United States v. Raban.
No. 24-1359. 12/30/2025. D.Colo. Judge Phillips. Traffic Stop—High-Crime Area—Gang Member—Vehicle Search—Reasonable Suspicion—Convicted Felon—Protective Sweep.
December 30, 2025
Gang-unit police officers Danielson and Moldenhauer were patrolling a high-crime area in Denver that was known Bloods gang territory. The officers stopped a motorist there for driving without a front license plate and failing to use a turn signal. When the driver rolled down his window, the officers spotted an open beer can on the back seat floor and noticed the driver had tattoos of the number “3” under each eye, which connected him to the Tre Tre Crips gang, a Bloods rival gang. The driver could not produce the car’s registration and lacked identification, but he identified himself as Antoan Raban and gave the officers his address and birthday. Seconds after the officers stopped Raban, another man, whom the police knew to be a fellow gang member, drove past, turned around, parked across the street from the stop, and called Raban’s phone. The officers called for backup, and four more officers arrived. Meanwhile, Moldenhauer returned to the police car to run a records check, which revealed that Raban had several violent and weapons-related convictions and lacked a valid driver’s license. The check also returned a photo resembling Raban, but the person in the photo lacked face tattoos. To confirm Raban’s identity, Moldenhauer decided to fingerprint him. Without telling Danielson the records-check results, Moldenhauer asked Danielson to remove Raban from the car for fingerprinting. Danielson asked Raban to exit the car, frisked him, and noticed he was wearing an ankle monitor but found no weapons. Danielson passed Raban to Moldenhauer, who walked Raban closer to the police car. Danielson then did a protective sweep of the car and found a loaded handgun under the driver’s seat. At that point, officers handcuffed Raban. Officers later found a baggie of ammunition in the center console. Raban was charged with possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. Raban moved to suppress evidence from the search, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for a protective sweep of the car. The district court denied his motion, concluding that the officers reasonably suspected that Raban was dangerous and might access a weapon from inside the car. The district court denied the motion, and Raban entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the suppression decision. The court sentenced Raban to 71 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Raban argued that the motion to suppress should have been granted, challenging the court’s legal conclusion that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the protective sweep. He did not challenge the court’s factual determinations. Under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983), to conduct a protective sweep an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a suspect (1) is dangerous and (2) may gain immediate access to a weapon. As to the first factor, the court ruled that Raban’s gang tattoos, the high-crime and rival-gang area, the fellow gang member’s presence, and Raban’s ankle monitor supported a finding of reasonable suspicion that Raban was dangerous. Viewed collectively and in the light most favorable to the government, these factors provided reasonable suspicion that Raban was dangerous. Moreover, the second factor may be satisfied where, at the time of the search, officers had reason to believe they would not detain a suspect further. In this case, when Danielson searched the car, Raban had been detained but not arrested, and Danielson had no reason to think the officers would arrest Raban. The court ultimately ruled that Danielson credibly testified that the officers intended to release Raban with a citation. Thus, when Danielson conducted the protective sweep, it was objectively reasonable for him to conclude that Raban could have been permitted to return to his vehicle after receiving a traffic citation. Danielson therefore had reasonable suspicion for the protective sweep. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Raban’s motion to suppress.
The suppression decision and conviction were affirmed.