Summary
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the State’s writ application, reversed the district court’s judgment granting Tavione Gustave’s motion to suppress, and remanded the case. The court held that officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Gustave based on observing a firearm-shaped bulge in his front waistband while patrolling Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras, considering the surrounding crowd and safety conditions. The court concluded that Louisiana’s constitutional-carry statute did not preclude investigation of potentially negligent carrying under Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1382.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Gustave based on the distinctive firearm-like bulge in his front waistband, the manner in which the firearm appeared to be carried, and the crowded Mardi Gras setting.
- Whether Louisiana's constitutional-carry statute eliminated or limited law enforcement's authority to investigate a potentially negligent manner of carrying a concealed firearm.
- Whether Gustave's alleged lack of an opportunity to notify officers and submit to temporary disarmament negated reasonable suspicion under Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(I)(2).
- Whether the firearm seizure and subsequent search incident to arrest were valid.
Holdings
- The officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Gustave for suspected negligent carrying of a concealed firearm because the distinctive shape and location of the bulge, viewed in light of the officer's training and the crowded, unpredictable Bourbon Street Mardi Gras environment, provided a particularized and objective basis to suspect an unsafe manner of carry.
- Louisiana's constitutional-carry provision does not insulate all concealed-firearm possession from reasonable inquiry; officers may investigate whether the firearm is being carried in a manner that violates the negligent-carrying statute.
- The subsequent seizure of the firearm and the search incident to arrest were valid because the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate the detention and probable grounds to proceed on the negligent-carrying offense.
- Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(I)(2) requires a person carrying a weapon pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95(M), when approached by an officer in an official manner or with an identified official purpose, to notify the officer, submit to a pat-down, and allow temporary disarmament; Gustave's asserted lack of opportunity to notify did not negate reasonable suspicion.
Key quotations
“The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to rule out all lawful explanations before initiating a brief stop.” (3)
“It requires only a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting criminal activity, in this case, negligent carrying.” (3)
“Officers are not required to wait for the firearm to fall, for someone to bump into the defendant, for someone to reach for the firearm, or for an injury to occur before taking investigative action.” (4)
“Constitutional carry did not eliminate this statutory obligation.” (5)
Factual background
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on March 2, 2025, during Mardi Gras weekend on Bourbon Street, Lieutenant Troy Pichon observed a unique bulge in Gustave's front waistband that, based on his training and experience, was recognized as consistent with a concealed firearm. The area involved large crowds, close physical proximity, and frequent jostling. The officers detained Gustave, seized the firearm, and arrested him; the district court found the circumstances insufficient to support reasonable suspicion and suppressed the resulting evidence.
Procedural history
During Mardi Gras weekend, a Louisiana State Police officer observed what another officer recognized as a distinctive bulge consistent with a concealed firearm in Gustave's front waistband on Bourbon Street. The district court granted Gustave's motion to suppress. The Fourth Circuit granted the State's writ application, reversed the suppression judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings following reversal of the order granting the motion to suppress.