The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal firearms conviction Tuesday, rejecting arguments that police lacked reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle where they discovered a handgun in the early morning hours at a closed park.
In *United States v. Dazmine Erving*, the appeals court upheld both the district court's denial of a suppression motion and the defendant's sentence at the upper end of federal guidelines. The case stems from a September 2022 incident when Lieutenant Erin Barisch of the Peoria Police Department conducted a patrol in an unmarked vehicle.
At approximately 2:45 a.m., Lieutenant Barisch entered Peoria's River Front Park and observed a red Dodge Durango SUV parked at the back of the closed, darkened facility. The timing and location of the vehicle prompted the officer to investigate further, ultimately leading to the discovery of a firearm and Erving's subsequent federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for unlawful possession of a firearm.
The case presented Fourth Amendment questions about the scope of police authority to conduct protective searches of vehicles. Erving's defense team argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the search that uncovered the evidence against their client. The motion to suppress evidence became a focal point of the proceedings, with significant implications for how courts evaluate police conduct in similar circumstances.
U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid of the Central District of Illinois acknowledged the complexity of the constitutional issues presented. During the suppression hearing, the court characterized the reasonable suspicion question as a "close call," indicating the factual and legal analysis required careful consideration of competing interests between law enforcement authority and individual privacy rights.
Despite recognizing the challenging nature of the constitutional analysis, the district court ultimately denied Erving's motion to suppress. The court found that the circumstances surrounding the vehicle's presence in the closed park during the early morning hours provided sufficient justification for the officer's investigative actions.
Following the adverse ruling on suppression, Erving entered a guilty plea to the federal firearms charge. The plea agreement likely reflected the strength of the evidence against him once the court ruled the firearm would be admissible at trial. Federal firearms prosecutions under Section 922(g) typically carry substantial penalties, particularly for defendants with prior criminal histories that enhance their sentences.
At sentencing, Erving received a term at the upper end of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range. The guidelines provide a calculated range based on offense characteristics and criminal history, with judges retaining discretion to impose sentences within that range based on various factors outlined in federal sentencing statutes.
Erving's appeal to the Seventh Circuit raised multiple challenges to both the suppression ruling and his sentence. His legal team argued that the district court erred in finding reasonable suspicion for the protective search of his vehicle. The appeal contended that the officer's observations were insufficient to justify the intrusion on Erving's Fourth Amendment rights.
Additionally, Erving raised claims of procedural and constitutional errors during his sentencing hearing. These arguments typically involve challenges to how courts calculate guideline ranges, consider relevant factors, or apply legal standards in determining appropriate punishment.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Kirsch, Pryor, and Kolar, heard oral arguments in April 2024 before issuing their decision in January 2026. Circuit Judge Pryor authored the opinion affirming the lower court's rulings.
The Seventh Circuit's analysis rejected Erving's constitutional challenges, finding no reversible error in either the suppression ruling or sentencing proceedings. The court's opinion reinforced the district court's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the officer's reasonable suspicion.
The decision contributes to the evolving jurisprudence around vehicle searches and reasonable suspicion standards. Courts must balance law enforcement's legitimate investigative needs against individuals' constitutional protections from unreasonable searches and seizures.
For practitioners in the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, the ruling provides guidance on how courts evaluate police conduct during encounters with vehicles in suspicious circumstances. The "close call" characterization from the district court suggests that similar fact patterns may continue to generate litigation.
The case also demonstrates the practical consequences of adverse suppression rulings in federal criminal cases. Once courts rule evidence admissible, defendants often face substantial pressure to accept plea agreements rather than proceed to trial with incriminating evidence.
Erving's case represents one of numerous federal firearms prosecutions brought under Section 922(g), which prohibits certain categories of individuals from possessing firearms. These prosecutions have become increasingly common as federal authorities focus resources on gun violence prevention.
The Seventh Circuit's affirmance means Erving's conviction and sentence remain intact, absent any further appellate proceedings. The decision reinforces law enforcement authority to investigate suspicious circumstances while maintaining constitutional guardrails for individual privacy rights.