UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gilbert Thach WALKER, a/k/a Lam Nguyen, a/k/a Lam Tung, a/k/a Lam Tung Thanh, a/k/a Tung Thanh Lam, Defendant-Appellee, 46 F. App'x 701

OPINION PER CURIAM. Gilbert Thach Walker was charged in a one-count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Walker filed a motion to suppress, arguing the search of his vehicle for the firearm violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted Walker’s motion to suppress. The Government appeals the district court’s order. We affirm. We review the findings of fact from the suppression hearing for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. See United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992).

An officer may briefly detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual is engaged in or about to be engaged in criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Police officers may order individuals out of a vehicle during a traffic stop and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). In Michigan v.

Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), the Supreme Court held police officers may search the limited area where a weapon may be hidden in the passenger compartment of an automobile “if the officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officers in believing the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Id. at 1049 (quotations and footnote omitted).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s bench ruling and order. We conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to search Walker’s vehicle for weapons. We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting Walker’s motion to suppress. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED.