United States of America v. Bavonte J. Cole

Date: 11-13-2025

Case Number: 21-CR-61

Judge: Roderick Charles Young

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Henrico County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Richmond

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Richmond, Virginia, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

While patrolling alone at night, Officer Dquan Walker saw Coe sitting in the driver’s seat of a car parked just outside the entrance to a convenience store known for “drug activity . . . inside and outside of the store.” JA 106. Coe was holding plastic baggies that appeared to contain cocaine. There were other people on the scene, including one in the front passenger seat of Coe’s car. Walker drew his firearm and opened the driver’s side door. As Coe started getting out, Walker grabbed Coe and pinned him to the car. Walker holstered his firearm and drew his taser. Coe began to struggle and threw the baggies in front of the car. As Coe and Walker struggled, Walker saw a firearm in Coe’s
waistband.

The Defendant filed two relevant pretrial motions: (1) to dismiss the indictment because Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment; and (2) to suppress the firearm because Walker used constitutionally excessive force. The district court denied those motions, and Coe entered a conditional guilty plea.

At the suppression hearing, Walker testified he drew his firearm because, “[w]henever there’s any type of crime that’s committed, regardless of what type of crime it is, if you’re going to encounter a person[,] . . . obviously best to go
with the firearm first because you never know what that person has.” JA 119–20. To be sure, Walker’s subjective motivations are not relevant to the Fourth Amendment question before us. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 397–99. But Walker’s declared philosophy about when to draw a weapon is not the law, and we denounce such views in the strongest possible
terms. As this Court has explained, “unwarranted threat[s] of deadly force” can violate the Fourth Amendment. Nazario v. Gutierrez, 103 F.4th 213, 232 (4th Cir. 2024). And pointing a firearm at someone “is a threat with deadly force” that is “likely to instill fear” and can “needlessly escalate” a situation by “making it more dangerous for everyone involved.” Id. Although we conclude—again, based on the facts found by the district court and given the applicable standards of appellate review—that Walker’s conduct here was not constitutionally unreasonable, we emphasize that officers have no constitutional carte blanche to draw firearms “[w]henever there’s any type of crime that’s committed.”

Outcome: Motion to suppress denied.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: