# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued J une 10, 20 09 Deci ded J une 16 , 20 09 B efo re IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 4173 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M IC H A E L A . K IN G , JR., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI nd i ana . N o . 1 : 07
- CR- 10 4- TS The r es a L. S pr i ng m an n, J udg e . O R D E R M ich ae l K in g, Jr. p lea d ed gu ilty to p os se ss in g a firea rm as a felo n . See 1 8 U. S . C. § 922(g)(1) . U nd er the p lea agreem en t K ing reserved his ri gh t to ap p eal the d istri ct cou rt’s denia l o fhi s m oti on t o supp re ss the gun, w hi ch w as f ound w hen the pol i ce o pened his car do o r dur i nga t r affi c st o p. T he c o ur t se nt en ce d Ki ngt o 2 1 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t, a nd he now ap p eals. Bec au se th e officers had the req uisite reason able su sp ici on to op en the d oor, w e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent. I n Nov embe r 2 00 7, o ffi ce r s N i ch o l as Li ch ts i nn an d Chr i s H o ffm an, a ss i g ne d t o the gang unito fthe For t W ayne, I nd i ana pol i ce depar tm ent, o bser ved a Bu i ck i dli ng o utsi de a NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 4173 Page 2

“k n ow n ga n g m em b er h an go u t.” W h ile w at c h in g t h e c ar O ffice r L ich ts in n sa w tw o p eo p le ge t in to th e v eh icle an d d riv e o ff. T h e o ffice rs be ga n follow in g t h e c ar , in te n d in g t o p u ll it o ve r i fthe dr i ve r c o m m i tt ed a tr affi c vi o l at i o n. The vi ol ati on o ccurr ed at approxi m ate l y 1 0: 30 p. m . as the carcam e t o a s top s i gn an d th e d riv er be ga n tu rn in g e as tb ou n d . H e d id n otsign al t h e t u rn u n til th e c ar “w as in th e p ro c es s o f tu rn in g a t t h e in te rs ec tio n,” w h ich vio lat ed st at e la w , see I nd i ana Code § 9- 21
- 8- 25 . T he o ffi ce r s th eni ni ti at ed th e tr affi c st o p wi ththe i r e m er g en cyl i g ht s an d s i r en, an d the ca r pu ll ed over a half-block later. A s O fficer Lich tsinn ap p roach ed the p assen ger’s si de, he no ti ce d the pa ss en g er, Ki ng, movinghi s sh o ul der s up a nd do wn, po ss ibl y pl ac i ng som eth ing in betw een the sea t and door. T he officers agreed that both occu p an ts w ere g e s t ur i nga nd s hi ft i ngmo r e tha n i s ty pi c a l du r i nga t r a ffi c s t o p. Offi ce r Hoffm an, a ppr o ac hi ngthe dr i ve r ’ s si de, o bs er ve d the dr i ve r wi thhi s ha nd und erhi s r i ght l eg. W i th the dri ver ’ s window o pen, he r epeate dlyo rder ed both occ up ants to show him thei r hand s. Neither K i ng northe dri verco m pli ed. At that poi nt, fear i ng f or hi s sa fety, Offi ce r Li ch ts i nn o pen ed th e pas se ng erdo o r t o c he ckf o r a cc es sibl e wea po ns a nd saw K i ng’ s hand r est i ng o n to p ofa gun nest l ed bet w een the se at and car door . Offi cer L ichts inn i m m ed iately yell ed “gun , ” secu ring K ing’s han d s and f orcing h im out of the car, w hi l e Offi cerH offm an put the dri veri n handcu ff s. Afte r deter m i ni ng tha t Kingwas a c on vic te d felon , th e o ffice rs p lac ed h im u n d er arr es t fo r u n law fu lly p os se ss in g t h e g u n . See 18 U . S. C . § 922(g)( 1). K i ng r esponded to the c harg e with a m oti on t o supp re ss the fi re ar m . He conce ded th atthe o ffi ce r s ha d pr o babl e ca us e to s to p the c ar, b uta r g ue d tha t byo pen i ngthe passenge r doorOffi cerLi chtsi nn engag ed i n an unl aw ful sea rch ofthe vehi cl e. F ol l owing a supp re ssi on hea ri ng, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that the to tal i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces— tr avel f ro m a known ga ng house , del ay bef or e pul l i ng o ver, the occupants’ unusual m ove m ents afterpull i ng o ver, and an appare nt r efusalto o bey Offi cerH offm an’ s co m m ands— j usti fi ed the pr ote cti ve sea rch. S oo n ther eafterKing re ached a ple a a gr eem ent with the gov er nm ent, and the di str i ct c ourtse ntenced hi m to 21 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. K i ng m ake s o nl y o ne ar gum ent o n appeal . He conte nd s that the co urt shoul d have supp re sse d the g un because the offi cer s had no re aso nabl e ba si s t o concl ud e that he posed a th r e a tt o th e i r s a f e t y wh e n O ffi c e r L i c h t s i n n o p e n e d th e p a s s e n g e r d o o r . We r e v i e w a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s l ega l co ncl usi ons on a m oti on t o supp re ss de novo and i ts f actualfi nd i ngs for cle ar err or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 512 F.3d 383 , 385 (7th C ir. 2008). A t t h e o u ts et, K in g rig h tly d oe s n otd isp u te th e c on st itu tio n alit y of t h e t ra ffic s to p . The offi cer s pul l ed the caro verbec ause, i n vi ol ati on o fI nd i ana s tat e l aw , the dri verf ai l edN o. 08
- 4173 Page 3

to sign al h is t u rn atlea st 20 0 fe et be for e t h e in te rs ec tio n . See In d ian a C od e § 9-2 1-8 -25 . B ec au se an offic er ’s s u b j ec tiv e m ot ive for a tra ffic s to p is irre lev an t t o its va lid ity , see W hren v. U nited Sta tes , 517 U .S. 80 6, 81 0-1 3 (1 99 6); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Figue r oa- Espa na , 51 1 F . 3d 696, 70 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , the onl y i ssue re m ai ni ng i s whether Offi cerLi chtsi nn w as j usti fi ed und er the F ourth A m endm ent in openi ng the passe ngerdoorto co nd uct a prot ecti ve sea rch f or acces sibl e weapons. The Fo urth Am endm ent’ s pro tect i on a gai nst “ unreas onabl e s ear ches and sei zure s” extends t o “br i efi nvest i gat or y s tops ofper sons orve hi cl es. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ar vizu , 53 4 U. S . 2 66 , 2 73 ( 20 02 ) . At th e sa m e ti m e, tho ug h, we r es pec t “the ne ed f o r l aw e nf o r ce m en t officers to protec t the m selves an d other p rosp ective victim s of viol en ce in situat ions w he re they m ay l ack probabl e ca use f oran a rr est . ” Ter ry v. O hio , 39 2 U.S . 1, 24 ( 1968 ) . Beca use o f th es e dan g er s, a n o ffi ce r may o r dera v eh i cl e’ s o cc upa nt s o uto fthe c ardur i nga r o ut i ne tr affic st op . Se eM aryl and v. Wi l s on , 519 U .S. 40 8, 41 0 (1 99 7); U nited Sta tes v. M uriel , 41 8 F . 3d 72 0, 7 26 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) . Al te r na ti ve l y, i fthe o ffi ce r ha s a r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n tha t th e dri vero r passenge r i s a rm ed orm ay be abl e t o gai n i m m edi ate co ntro l o fa w eapon, he m ay c on d u c t a p ro te c tiv e s ea rc h of th e p as se n ge r c om p ar tm en t fo r ac c es sib le w ea p on s. Se e, e . g. , Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. C t. 17 10 , 171 9-2 0 (2 00 9); M i ch igan v. Lo ng, 46 3 U.S . 10 32, 10 49- 50 (19 83 ); U nite d State s v. A rnold, 38 8 F . 3d 237, 23 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) . In doi ng so , the offi cerm ust have “speci fi c, ar ti cul abl e f acts wh i ch, i n com bi nati on with i nfe re nces to be dr aw n fro m thos e f acts , r eas onabl y warr ant the i ntrusi on. ” U nited Sta tes v. Fryer, 974 F . 2d 813, 81 9 ( 7th C ir. 19 92 ); Lon g, 46 3 U.S . at10 49. In ass ess i ng the r eas onabl eness o fany sea rch, we bal ance th e d eg re e o f th e in tr u sio n ag ain st th e g ov er n m en t’s j u st ifica tio n for t h e s ea rc h . See U nited State s v. K nights , 534 U . S. 112, 118-19 (2001 ). H er e, the o cc upa nt s’ b eh av i o r g av e Offi ce r Li ch ts i nn r ea so n t o fea r f o r hi s sa f ety a nd au th or ity to op en th e p as se n ge r d oo r to d et er m in e if K in g h ad a w ea p on . See U nited Sta tes v. W hit a k er, 546 F.3d 90 2, 91 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). B efo re p u llin g t h e c ar ov er , th e o ffice rs sa w it l eave a “kno w n gangm em berhango ut. ” Then, afterthe sto p, bo th o ccupants m ade furti ve ges ture s a nd unusual m ove m ents consi ste nt with w eapons concea l m ent, f ol l owed by m ult i ple r efusal s t o show thei r hand s. Allo fthes e f acto rs , co m bi ned i n thei r tot al i ty, supp or t the r eas onabl eness o fOffi cerLi chtsi nn’s deci si on t o open the cardoorto co nd uct a lim ite d , pr ot ec tiv e s ea rc h for a n ac c es sib le w ea p on . See W hit a k er, 54 6 F . 3d at 911; Arnold, 38 8 F .3d at24 0-4 1; Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 188 F.3d 86 0, 86 5 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); Fry er, 974 F . 2d at 81 9; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. W as hi ngt on , 5 59 F . 3d 57 3, 5 76
- 77( D. C. Ci r . 2 00 9) . And o nc e he o pen ed th e do o r, the g un a ppea r ed i n pl ain v i ew, e nt i tl i nghi m t o s ei ze i t unde r the pl ainvie w d oc tr in e. SeeU nite d State s v. B ruce, 109 F.3d 323 , 328 (7th C ir. 1997).N o. 08
- 4173 Page 4

Ki ngr es po nds b y a r g ui ngtha t ea chi ndi vi dualf ac to r do es no t byi ts el fj us ti fy the i ntrusi on. The pr operst andard, however, i s no t whether Offi cerLi chtsi nn’s deci si on t o op en th e p as se n ge r d oo r to se ar c h for a n ac c es sib le w ea p on is j u st ified by ev er y s in gle fac to r offe re d in s u p p or t o f th e s ea rc h . R at h er , i t is w h et h er all of th e s p ec ific, ar tic u lab le b as es , ta k en to geth er, j u st ified h is s u sp icio n th at K in g w as arm ed an d d an ge ro u s, ev en if ea c h an d ev er y in d ivid u al fa c to r d id n otby th em se lve s jus tify th e s ea rc h . See Lon g, 463 U . S. at 1049 ; Brown , 1 88 F . 3d at8 65 . F ur ti ve move m en ts c o ns i st en t wi thwea po ns c o nc ea l m en t a nd di s o b e di e nc e o fa n o ffi c e r ’ s r e pe a t e d c o mm a nd t o s ho w o ne ’ s h a nd s j us t i fi e s a l i mi t e d, m i ni m al l y intrusi ve sea rch to see i fa w eapon i s e vi dent. A ccor dingl y, we AF F I RM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt .