A federal judge ruled last month that prosecutors cannot use firearm evidence against a defendant because Aurora police searched him without having any reasonable basis to believe he was armed and dangerous.

In evaluating the constitutionality of the search, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez noted that police officers were called to a scene where women were allegedly fighting. The only man alleged to have a gun did not match the description of defendant Raquan Johnson. Nonetheless, police patted Johnson down and found a gun.

“The animating purpose behind a frisk, however, is not to aid officers in collecting evidence for a later prosecution; rather, frisks are deployed to keep officers safe,” Martínez wrote in a March 26 order. “Without more, the Court concludes that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to believe Johnson was dangerous. Therefore, the frisk of his person and subsequent search of his truck were unlawful.”

Early one morning in May 2025, a man called 911 to report a fight at his home. One woman had hit him, and other women were screaming and fighting throughout the call. The caller also stated that a woman threw him down the stairs. Further, a woman had pulled out a pistol, but passed it off to a “tall Black male with dreads” who was wearing all black. During the call, the participants in the fight left the victim’s house.

Two Aurora officers arrived and approached a pickup truck in the parking lot. Inside were two women and Johnson, who had short hair, yellow pants, and a black polo shirt. The officers asked if anyone had a gun, to which the occupants said no. The officers said they were going to pat everyone down because “someone is supposed to have a gun.”

Before they could do so, they noticed a Black man on the sidewalk with dreads, wearing all black. It turned out to be the victim. Police searched him and found him to be unarmed.

Meanwhile, the officers permitted Johnson to calm down his crying wife, who was one of the women in the pickup truck. Then, an officer identified as “Officer Aspras” pulled Johnson out of the truck and patted him down. Police found a gun in Johnson’s pants and another gun in the truck.

A grand jury indicted Johnson for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Johnson moved to bar the evidence from being used against him, arguing the search was constitutionally unreasonable.

“To be clear – Mr. Johnson did not match the description provided by the 911 caller,” wrote public defender Summer Woods. “But law enforcement also had no information that any male on scene (including Mr. Johnson) was dangerous. The information received by officers was that females were involved in a physical altercation inside the residence.”

Even if officers did not have information that Johnson was involved in criminal activity, countered Assistant U.S. Attorney Leah Perczak, “they had reasonable suspicion that the two females were involved in the assaults that had been reported. Courts have relied on the connection of a companion to someone suspected to be armed and dangerous to support reasonable suspicion as to the companion.”

However, days after Perczak submitted her filing to Martínez, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that a vehicle occupant cannot be deemed armed and dangerous solely because of their connection to another occupant who is the focus of police attention. The 10th Circuit rejected the “criminality-by-association test” and reiterated the need to look at the totality of the circumstances when evaluating a person’s dangerousness.

Martínez found the 10th Circuit’s decision relevant to Johnson’s case.

While the officers may have had reason to believe the women in the pickup truck were involved in the fight, “Johnson was never alleged to have acted violently during that incident. He was also polite and compliant throughout his interaction with the police,” wrote Martínez.

He added that the officers allowed Johnson to calm his wife down before searching him.

“In the Court’s view, a reasonable officer would not have acquiesced to such a request if they believed a suspect posed a present threat to their safety,” Martínez wrote.

Overall, he concluded the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that Johnson was dangerous. The 911 caller identified only the women as being violent, and the man who allegedly took possession of a gun largely did not match Johnson’s description.

“In other words, beyond being a black man, Johnson did not share any of the characteristics associated with the man who allegedly possessed a gun,” wrote Martínez.

The case is United States v. Johnson.