United States v. Orth, 873 F.3d 349

Background

Officer Lee stopped a car at ~10:00 p.m. after observing multiple traffic violations; three occupants: driver (Adams), front passenger (Orth), rear passenger (Ashford).
The stop occurred in an area the officer described as a high-crime neighborhood; occupants appeared nervous and gave evasive or inconsistent answers (including refusal to open glove compartment for registration).
Officer Lee saw a large black cylinder between Orth and the console; Orth reacted aggressively and identified it as a flashlight; Lee requested backup due to the number of occupants and perceived aggression.
While pat-frisking Adams, officers found a large utility knife; Orth made furtive movements toward the floorboard, resisted arrest, pushed the officer, and shouted to others to "get the shit, get the shit, run and hide it." Adams grabbed a jacket and fled, discarding it.
The jacket, retrieved by Officer Lee after Adams fled, contained a loaded pistol, a digital scale, and 248 grams of heroin; Orth moved to suppress the evidence arguing unlawful pat-frisk and extension of the stop.
The district court denied suppression; Orth pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression denial. The First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Orth's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to pat-frisk occupants and extend the stop	Pat-frisks and extended detention were unsupported; four cited factors (high-crime area, occupants' behavior, flashlight, furtive movements) insufficient	Totality of circumstances (neighborhood, nervous/evasive behavior, large flashlight, discovery of knife on driver, furtive movements, aggression) justified reasonable suspicion	Pat-frisk and extended detention were reasonable under Terry; district court credited officer's testimony; affirmed
Whether search of passenger compartment was lawful under vehicle-protective-search doctrine	Search unlawfully extended stop and invaded Fourth Amendment rights	Officer had reasonable belief occupants were dangerous and might access weapons in the passenger compartment (Long/Belton principles)	Limited search of passenger compartment was permissible; jacket on floorboard was within scope
Whether fruits (jacket contents) admissible given alleged Fourth Amendment violations	Jacket seizure and evidence should be suppressed as product of unlawful searches/seizures	Even if challenged, officers developed reasonable suspicion and later events (flight, discarding jacket) supported seizure; protective sweep lawful	Evidence admissible; suppression properly denied
Standing to challenge searches of other occupants	Orth attempted to challenge frisk/searches of driver and rear passenger	Fourth Amendment rights are personal; Orth lacks standing to challenge searches of Adams/Ashford	Orth lacked standing to challenge searches of other occupants; claims limited to his own seizure/frisk

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes standards for stop-and-frisk)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (permits protective search of passenger compartment when officer reasonably believes suspect dangerous)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (scope of vehicle search for reachable areas and containers in passenger compartment)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing principles for Fourth Amendment claims)
United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1 (officer may expand scope of investigation as stop unfolds)
United States v. McGregor, 650 F.3d 813 (frisking passengers before vehicle search supports weapon concern)
United States v. Soares, 521 F.3d 117 (neighborhood character is one factor but not alone dispositive)
United States v. Díaz, 519 F.3d 56 (protective sweep of passenger compartment permissible after suspect secured)