After arrest of driver, the protective sweep of the car left to passenger who owned it, was insured, and had a DL was unreasonable. It was done just because of her romantic relationship with the arrestee. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7751 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nWe must decide whether the Fourth Amendment permitted a protective sweep of a car after the driver was arrested and handcuffed. Everyone agrees that the police developed reasonable suspicion that the driver was armed and dangerous. But with the arrest, any safety risks that the driver posed to the officers ended. Still, the police conducted a protective sweep of the driver’s area rather than let the passenger-owner leave it legally parked or drive it away. Within seconds of beginning the sweep, officers recovered from under the driver’s seat a loaded handgun and a magazine containing ammunition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
. . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The district court approved the protective sweep and denied the suppression motion. Agreeing with the government, the court ruled that the officers had reasonable suspicion that the girlfriend-passenger was armed and dangerous. It relied solely on her “romantic relationship” with the boyfriend-driver. But this amounts to a criminality-by-association test, when the governing test instead requires that we consider the totality of circumstances. The circumstances of this passenger include these: she produced a valid driver’s license, current registration, and proof of insurance for her car; she was polite, calm, and cooperative throughout the stop; and she committed no crime and was not suspected of being involved in any. We conclude that the protective search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We reverse.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After arrest of driver, the protective sweep of the car left to passenger who owned it, was insured, and had a DL was unreasonable. It was done just because of her romantic relationship with the arrestee. United States v. Williams, … Continue reading