Edlando Watson was indicted for possessing firearms as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His prior convictions included possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by a drug user. The underlying investigation began after a shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, where a witness identified Watson as the shooter. Police located firearms in a storage unit belonging to Watson's child's mother, which tested positive for male DNA matching Watson. Watson moved to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing that state police had illegally swabbed his cheek at a police station under a warrant that only authorized a sample at his business. He also challenged the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute under the Second Amendment. The district court denied both motions, and Watson pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal these specific legal issues.
The Seventh Circuit addressed two primary issues: the Fourth Amendment challenge to the DNA evidence and the Second Amendment challenge to the felon-in-possession statute. Regarding the Fourth Amendment, the court applied the independent-source doctrine. It found that the federal warrant authorizing Watson's DNA swab was valid because the supporting affidavit relied on evidence untainted by the alleged state police misconduct, including eyewitness testimony, statements from Watson's ex-girlfriend, and recorded jail calls. The court reasoned that the DNA evidence did not influence the decision to issue the federal warrant, making the evidence admissible. On the Second Amendment issue, the court applied the two-step test from *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen*. First, it determined that felons are part of 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment, adhering to the Supreme Court's definition in *Heller*. Second, the court conducted a historical analysis to determine if disarming Watson was consistent with the nation's tradition. The court identified two enduring traditions: the historical practice of disarming groups deemed dangerous to society, such as Catholics or rebels in England and dangerous classes in America, and the 'greater includes the lesser' principle, where the Founding-era power to execute felons for dangerous crimes implied the lesser power to disarm them. The court concluded that Watson's drug-dealing conviction made him a 'dangerous person,' and thus his disarmament was consistent with history. The court explicitly declined to decide whether non-dangerous felons could be disarmed, noting that this question remains unresolved.
Watson's conviction stands, and he remains barred from possessing firearms due to his dangerous felony drug-dealing conviction. The ruling clarifies that the Second Amendment does not protect dangerous felons from disarmament under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but it leaves open the question of whether the statute applies to felons convicted of non-dangerous offenses. Additionally, the decision confirms that federal authorities may obtain DNA evidence via a new warrant even if state authorities previously obtained a sample under a contested warrant, provided the federal warrant relies on independent, untainted evidence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download