A Delaware court has denied a motion to suppress evidence in the case against Mayhew Watson, who faces charges related to possessing a firearm without a permit. The ruling, issued on July 13, 2026, confirms that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Watson based on their observations. This decision has implications for how police conduct stops related to concealed weapons in Delaware.
The case centers around an incident that occurred on June 11, 2024, when Watson was walking in Wilmington. Officers observed what they believed to be a firearm in his crossbody bag, leading them to stop and search him. Watson's defense argued that the officers lacked sufficient suspicion to justify the stop, claiming that the absence of a concealed carry permit should have been a factor in their decision. However, the court found that the officers acted within their rights.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the State of Delaware and Mayhew Watson, the defendant. Watson was stopped by Wilmington Police Officers Linkhourst and Lerro while walking near the intersection of North Market Street and 38th Street. The officers, who were in an unmarked vehicle, noticed a protrusion in Watson's bag that they suspected was a firearm.
After the officers approached Watson, they engaged in a brief conversation, during which Watson admitted he did not have a firearm. Despite this, the officers detained him, believing there was a firearm in his bag. Upon searching the bag, they found a loaded handgun, leading to Watson's arrest and subsequent indictment for several firearm-related charges.
The Ruling
The court ruled against Watson's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, stating that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain him. Judge Paul R. Wallace emphasized that the officers' observations, including the L-shaped protrusion in Watson's bag and its abnormal movement, justified their suspicion. The ruling stated, "the officers possessed reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Mr. Watson."
Additionally, the court clarified that the absence of a concealed carry permit is not an element of the offense of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW). Therefore, the officers were not required to have specific information about Watson's licensure status before initiating the stop. The court concluded that the evidence obtained from the stop was admissible in court.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving police stops related to concealed weapons. It reinforces the standard that officers can act on reasonable suspicion without needing to confirm a suspect's licensure status beforehand. This decision aligns with existing Delaware law, which does not require the state to prove the absence of a license as part of the offense.
The court's decision may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, potentially allowing for more proactive policing in situations involving suspected illegal firearm possession. It also highlights the ongoing legal discussions surrounding Second Amendment rights and police authority in Delaware.
What's Next
Watson's case will proceed to trial, where the evidence obtained during the stop will be presented. It is unclear if Watson plans to appeal the ruling, but the court's decision sets a precedent for how reasonable suspicion is evaluated in firearm-related cases in Delaware.