context: An action is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer's state of mind, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action." In the instant case, the agents' limited search for weapons was reasonable in order to ensure officer safety prior to Nishimura's access to her and Defendant's belongings.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger
citation_a.sentence: Long, 463 U.S. at 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469 (protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger). Further, the search was reasonable as a goal of public safety as the FBI did not intend to keep Nishimura in custody at that time and wanted to avoid the possibility of providing Nishimura access to a weapon once beyond FBI supervision.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: finding police officer's opening of car's trunk without warrant did not violate Fourth Amendment because officer reasonably believed trunk contained gun, trunk was vulnerable to intrusion by vandals, and public might be endangered if intruder removed gun
citation_b.sentence: See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973) (finding police officer’s opening of car’s trunk without warrant did not violate Fourth Amendment because officer reasonably believed trunk contained gun, trunk was vulnerable to intrusion by vandals, and public might be endangered if intruder removed gun); United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544, 553 (9th Cir.1986) (finding that inventory search of car done on-the-spot was lawful because officer reasonably suspected that car contained gun and search was reasonable to ensure the immediate protection of the public’s safety); but see United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 680 (9th Cir.1993) (finding search without warrant of arrest ed defendant’s tent in which officers believed there was a firearm not justified by need to protect public because officers could have prevented children from entering tent until warrant was obtained).