On September 9, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued an interesting opinion in United States v. Joseph, a case involving reasonable suspicion based on a concealed firearm. In 2022, law enforcement was investigating drug activity in a neighborhood known for illegal drug sales and violent crimes. The officers decided to surveil a house where they knew a fatal drive-by had occurred a couple of weeks earlier.
During the surveillance, the officers watched Joseph getting a haircut in the front yard of the house. He was there between 40-45 minutes. When he left on foot, Joseph had his hands in the pocket of his hoodie, and one of the officers saw the imprint of a gun in the pocket and then the handle of the gun. The officers then conducted a stop where one officer pulled up his car in front of Joseph and the other behind him. Both officers exited their vehicles with guns drawn and ordered Joseph to put his hands up. The officers searched him and found the gun. They then learned that Joseph had a prior felony conviction and did not have a concealed-carry permit.
After he was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon in federal court, Joseph filed a motion to suppress arguing that the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the stop—violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court, however, disagreed on two grounds. First, the district court said that seeing the firearm alone constituted reasonable suspicion under Florida’s concealed carry law. Second, the district court said that based on the totality of the circumstances—which included the gun, previous crime at the house, and the high crime area—the officers had reasonable suspicion.
On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Joseph renewed his argument that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Although the Court did not answer the question, a central issue argued by the parties was whether the officers needed probable cause or reasonable suspicion before conducting the stop. Joseph argued that, based on how it occurred, the stop amounted to a full arrest—in which case, the officers needed probable cause. The Government argued that it was a Terry stop—which is a brief stop for investigative purposes rather than to arrest—and, therefore, the officers only needed reasonable suspicion, which is a lower threshold. While the Court didn’t address the merits of this issue, they strongly suggested that the stop was a full arrest that required probable cause.
The Court didn’t address that issue, however, because it determined that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion, which naturally means they did not have probable cause either. In doing so, the Court addressed both of the grounds on which the district court denied Joseph’s motion to suppress.
First, the Court addressed whether the gun alone gave officers reasonable suspicion to make a stop. In 2012, the Court held that a gun did provide probable cause. But, as the Court explained, the law in Florida has changed.
Prior to 2015, Florida law criminalized concealed carry of a firearm in general. The law, however, had an exception for individuals who had a concealed-carry permit. In 2015, however, the law was changed so that concealed carry was generally lawful as long as someone had a license. This change flipped the law from presuming that a person was violating the law if they were seen with a concealed firearm to presuming that they were not violating the law.
Due to the presumption that a concealed firearm is lawful under the 2015 law, the Eleventh Circuit held that merely having a concealed firearm alone is not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion because it is not an obvious criminal act. This means that an officer cannot stop a person on the street simply because the officer sees a person with a concealed gun.
But the Court did hold that the presence of a gun can be part of a totality of the circumstances analysis—which was the second basis for the district court’s order denying the motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, Courts look to the whole picture to see if an officer could have reasonable suspected criminal activity. A number of factors go into this analysis, and even lawful activity can be used. Other factors include the fact that Joseph was in a high crime area.
The Court ruled, however, that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion in this case. The problem was that while the officers could see that Joseph had a gun and he was in a high crime area, neither of those factors were criminal in and of themselves. The officers did not see Joseph engage in any drug sales and did not act in any way indicative of dealing drugs. As the Court said, “he simply happened to be in and around a house with some link to narcotics and a homicide.” In those circumstances, there was no basis for the officers to reasonably believe that Joseph was engaged in illegal activity.
Notably, Florida amended its concealed carry law again in 2023. Under the new law, there is no permit requirement for individuals who conceal-carry a gun. While the Court’s decision in this case only technically pertains to the statute as it existed between 2015 and 2023, the same rationale should continue to apply because concealed-carry is not a crime in Florida. This is especially noteworthy for Alabama residents because Alabama has also done away with its requirement for concealed-carry permits.
It is very important to keep in mind that the Eleventh Circuit still says that possession of a concealed gun can be a factor in whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. Reasonable suspicion is not a high bar for officers to clear. Had there been any sign that Joseph was engaged in illegal activity, it is very likely that the Court would have said the totality of the circumstances demonstrated reasonable suspicion and affirmed the district court’s decision rather than reverse it.
