Defense challenges stop for tint violation after firearm and drugs found; judge takes suppression motion under advisement

Defense attorneys asked a judge to suppress evidence obtained after a parking‑lot encounter and search in the case of Ricky Joe Warren, arguing officers lacked the necessary articulable suspicion to approach and detain the vehicle on a window‑tint basis. The stop occurred in a Dollar General parking lot; officers later located a handgun in Warren’s waistband and controlled substances in the vehicle.

Deputy (Agent) Dave Norton and Detective Ronald Tilly of the 23rd Judicial District drug task force testified they were patrolling when they observed a red Chevrolet Tahoe with dark windows pull into the lot. Norton said he and Tilly approached; he recognized Warren from prior cases and asked whether he was on parole. Tilly testified he saw Warren’s hand on a pistol grip in his waistband as officers tried to get him out of the car, and Tilly removed the weapon. Officers later located controlled substances and paraphernalia; citations were issued to other occupants for paraphernalia and underage vaping.

Defense counsel argued the tint statute permits stops based on an officer’s belief but said that the belief standard is too subjective and effectively allows pretextual stops without a warrant or defined visual standard. The state relied on case law recognizing an officer’s experience in judging darker‑than‑legal tint, and on statutory language that authorizes a field test and detention where an officer reasonably believes the vehicle violates the tint rule. The judge took the motion under advisement, asked the parties to submit a supplemental brief on parole-search authority and constitutional limits, and set a brief timetable for filings before issuing a decision.