United States v. Williams.
No. 24-1510. 3/17/2026. D.Colo. Judge Phillips. Fourth Amendment—Protective Sweep of Vehicle—Reasonable Suspicion—Motion to Suppress—Dating Relationship.
March 17, 2026
Williams was driving his girlfriend Richardson’s Impala around 8:30 p.m. on Colfax Avenue in Denver, with Richardson in the passenger seat. They were within a block of Williams’s house, which he shared with his father. Denver police officers Moldenhauer and Hurd, members of the Special Operations Response Team, were on patrol and noticed that the Impala had no front license plate, and then saw the driver fail to use a turn signal. The officers signaled for the Impala to pull over, and Williams immediately did so. Before the cars stopped, officers learned that the car was registered to Richardson. Moldenhauer walked to the driver’s window, and Hurd walked to the passenger window. Moldenhauer asked for Williams’s identification, which showed a Denver detention facility address. Williams said the car belonged to Richardson. Moldenhauer then asked Williams a series of questions about his recent incarceration and gang affiliation. Richardson gave Hurd the Impala registration and proof of insurance. At some point, she disclosed that she was dating Williams. The officers returned to their patrol vehicle, where they learned that Williams had no valid driver’s license, had two active municipal court arrest warrants, had a history of charges involving violence and weapons, and had ties to the Crenshaw Mafia Bloods. They also learned that Richardson had a valid driver’s license and no arrest warrants. The officers called for backup, and Officers Danielson and Gergits arrived. Williams was then arrested on the municipal court charges. As he was led away, Danielson had Richardson exit the Impala, and he patted her down. Meanwhile, Moldenhauer conducted a protective sweep of Richardson’s car and found a loaded handgun and magazine about halfway under the driver’s seat. The handgun lacked a serial number, and the magazine held ammunition. Moldenhauer immediately signaled for Gergits to handcuff Richardson, which he did. Officers then conducted a full car search that turned up no other contraband, and told Richardson she would be able to take control of her car. But Danielson had already called for a tow truck, which arrived and towed the Impala. Richardson incurred a $3,000 lot storage bill and spent a month without her car. She was never ticketed for a license plate violation. Williams was indicted for possessing ammunition after a felony conviction. He moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that Richardson was armed and dangerous to justify a protective search of the car. The district court ruled that Richardson’s dating relationship with a gang-associated man constituted reasonable suspicion and denied the motion. Williams pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the order denying suppression. The court sentenced him to 63 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered the reasonableness of detaining a passenger away from her car while the police conduct a protective sweep of the driver’s area. In such situation, the police can sweep vehicle areas from which the returning occupant could immediately access a weapon. Here, the officers could legally conduct a protective sweep of Richardson’s car only if they had reasonable suspicion that she was armed and dangerous. But a woman with a dating partner like Williams is not per se reasonably suspicious for being armed and dangerous. The officers could reasonably suspect that Richardson could gain immediate access to a weapon that Williams may have hidden under the driver’s seat. And given the importance of officer safety, the officers could reasonably infer that Richardson would have known of any hidden firearm. But Richardson produced a valid driver’s license, current registration, and proof of insurance for her car; she was calm and cooperative throughout the stop (as was Williams); and she committed no crime, nor was she suspected of being involved in a crime. Under the totality of the circumstances, the protective search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The conviction was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.