edwards' car in and ordered him to stop and eventually arrested him on charges that include illegal possession of a firearm (second offense), illegal possession of ammunition, possession of a loaded firearm and OUI.

The court said that a 911 caller, who identified himself by name, told police he had watched Edwards get in a car, drive off, then return to Armandine, get out of the car, stand in the middle of the street while holding a gun, then get back in the car - where police found him when they arrived.

A dispatcher then ordered officers to the scene for a "priority 1" call because of the gun. When an officer pulled up behind Edwards's Acura, Edwards stepped on the brakes and the witness yelled he was about to drive away, at which point the officer boxed him in. Edwards, the ruling continues, got out and began walking away, disregarding the officer's demand to stop; another officer then spotted what he said turned out to be a loaded gun on the front seat.

The court then explained why, in total, all these factors combined to make stopping Edwards reasonable:

The judge emphasized that it is not unlawful to carry a gun in public; it is only illegal to do so without a license. The judge concluded that a report of a man holding an unholstered gun on a public sidewalk, late at night in a high crime area, was not sufficiently suspicious to warrant an investigatory stop. He therefore ordered that the evidence discovered in the vehicle be suppressed.

In this case, the stop was predicated primarily on the information contained in the police broadcast. That information was provided by a person who both identified himself and said he personally had seen the defendant with a gun at 1:30 A.M. on a deserted, residential street. He identified the defendant by name; explained that he knew the defendant; met the police officer, Lanteigne, at the address he had provided to the 911 dispatcher; and pointed out the defendant's vehicle to [the initial officer] In these circumstances, [the witness]'s basis of knowledge was established, and his report of seeing the defendant holding a firearm "could be regarded as reliable without any prior demonstration of his reliability."

Although [the witness] did not describe the firearm to the 911 dispatcher -- and, as the motion judge observed, there is nothing illegal about merely possessing an appropriately licensed gun -- there was more to the 911 call and [the witness]'s description of the defendant's behavior than mere possession of a gun. As [the witness] reported, the defendant drove away and then came back to Armandine Street; he got out of the vehicle and stood outside while holding a gun -- apparently in his open hand, because [the witness] reported seeing the weapon; the defendant returned the firearm to the vehicle before entering the vehicle himself; and he then sat alone in the vehicle with all of its lights off. These facts, coupled with the time (approximately 1:30 A.M.), the location (a deserted street in a residential area, "within a few blocks" of which there had been repeated crimes of violence, including gun violence and homicides), and the officer's belief that "trained, licensed owners of a handgun typically carry their firearm in a holster," combine to create a scenario that an experienced police officer could reasonably believe is more consistent with likely criminal activity than it is with lawful possession of a firearm. ... [T]he facts just described concerning the time of night, the location, and the defendant's conduct in driving away and returning and, more particularly, in his handling of the gun as he got out of and then reentered the Acura, were collectively significant.

Innocent, etc.