United States v. Gurule, 935 F.3d 878

On June 29, 2017 police stopped a sedan for traffic infractions; the stop occurred at night in a poorly lit gas-station lot. Three occupants were in the vehicle; none had valid driver's licenses and the driver disclosed outstanding misdemeanor warrants.
The driver consented to a search of the vehicle; officers asked passengers to exit and detained them while the search was conducted.
Front-seat passenger consented to a frisk; back-seat passenger Tommy Gurule twice refused consent to a search and was directed to sit on a curb, then ordered to stand.
As Gurule rose, officers observed a bulge in his right-front pocket; one officer grabbed his arm, saw a pistol, and both officers handcuffed him and seized the gun.
Gurule was later found to be a felon and confessed post-arrest to knowingly possessing the pistol. He moved to suppress the gun and his statements, arguing an unlawful detention and an unlawful frisk.
The district court granted suppression, finding the detention and frisk unlawful; the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the detention and frisk were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of detaining passengers for duration of traffic stop	Gurule: detention exceeded permissible scope; he should have been free to leave before the search	Government: passengers may be detained for the duration of a valid traffic stop and to secure scene for a consent search	Court: detention lawful—passengers may be detained during stop and to control scene for search; district court erred
Lawfulness of frisk (pat-down)	Gurule: officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous	Government: visible bulge, demeanor, location/time, driver’s warrants, vehicle clutter, and safety concerns gave reasonable suspicion to frisk	Court: frisk lawful—officers observed bulge and then gun; even without seeing gun, aggregate factors supplied reasonable suspicion
Rodriguez / alleged extension of stop by questioning/search	Gurule (on appeal): officer unconstitutionally extended the stop to question about car contents/search	Government: questioning about licensed driver and searching to verify consent related to traffic mission; no unlawful extension	Court: Rodriguez argument forfeited; even on merits, detention while locating licensed driver and securing vehicle was part of traffic mission and lawful

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officer safety justifies ordering driver out of vehicle during traffic stop)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (police may order passengers out of stopped vehicle for officer safety)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are "seized" during a traffic stop and may be detained)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (passengers may be detained for duration of a valid traffic stop)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (stop’s permissible duration tied to traffic mission; unrelated inquiries may extend seizure unlawfully)
United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001) (officer may order passengers to exit or remain as needed)
United States v. Garcia, 751 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2014) (Terry frisk standard; officer-safety rationale and inferences inform reasonable suspicion)