United States v. Lyons, 856 F. Supp. 2d 946

Officers Dodd, Burns, Leech, and Redpath of SPD Street Crimes patrolled in an inconspicuously marked vehicle at night in Springfield, Illinois.
They observed a blue Cadillac driven by James White with Lyons as a passenger; White’s license was suspended and he previously fled police with a gun in his car.
White had prior firearm and drug-related encounters stemming from a February 2011 flight and a May 2011 search warrant at his residence.
The Cadillac stopped after White drove through a red light; officers separated White and Lyons, with Redpath talking to White and Burns speaking to Lyons.
Lyons initially denied possessing weapons; Burns announced a pat-down for officer safety, Lyons then stated he had a gun, and a loaded firearm was seized from Lyons’ waistband.
White was cited for license suspension but not arrested or cited for the traffic violation; Lyons was arrested and charged federally with possession of a firearm by a felon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Burns had reasonable suspicion to pat down Lyons for safety	Lyons argues nervousness alone is insufficient and White’s history should not be imputed to Lyons	Lyons contends there was no objective basis to suspect he was armed and dangerous	Yes; totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion
Whether timing undermines the reasonable suspicion or seizure	Lyons asserts a lengthy delay (seventeen minutes) negates a timely pat-down	The timing does not negate suspicion given the stop and flight history	Timing did not render the stop unlawful; seizure was proper
Whether the gun seizure was a Terry pat-down or a search incident to arrest	If a pat-down commenced when Burns said he would pat Lyons down, the gun would be fruit of an unlawful search	If no pat-down occurred, the gun was seized incident to a lawful arrest; if a pat-down occurred, it was lawful	Court did not need to resolve the exact mechanism; gun seizure lawful under either theory
Whether Lyons’ statements and the pat-down coerced his admission	Statement that a pat-down would occur was coercive to obtain a gun admission	Admonition to pat down was lawful and not coercive in context	No coercion; actions justified under Terry/search-incident-to-arrest standards

Terry v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 20 (1968) (establishes reasonable, articulable suspicion and frisk for safety)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (complete search incident to a lawful arrest)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (passengers may be questioned and proceed with safety measures during stop)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (car occupants may be ordered out for safety during a traffic stop)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (passenger safety considerations in vehicle stops)
United States v. Lawshea, 461 F.3d 857 (2006) (fact-specific totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Brown, 188 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 1999) (nervousness as a factor, not sole basis for suspicion)
United States v. Alexander, 573 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 2009) (statements about lawful investigative actions are not coercive)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (lawful arrest and search incident doctrine exceptions)
United States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2000) (probable cause to arrest allows full search without warrant)
McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (reasonableness of stops and searches without warrants under certain conditions)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1980) (mere propinquity to others suspected of crime is not enough for search)
United States v. Murphy, 570 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2009) (not listed in text; placeholder removed if not official reporter)