Facts
- Two police officers saw a car idling outside a location they associated with gang activity.
- The officers followed the car and intended to stop it if they observed a traffic violation.
- The driver failed to signal a turn at least 200 feet before an intersection, violating Indiana traffic law, and the officers initiated a traffic stop.
- The car did not stop immediately; it pulled over after traveling about half a block.
- Officer Lichtsinn approached the passenger side and observed the passenger, Michael King, Jr., moving his shoulders as if placing something between the passenger seat and the door.
- Officer Hoffman approached the driver’s side and noticed the driver kept one hand under his right leg.
- Hoffman repeatedly ordered both occupants to show their hands, but neither complied.
- Lichtsinn, fearing an accessible weapon, opened the passenger door to check the area for weapons within immediate reach.
- After opening the door, Lichtsinn saw King’s hand resting on a gun located between the passenger seat and the door.
- Lichtsinn yelled “gun,” removed King from the vehicle, and the officers secured both occupants.
- King, a convicted felon, was charged with possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- King moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that opening the passenger door was an unlawful search; the district court denied the motion.
- King entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion and appealed.
Issues
- During a lawful traffic stop, did officers violate the Fourth Amendment by opening the passenger door to check for accessible weapons and seizing a firearm seen between the seat and door when the occupants made suspicious movements and repeatedly refused to show their hands?
Decision
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of King’s motion to suppress.
- The court held that, given the specific facts observed during the stop, it was reasonable for the officers to open the passenger door as a limited protective measure for officer safety.
- Because the officer lawfully opened the door and immediately saw the firearm, the gun was properly seized under the plain-view doctrine and was admissible.
Legal Principles
- A traffic stop supported by an observed traffic violation is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment even if officers also have investigative motives.
- During a lawful stop, officers may take limited safety steps when they can point to specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that an occupant may be armed and dangerous.
- Under Terry v. Ohio principles as applied to vehicles by Michigan v. Long, officers may conduct a protective check of areas within an occupant’s immediate reach for weapons when reasonable suspicion of danger exists.
- Opening a vehicle door can be a permissible, limited protective measure when tied to an immediate safety concern and confined to checking for accessible weapons.
- If an officer is lawfully in a position to view an item and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent, the item may be seized without a warrant under the plain-view doctrine.
Conclusion
The Seventh Circuit held that the officers’ observations of King’s shoulder movements near the door, the driver’s concealed hand, and both occupants’ repeated refusal to show their hands provided a reasonable safety basis to open the passenger door for a limited weapons check; once the gun was seen in plain view, its seizure was lawful and suppression was properly denied.