Criminal-Police had reasonable suspicion to conduct Terry stop

Where officers saw a bulge in the defendant’s pants that was consistent with the shape of a firearm, knew that he could not lawfully possess a firearm and the defendant fled after being asked about the contents of his pocket, the police had a reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.

Background

James Melvin Dudley appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. His primary challenge on appeal concerns the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained following a Terry stop.

Analysis

Dudley contends that, when the officers approached him, they had nothing more than an inchoate feeling that, because he had a criminal record, the object in his pants must have been a gun. Further, he argues that he had rational bases for fleeing, namely, fear and prior bad experiences with law enforcement.

The officers had a reasonable suspicion that Dudley was unlawfully possessing a firearm. First, “[i]t is well established that a bulge consistent with the shape of a firearm, and located somewhere a firearm would likely be found, supports reasonable suspicion.” Second, since the officers knew that Dudley was a convicted felon, they likewise knew that he could not lawfully possess a firearm.

Third, Dudley’s decision to flee upon being asked about the contents of his pocket made the L-shaped bulge all the more suspicious. Finally, although Dudley’s flight might have been motivated by a legitimate fear of the officers, a Terry stop is not unlawful merely because the conduct preceding the stop was “susceptible of an innocent explanation.”

Affirmed.

United States v. Dudley, Case No. 25-4055, Oct. 28, 2025. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDVA at Newport News (Hanes). Geremy C. Kamens and Patrick L. Bryant for Appellant. Erik S. Siebert, James Reed Sawyers and Julie D. Podlesni for Appellee. VLW 025-2-400. 4 pp.