Background
Michigan police stopped Darnell Donte Risper late at night for an allegedly faulty muffler and improper turn signal. After Risper exited his car and consented to a pat-down, he stood between the open driver’s door and the vehicle while another officer looked through the car’s windows with a flashlight.
An officer asked Risper to move away from the front seat. Risper declined, said he did not consent to a vehicle search, and asked to close the door. The officer indicated that Risper could close it after stepping aside. During that exchange, a second officer saw a handgun on the floor beneath the driver’s seat. Officers arrested Risper and recovered the gun and ammunition.
After a grand jury indicted Risper for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court denied his suppression motion. Risper pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. It held that the officers did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop. Taking Risper’s license, asking where he was going, directing him to exit the vehicle, requesting a pat-down, and instructing him to move away from the open driver’s door were permissible traffic-stop and officer-safety measures.
The officer’s question about why Risper wanted to close the door did not extend the stop because it was asked while the officer was waiting for Risper to comply with the lawful instruction to step aside. The court emphasized that duration alone was not dispositive, although the encounter lasted only about 75 seconds before officers saw the gun.
The court also rejected Risper’s claim that officers prevented him from closing the door. Body-camera footage supported the district court’s finding that Risper remained between the door and the car despite being told he could close the door after moving. Because the second officer saw the handgun in plain view during that exchange, its seizure was lawful.
Key Takeaways
- Police may direct a driver to exit a lawfully stopped vehicle and move away from its open door to address officer-safety concerns.
- An unrelated question does not unlawfully prolong a stop when it is asked while officers are waiting for compliance with a lawful instruction.
- A firearm observed in plain view during a lawful traffic stop may be seized when a reasonable officer would view it as an immediate safety threat.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that courts assess alleged prolongation by examining what officers actually did and whether their conduct added time to the stop, rather than relying solely on the encounter’s overall brevity.
It also shows the evidentiary importance of body-camera footage in suppression disputes. Here, the footage supported the finding that Risper’s own position prevented the door from being closed before another officer observed the handgun in plain view.