The federal appeals court based in Denver agreed last week that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to search a Lakewood man’s home and, upon discovering a gun, there was sufficient evidence to convict him of illegally possessing it.

Charles Ramon III is serving a sentence of nearly 20 years after a jury convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Probation officers located the gun during a search of Ramon’s Lakewood home, where he lived with his mother. The gun was tucked away at the top of her bedroom closet.

At the time law enforcement conducted the search in March 2019, Ramon was on supervised release from a prior conviction. The terms of his probation allowed officers to search Ramon’s home “only when reasonable suspicion exists” of a violation and the areas to be searched “contain evidence of this violation.”

According to the government, Ramon’s probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search for drugs or firearms because

? In October 2016, police found drugs in his car

? In December 2017, there were plastic baggies in Ramon’s room

? In March 2018, police saw Ramon’s car in an “area known for drug trafficking”

? Twice in 2018, informants tipped off the government that Ramon “frequently” carried weapons

? Federal authorities were investigating a drug ring allegedly operated out of the Ramon family’s convenience store

? In January 2019, Ramon tested positive for cocaine

Ramon countered that the home search was unlawful because several factors undercut the notion that his probation officer had reasonable suspicion at the time:

? The most recent red flag, the drug test, happened six weeks prior to the search

? Days before the search, Ramon passed another drug test

? There was no information suggesting Ramon kept a gun at his house

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the government that reasonable suspicion existed, especially given the drug investigation into the Ramon family’s store.

“Drugs and guns typically go hand in hand,” he said.

Case: United States v. Ramon

Decided: October 20, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Timothy M. Tymkovich (author)

Mary Beck Briscoe

Nancy L. Moritz

After his conviction, Ramon appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. In addition to challenging the search, he also argued there was not enough evidence to convict him of possessing a gun illegally. Although his DNA was found on the gun, expert witnesses could not say how or when the DNA transferred onto the weapon, nor did anyone testify to seeing Ramon with the gun.

“In other words, no direct evidence exists to prove or suggest that (Ramon) ever touched the weapon,” wrote his attorney, Kari S. Schmidt.

A three-judge panel for the 10th Circuit disagreed on both fronts. Even if there was no information suggesting probation officers would find a gun at Ramon’s house, there was reasonable suspicion to search for narcotics given Ramon’s positive drug test and “checkered history.”

“Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had adequate facts to support an inference that Mr. Ramon violated his supervised release conditions and that his residence might contain evidence related to those violations,” wrote Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich in an Oct. 20 order.

Tymkovich acknowledged the firearms possession case against Ramon was circumstantial, given that the gun was in his mother’s closet. Although the jury could have discounted the DNA evidence as inconclusive, there were other factors supporting the idea that Ramon knew about and had access to the illegal gun – including his panicked reaction to the home search.

“(A) reasonable jury could construe Mr. Ramon’s behavior on the day of the search as evidence of his intent to obstruct the search,” Tymkovich wrote.

The panel upheld Ramon’s conviciton.

The case is United States v. Ramon.