## 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

1. 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.


United States v. King, 332 Fed. Appx. 334 (2009)