ÿWPCp* £³ŽNP¾è§à@±ü[ÜMûÀ™[vÓµ0ñi@•:ˆÁ‘+´AH¶ªŽ"ÊÀÌQNiÿ‘æ+ù»ùj€oú$·ZZáoéªÏ2†+äuaîšçáó,(µíUs¤:,ö@Ÿ‡1ØÏl^c¤I(ÿp òeÞÛöÒ¢,{óÎÀ‰Éjë/±²d¥æ¨MS‡õÓÂÄí&÷Vf&.|N.þLŸ«è³¥p‹{ZEÝ‘zSÅéº&cö-ÝÒÇŠv ·î±v¤uòªr©¥q…#!F U>g %¥ 0(« U:Ó Y  ^ f w@r 4² Æ Õ 0D× b 0 D# # bg Eo mq ƒˆ  ‰r™™ ÓNæææææææææææææNèUBêb,,,‡44444 »»»»v[[[>Ñ!Ñ!Ñ!Ñ!z&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& B‰)‰)‰)‰)‰)‰)‰)‰)‰)‰)‰) 0 ʦ)˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0<èÀ( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($¡¡,°À`   "CG Times Bold OÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà  àDespite€these€indicia€that€the€car€might€be€stolen,€the€car€inÐ ° Ðfact€belonged€to€Nee's€wife€and€was€properly€in€his€possession.g‹+Æ ñ[òóDôõEö÷€øùEúS‡+(ü݆3|xú(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý- ù-(Ã$òòÚ  Ú*Ú  Úóó- ù-ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ yÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà  àThe€district€court€initially€found€as€fact€in€its€orderÐ ° Ðgranting€the€motions€to€suppress€that€Officer€Ô_ÔGillisÔ_Ô€had€notÏconfirmed€the€presence€of€a€screwdriver€or€ignition€switch€on€theÏpassenger€side€of€the€vehicle.€€As€the€court€acknowledged€whenÏdenying€Wallace's€later€motion€to€sever,€òòseeóó€òòinfraóó€at€13Ð Ð  Ð(discussing€motion),€that€specific€finding€was€erroneous. ûÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà  àThe€district€court€granted€Nee's€motion€in€an€order€dated€JuneÐ ° Ð16,€2000.€€However,€the€court€afforded€additional€time€to€KelleyÏand€Wallace€so€that€they€could€submit€memoranda€concerning€theirÐ @  Ðstanding€to€challenge€the€search€of€the€car€and€the€knapsack.€€InÏan€order€dated€August€28,€2000,€the€court€determined€that€WallaceÏlacked€standing€and€denied€his€motion€to€suppress,€but€grantedÏKelley's€motion€on€the€same€grounds€as€stated€in€its€June€16€order.€ÏThe€government€appealed€both€orders,€and€we€consolidated€the€twoÏappeals. Ý ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà  àTheÔ‡X?ÃXXX?ÃÔ€government€concedes€that€the€district€"court€.€.€.€foundÐ ° Ðthat€the€officers€discovered€the€gun€by€engaging€in€an€illegalÏsearch€of€the€car,€and€then€the€knapsack,€for€contraband."€ÏGovernment's€Brief€at€9;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€26,€27€&€31.Ô#†X?ÃXXX?ÃÀ#Ô€€Unlike€theÐ X Ðdissent,€we€cannot€read€the€decision€of€the€district€court€in€anyÏother€way. hÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà  àThe€government€does€not€challenge€on€appeal€the€districtÐ ° Ðcourt's€conclusion€that€the€officers€lacked€probable€cause€toÏconduct€a€search€of€the€vehicle.  ÉÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_Ôà  àEven€on€appeal,€the€government's€attack€on€òòLottóó€has€the€flavorÐ ° Ðof€a€work€in€progress.€€In€its€principal€brief,€the€governmentÏclaims€in€a€footnote€that€the€"extent€to€which€òòLottóó€remains€viableÐ @ Ðafter€òòÔ_ÔWhrenÔ_Ôóó€is€obviously€suspect."€€Despite€the€fact€that€òòLottóó€isÐ X Ðdirectly€on€point€and€controlling€precedent€unless€òòÔ_ÔWhrenÔ_Ôóó€doesÐ Ð  Ðoverrule€it,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔWoganÔ_Ôóó,€938€F.2d€1446,€1449Ð ˜è Ð(1st€Cir.€1991)€("We€have€held,€time€and€again,€that€in€a€multi„Ð ` ° € Ðpanel€circuit,€prior€panel€decisions€are€binding€upon€newlyÏconstituted€panels€in€the€absence€of€supervening€authorityÏsufficient€to€warrant€disregard€of€established€precedent."),€theÏgovernment€Ô_ÔwaitedÔ_Ô€until€its€reply€brief€to€argue€explicitly€thatÏòòLottóó€is€no€longer€good€law.<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- }Ý ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòBut€seeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔMernardÔ_Ôóó,€95€F.3d€9,€11€(8th€Cir.€1996);Ð ° ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòBakeróó,€47€F.3d€691,€694€(5th€Cir.€1995). –Ý ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔGiven€that€the€officers€conceded€from€the€outset€that€they€hadÐ ° Ðno€probable€cause€to€search€the€car,€moreover,€the€òòLongóó€analysisÐ xÈ Ðappears€to€be€the€only€analysis€pertinent€to€this€case. lÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔInterestingly,€the€majority,€like€the€district€court,€suggestsÐ ° Ðthat€the€officers'€suspicion€was€Ô_ÔpretextualÔ_Ô,€noting€that€if€theyÏòòreallyóó€believed€the€car€was€stolen,€they€"could€have€called€in€theÐ @ Ðlicense€plate€of€the€car€to€determine€if€it€had€been€reported."€€ItÏis€paradoxical€that€a€disingenuous€suspicion€could€constitute€theÏmain€focus€of€the€subsequent€search. 4Ý ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€only€reference€to€òòLongóó€occurred€in€the€colloquy€regardingÐ ° Ðstanding,€during€which€the€court€stated,€"[The€officers€are]€notÏeven€suggesting€that€they€had€probable€cause€to€search€the€car,€andÏthey're€not€suggesting€that€they€had€probable€cause€to,€quote,Ïfrisk€the€car,€whatever€that€means,€to€look€for€weapons."€€AnÏ"automobile€frisk,"€of€course,€is€a€common€way€of€referring€toÏprotective€area€searches€under€òòLongóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€at€782.€Ð ` ° ÐThe€court's€cursory€dismissal€of€this€theory,€along€with€itsÏapparent€association€of€this€type€of€search€with€an€incorrectÏstandard€reflects,€in€my€opinion,€some€confusion€on€the€part€of€theÏcourt€between€a€probable€cause€analysis€and€the€òòLongóó€analysis€urgedÐ € Ð  Ðby€the€government,€and€is€a€further€reason€I€disagree€with€theÏinference€constructed€by€the€majority. pÝ ƒ„þG$ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€is€the€paradigm€suggested€by€òòLottóó,€though€it€was€notÐ ° Ðsquarely€addressed€since€in€that€case,€this€Court€found€that€theÏofficers€did€òònotóó€exhibit€a€fear€for€their€safety€òòin€addition€toóóÐ @ Ðhaving€an€improper€motivation€for€the€search.€€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€atÐ X Ð785.€€At€least€one€case€on€point€has€concluded€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó,Ð Ð  Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGonzlezóó,€954€F.€Supp.€48,€50€(D.€Conn.Ð ˜è Ð1997)€("[The€officer's]€statement€in€the€incident€report€that€heÏbelieved€the€car€contained€narcotics€is€not€inconsistent€with€hisÏtestimony€that€he€feared€he€could€be€shot."). d(‡2þG$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X?ÃXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÓ=€?ÃÐXdÐd=ÓÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X‘«XXXÔÔ€°¨°XX‘«ÔÑ€ÑÑ8€O¼XXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÙ*ƒ!Ùà@p p ìàUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ° ÐÔ€„ÞU„°°¨Ôà@ÀÀ ìàFor€the€First€CircuitˆÐ à ÐÌÔ€„Uj„„„ÞUÔÔ€XO¼X„„UjÔßA€y) °°` dE<_ ` AßÐ ` ° ÐÌNo.€00„2037ÌÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÌÌà@””%ìàAppellant,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@àà$ìàBRIAN€J.€NEE,ˆÌÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee.ˆÌÌßA€y) °°` d³E<–` AßÐ —ç ÐÌNo.€00„2315ÌÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÌÌà@””%ìàAppellant,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@,,"ìàKEVIN€M.€KELLEY,ˆÌÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee.ˆÌÌßA€y) °°` d³E<Í` AßÐ Î ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÌÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÌÌà@P P ìà[Hon.€Nancy€Ô_ÔGertnerÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ Å!% ÐÌßA€y) °°` d³E<T#` AßÐ U#¥' ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÌà@ìàTorruella,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,ˆÐ ¼% !+ ÐÌà@ ìàBownes,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,ˆÐ L'œ"- ÐÌà@ìàand€Lipez,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ˆÐ Ü(,$/ ÐÌßA€y) °°` dE<k*` AßÐ l*¼%1 ÐÌÓ  Óà  àòòTimothy€Q.€Ô_ÔFeeleyÔ_Ôóó,€Assistant€U.S.€Attorney,€with€whomÐ C+“&3 ÐòòDonaldK.€Sternóó,€United€States€Attorney,€and€òòDonald€L.€Ô_ÔCabellÔ_Ôóó,Ð  ,['4 ÐAssistant€U.S.€Attorney,€were€on€brief,€for€appellant.ÌÐ ›-ë(6 Ðà  àòòBrian€J.€Ô_ÔMcMenimenÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòBurke,€Ô_ÔMcMenimenÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔPaytonÔ_Ôóó,€wasÐ ° Ðon€brief,€for€appellee€Nee.Ìà  àòòBenjamin€D.€Ô_ÔEntineÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòDonald€K.€Ô_ÔFreyleueÔ_Ôóó,€were€onÐ @ Ðbrief,€for€appellee€Kelley.ÌÌÌßA€y) °°` dàE<_ ` AßÐ ` ° ÐÌñ÷ñà@hh#ìàñ÷ññøñAugñøññùññøñhustñøññùññúñust€20,€Ô_Ô2001ñúñÔ_ÔˆÌÌßA€y) °°` d E<Æ ` AßÐ  Ç   ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÙ*!ÙÑ8€?ÃXXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òLIPEZ,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€€€Pursuing€an€interlocutory€appealÐ ° Ð"from€a€decision€or€order€of€a€district€court€suppressing€orÏexcluding€evidence,"€18€U.S.C.€ðð3731,€the€government€appeals€theÏdistrict€court's€decision€to€suppress€evidence€seized€fromÏdefendants„appellees,€Brian€J.€Nee€and€Kevin€M.€Kelley.€€Kelley€andÏNee€were€charged€with€violating€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922(g)(1),€whichÏprohibits€the€possession€of€a€firearm€by€a€convicted€felon,€afterÏpolice€discovered€two€loaded€weapons€in€Nee's€car€during€the€courseÏof€a€traffic€stop.€€Although€the€district€court€found€that€theÏinitial€stop€was€permissible€under€òòTerryóó€v.€òòOhioóó,€392€U.S.€1Ð ` Ð(1968),€the€court€rejected€the€police€officers'€account€of€theÏsubsequent€search€of€the€car€and€their€claim€that€the€weapons€wereÏdiscovered€inadvertently.€€Instead,€the€court€found€that€theÏofficers€had€conducted€an€intentional€search€for€evidence€of€aÏcrime€despite€their€acknowledgment€that€they€did€not€have€probableÏcause€for€such€a€search.€€Consequently,€the€court€concluded€thatÏthe€search€violated€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€Ìà ` àOn€appeal,€the€government€argues€that€there€was€noÏconstitutional€violation,€either€because€the€district€court€erredÏin€its€factual€findings€about€the€purpose€of€the€search,€or,€in€theÏalternative,€because€the€officers€had€an€objectively€reasonableÏbasis€for€conducting€a€protective€sweep€of€the€car€that€justifiedÏthe€search€irrespective€of€its€true€object,€pursuant€to€òòMichiganóó€v.Ð `'°", ÐòòLongóó,€463€U.S.€1032€(1983)€and€òòWhrenóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806Ð ð(@$. Ðâ â(1996).€€We€affirm,€concluding€that€the€court€did€not€err€in€itsÐ €*Ð%0 Ðfactual€findings€and€that€the€government€waived€its€alternativeÏargument.Ìâ âò òà@tt)ìàI.ó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà ` àAt€approximately€9:30€p.m.€on€March€10,€1999,€BostonÏPolice€Officers€Gillis,€Yalmokas€and€Cellucci,€along€withÏMassachusetts€State€Police€Trooper€Ball,€were€on€duty€in€anÏunmarked€car€in€the€Dorchester€section€of€Boston.€€The€officersÏobserved€a€green€Ford€Mustang€and€noted€that:€1)€there€was€a€holeÏwhere€the€trunk€lock€should€have€been;€2)€the€rear€license€plateÏwas€hanging€from€a€single€screw;€3)€there€was€no€front€licenseÏplate;€and€4)€the€vehicle€had€dark€tinted€windows.€€Suspecting€thatÏthe€car€might€be€stolen,€the€officers€decided€to€stop€the€car€andÏinvestigate€it.€€Before€they€could,€the€car,€driven€by€Nee€withÏKelley€in€the€passenger€seat€and€a€third€passenger,€Brian€Wallace,Ïin€the€back,€pulled€into€a€gas€station.€€The€officers€saw€Nee€exitÏthe€vehicle€and€begin€to€pump€gas,€and€Kelley€get€out€of€the€carÏfrom€the€passenger€side.Ìà ` àThe€officers€turned€on€their€police€lights€and€drove€intoÏthe€gas€station.€€Trooper€Ball€approached€Nee,€offered€a€greeting,Ïand€advised€him€that€the€car€he€was€driving€had€"no€front€plate,Ï[a]€rear€plate€hanging€off,€[a]€trunk€lock€popped€and€windows€[thatÏwere]€too€dark."€€In€the€exchange€that€followed,€Nee€stated€thatÏthe€car€belonged€to€his€wife.€€Nee€then€tried€to€walk€past€Ball,Ïindicating€that€his€driver's€license€was€in€the€vehicle.€€Ball€toldÏNee€to€stop.€€According€to€the€police€report€and€Ball's€testimony,ÏNee€appeared€nervous€and€agitated.€€He€reported€that€his€licenseÐ ,`'2 Ðwas€in€the€center€console€of€the€car€but€he€was€not€sure€where€theÏregistration€was€located.€€At€this€point,€Nee€again€tried€to€walkÏpast€Ball€toward€the€vehicle.€€This€time,€Ball€physically€stoppedÏhim€and€told€him€to€relax,€adding,€"We€don't€know€what€you€have€inÏthere."€€Officer€Gillis,€standing€nearby,€patted€Nee€down€forÏweapons,€and€Officer€Cellucci€did€the€same€for€Kelley.€€No€weaponsÏwere€found.Ìà ` àBall€directed€Cellucci€to€get€Nee's€driver's€license€fromÏthe€center€console.€€Before€doing€so,€Cellucci€frisked€Wallace€whoÏwas€still€seated€in€the€back€seat,€and€again,€no€weapons€wereÏfound.€€Officer€Cellucci€told€the€passenger€to€get€out€of€the€car.€ÏHe€and€Officer€Gillis€then€visually€inspected€the€car€through€theÏpassenger€and€driver's€side€doors€respectively€before€CellucciÏentered€the€vehicle.€€Both€saw€a€screwdriver€located€in€theÏpassenger€door€as€well€as€some€damage€to€the€interior€that€wasÏconsistent€with€a€stolen€vehicle.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Gillis€saw€what€looked€like€anÐ  p Ðignition€switch€on€the€passenger€side€floor.€€Cellucci€saw€someÏdamage€to€the€steering€column.€€After€these€quick€observations,ÏCellucci€entered€the€vehicle.Ìà ` àAt€this€point€the€district€court€ceased€to€credit€theÏofficers'€story.׃ ×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Cellucci€said€that€he€had€inadvertentlyÐ ð#@( Ðdiscovered€the€guns€when€he€entered€the€vehicle€to€retrieve€Nee'sÏlicense€from€the€center€console,€an€account€corroborated€by€OfficerÏGillis.€€According€to€the€officers,€Cellucci€placed€his€hand€on€theÏtop€part€of€the€passenger€seat€to€steady€himself€as€he€reached€intoÏthe€car.€€The€seat,€however,€was€improperly€bolted€to€the€floor€andÏgave€way.€€As€he€was€falling,€Cellucci€brought€his€other€hand€downÏto€maintain€his€balance.€€It€landed€on€a€knapsack€that€CellucciÏtestified€was€lying€on€the€floor€in€front€of€the€seat.€€CellucciÏclaimed€he€could€feel€guns€through€the€fabric€when€his€hand€landedÏon€the€knapsack.€€The€officers€subsequently€arrested€all€three€men.€Ìà ` àThe€district€court€rejected€this€account€of€the€discoveryÏof€the€guns.€€After€noting€that€neither€Cellucci€nor€GillisÏtestified€to€having€seen€the€knapsack€when€they€visually€inspectedÏthe€interior€of€the€car,€the€court€concluded€that€the€knapsack€wasÏnot€located€on€the€floor€in€front€of€the€seat€as€the€officers€hadÏtestified.€€Instead,€the€district€court€found€that€the€officers€hadÏnot€mentioned€seeing€the€knapsack€because€it€was€actually€locatedÏunderneath€the€passenger€seat,€and€that€Cellucci€had€conducted€anÏintentional€search€of€the€vehicle€for€evidence€of€a€crime.€€As€partÏof€this€search,€therefore,€Cellucci€pulled€the€knapsack€out€fromÏunder€the€seat€and€then€discovered€the€weapons€that€led€to€theÏarrest€of€the€three€men.Ìà ` àBefore€trial,€Nee,€Kelley,€and€Wallace€filed€motions€toÏsuppress€the€two€loaded€firearms€found€in€the€knapsack.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ  (ð#. Ðgovernment€opposed€the€motions,€raising€òòMichiganóó€v.€òòLongóó€in€defenseÐ ° Ðof€Cellucci's€entry€into€the€car€to€retrieve€Nee's€license€becauseÏof€a€concern€that€weapons€might€be€in€the€vehicle.€€The€districtÏcourt€concluded,€however,€that€because€Officer€Cellucci€conductedÏan€intentional€search€for€evidence€of€a€crime,€that€search€had€toÏbe€justified€by€probable€cause.€€Noting€that€the€officers€concededÏa€lack€of€probable€cause,€the€court€suppressed€the€guns€as€theÏfruit€of€an€unconstitutional€search.׃@×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р ð  Ðò òà@88)ìàII.ó óˆÐ 0€  Ðà ` àIn€determining€whether,€in€the€absence€of€probable€cause,Ïan€investigatory€seizure€and€search€violates€the€Fourth€Amendment,Ïwe€use€the€two„prong€test€set€forth€in€òòTerryóó€v.€òòOhioóó,€392€U.S.€1,Ð 0€ Ð19„20€(1968).€€First,€we€ask€whether€the€officers'€actions€wereÏjustified€at€their€inception,€and€second,€whether€their€actionsÏwere€reasonably€related€in€scope€to€the€circumstances€whichÏjustified€the€officers'€initial€interference.€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnitedÐ pÀ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòSharpeóó,€470€U.S.€675,€682€(1985);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð P  ÐòòStanleyóó,€915€F.2d€54,€55€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€The€district€courtÐ à" Ðconcluded€that€the€initial€stop€in€this€case€„„€for€"possibleÏtraffic€infractions€and€[a]€possible€stolen€car"€„„€was€legallyÐ °"& Ðpermissible€under€the€first€prong€of€òòTerryóó.€òòóó€At€issue,€then,€isÐ ° Ðonly€the€second€prong€of€òòTerryóó,€namely,€whether€the€ensuing€searchÐ @ Ðwas€reasonable€in€its€scope.€€The€government€argues€that€òòMichiganóóÐ Ð  Ðv.€òòLongóó,€463€U.S.€1032€(1983)€provides€support€for€Cellucci's€entryÐ ` ° Ðinto€the€vehicle€to€obtain€Nee's€driver's€license€from€the€centerÏconsole.Ìà ` àLimited€searches€of€a€person€for€weapons€areÏconstitutionally€permissible€adjuncts€to€a€òòTerryóó€stop€if€"aÐ  ð  Ðreasonably€prudent€man€in€the€circumstances€would€be€warranted€inÏthe€belief€that€his€safety€or€that€of€others€was€in€danger."€ÏòòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€27.€€òòLongóó€expanded€the€permissible€area€of€suchÐ P  Ða€search€from€people€to€automobiles.€òòóó€òòLongóó,€463€U.S.€at€1049.€Ð à0 ÐSpecifically,€the€òòLongóó€Court€held€that€a€purely€protective€searchÐ pÀ Ðof€the€areas€of€an€automobile€where€weapons€may€be€hidden€does€notÏviolate€the€Fourth€Amendment€if€the€officers€"possess[]€aÏreasonable€belief€based€on€'specific€and€articulable€facts€which€.Ï.€.€reasonably€warrant'€the€officers€in€believing€that€the€suspectÏis€dangerous€and€the€suspect€may€gain€immediate€control€of€theÏweapons."€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€21).€€Ð Ð $ Ðà ` àBy€its€own€admission,€the€government€did€not€anticipateÏthat€the€district€court€would€not€credit€the€officers'€Ï"inadvertent"€discovery€description€of€the€search€of€the€vehicle.€ÏAs€a€result,€the€government's€argument€before€the€district€courtÏthat€this€case€fell€under€òòLongóó€was€based€upon€the€inadvertentÐ  (ð#. Ðdiscovery€of€the€guns€by€Cellucci,€following€his€entry€into€theÏvehicle€for€the€limited€purpose€of€retrieving€the€license.€Ð À+'2 ÐAccording€to€the€government,€this€entry€was€valid€as€a€protectiveÏsearch€under€òòLongóó€because€it€allowed€the€officers€to€continue€theirÐ @ Ðinvestigation€while€also€excluding€Nee€from€an€area€that€couldÏpossibly€contain€weapons.€€When€the€district€court€rejected€theÏofficers'€account€of€Cellucci's€entry,€however,€it€eliminated€theÏfactual€predicate€of€this€òòLongóó€argument.Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€the€government€seeks€to€revive€this€òòLongóóÐ `  Ðargument€through€a€challenge€to€the€district€court's€factualÏfinding€that€Cellucci€entered€the€vehicle€to€conduct€an€intentionalÏsearch€for€evidence€of€a€crime€or€contraband.€€"The€findings€of€theÏdistrict€court€after€a€hearing€on€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€areÏbinding€on€the€court€of€appeals€unless€they€are€clearly€erroneous."€ÏòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòWatsonóó,€76€F.3d€4,€6€(1st€Cir.€1996).€€"ThisÐ pÀ Ðdeferential€standard€requires€that€an€appellate€court€exhibit€greatÏrespect€for€the€presider's€opportunity€to€hear€the€testimony,Ïobserve€the€witnesses'€demeanor,€and€evaluate€the€facts€at€firstÏhand."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòZapataóó,€18€F.3d€971,€975€(1st€Cir.€1994).€Ð °  ÐThe€government€seeks€to€clear€this€high€hurdle€through€a€series€ofÏattacks€upon€the€district€court's€credibility€determinations.€ÏMaking€much€of€the€fact€that€no€witnesses€contradicted€theÏofficers'€account€of€the€discovery€of€the€knapsack€and€guns€andÏthat€there€was€no€direct€evidence€supporting€the€finding€that€theÏknapsack€was€under€the€seat,€the€government€argues€that€theÏdistrict€court's€conclusion€that€Cellucci's€testimony€lackedÏâ âcredibility€was€clearly€erroneous.€€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àThe€government's€arguments,€however,€are€unpersuasive.€Ïâ â"Where€evaluations€of€witnesses'€credibility€are€concerned,€we€areÏespecially€deferential€to€the€district€court's€judgment;€we€mayÏoverturn€its€decision€only€if,€after€reviewing€all€of€the€evidence,Ïwe€have€a€definite€and€firm€conviction€that€a€mistake€has€beenÏcommitted."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòJonesóó,€187€F.3d€210,€214€(1st€Cir.Ð € Ð  Ð1999)€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€Despite€the€court'sÏminor€error€in€reporting€what€Officer€Gillis€saw€upon€looking€intoÏthe€vehicle,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó€note€2,€the€record€as€a€whole€lends€supportÐ 0€  Ðto€the€court's€credibility€determinations.€€Ìà ` àOfficer€Gillis€testified€that€he€saw€an€ignition€switchÏon€the€passenger€side€floor€of€the€vehicle.€€This€was€preciselyÏwhere€Cellucci€claimed€the€knapsack€was€located,€yet€Gillis€did€notÏmention€seeing€the€knapsack€until€after€Cellucci€had€placed€hisÏhand€on€it.€€The€district€court€also€questioned€the€need€for€GillisÏto€assist€Cellucci€in€his€efforts€to€retrieve€a€license€from€a€nowÏempty€car,€noting€that€"[i]t€did€not€take€two€officers,€GillisÏ'leaning'€from€the€driver's€side,€Cellucci€'leaning'€from€theÏpassenger's€side,€to€retrieve€Nee's€driver's€license€from€theÏcenter€console€of€the€car."€€Moreover,€the€officers€could€haveÏcalled€in€the€license€plate€of€the€car€to€determine€if€it€had€beenÏreported€stolen€or€to€check€whether€Nee€was€telling€the€truth€whenÏhe€said€the€car€belonged€to€his€wife,€thereby€addressing€theÏsuspicion€that€the€officers€testified€prompted€the€stop€of€the€car.€ÏInstead,€the€officers€pressed€forward€with€Cellucci's€entry€andÏsearch€of€the€vehicle.€€In€light€of€such€evidence,€we€do€not€haveÐ À+'2 Ðthe€necessary€basis„„a€"definite€and€firm€conviction€that€a€mistakeÏhas€been€committed"„„for€rejecting€the€court's€credibilityÏdeterminations.€€òòJonesóó,€187€F.3d€at€214€(internal€quotation€marksÐ Ð  Ðomitted);€òòJacksonóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€156€F.3d€230,€232„33€(1st€Cir.Ð ` ° Ð1998).€Ìà ` àThe€district€court's€credibility€determination€thatÏCellucci€entered€Nee's€car€in€search€of€evidence€of€a€crimeÏundercuts€the€òòMichiganóó€v.€òòLongóó€argument€made€by€the€governmentÐ  ð  Ðbefore€the€district€court.€€Under€established€precedent,€such€aÏsearch€exceeds€the€limited€boundaries€of€the€exception€to€theÏprobable€cause€requirement€created€by€òòTerryóó€and€òòLongóó.€€The€purposeÐ P  Ðof€a€òòTerryóó€"search€is€not€to€discover€evidence€of€crime,€but€toÐ à0 Ðallow€the€officer€to€pursue€his€investigation€without€fear€ofÏviolence."€€òòAdamsóó€v.€òòWilliamsóó,€407€U.S.€143,€146€(1972);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ P ÐòòYbarraóó€v.€òòIllinoisóó,€444€U.S.€85,€93„94€(1979)€("Nothing€in€òòTerryóóÐ à Ðcan€be€understood€to€allow€.€.€.€any€search€whatever€for€anythingÏbut€weapons.").€€In€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€778€(1st€Cir.Ð °  Ð1989),€we€applied€this€precedent€to€a€search€that€the€governmentÏclaimed€was€permitted€by€òòLongóó,€invalidating€the€search€because€theÐ Ð $ Ðofficers€conceded€that€the€search€"was€for€contraband,€not€justÏweapons."€€òòId.óó€at€783,€785€(holding€that€the€validity€of€the€searchÐ ð#@( Ðwas€"fatally€undercut"€because€it€"was€directed€towards€findingÏcontraband.€€It€was€not€a€search€for€weapons€only").ÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÐ  (ð#. ÐÓGÓà ` àInvoking€òòWhrenóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806€(1996),€andÐ €*Ð%0 Ðits€admonition€that€"[s]ubjective€intentions€play€no€role€inÐ ,`'2 Ðordinary,€probable„cause€.€.€.€analysis,"€òòid.óó€at€813,€and€seekingÐ ° Ðto€dismiss€the€relevance€of€the€district€court's€factual€findingsÏabout€the€purpose€of€Cellucci's€entry€into€the€vehicle,׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóótheÐ Ð  Ðgovernment€presses€an€alternative€basis€for€holding€Cellucci'sÏsearch€for€evidence€or€contraband€valid€under€òòLongóó.€€According€toÐ ð @ Ðthe€government,€òòWhrenóó€means€that€òòAdamsóó,€òòYbarraóó,€and€òòLottóó€are€noÐ € Ð  Ðlonger€good€law.€€Consequently,€instead€of€focusing€upon€Cellucci'sÏpurpose€in€entering€the€vehicle€and€excluding€evidence€seizedÏduring€the€intentional€search€for€evidence€or€contraband€because€ofÏthat€subjective€purpose,€the€government€argues€that€the€districtÏcourt€should€have€examined€the€facts€objectively.€€Thus€viewed,€theÏgovernment€argues,€there€were€"specific€and€articulable€facts"€thatÏjustified€a€reasonable€police€officer€"in€believing€that€theÏsuspect€is€dangerous€and€the€suspect€may€gain€immediate€control€ofÏweapons,"€òòLongóó,€463€U.S.€at€1049,€and€that€justified,€therefore,€aÐ à Ðprotective€search€of€all€parts€of€the€vehicle€where€weapons€couldÏbe€hidden.€€As€a€result,€the€government€continues,€"the€seizure€ofÏevidence€in€this€case€must€be€affirmed€even€if€the€officersÏsearched€the€knapsack€hoping€to€find€contraband,€as€the€districtÏcourt€concluded."Ìà ` àThe€implications€of€this€argument€about€the€scope€of€theÐ ð#@( ÐòòTerryóó/òòLongóó€exception€to€the€probable€cause€requirement€areÐ €%Ð * Ðsubstantial.€€Accepting€it€would€require€the€reversal€of€ourÏdecision€in€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€at€783„85€(holding€that€officers€mustÐ @ Ðsubjectively„„that€is,€in€fact„„search€for€weapons€in€order€for€aÏsearch€to€be€a€valid€protective€search€under€òòLongóó).€€Nonetheless,Ð ` ° Ðwe€decline€to€address€this€argument€because€the€government€hasÏwaived€it.€€The€district€court€itself€noted€in€a€later€orderÏdenying€a€motion€for€severance€that€the€"legal€argument€theÏgovernment€makes€on€appeal€.€.€.€was€not€pressed€in€this€Court."€ÏFiled€by€Ô‡X?ÃXXX?ÃÔWallace,€the€only€occupant€of€the€car€who€did€not€haveÐ 0€  Ðstanding€to€challenge€the€search€of€the€car€and€knapsack,€thatÏmotion€to€sever€sought€a€trial€separate€from€that€of€his€co„¼defendants€on€the€ground€thatÔ#†X?ÃXXX?ÃÁP#Ô€the€present€appeal€violated€his€SixthÐ à0 ÐAmendment€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€The€district€court€thereforeÏundertook€an€evaluation€of€the€merits€of€the€government's€appeal€toÏdetermine€whether€it€was€frivolous€and€consequently€could€not€stopÏthe€speedy€trial€clock.€€Though€noting€that€"the€governmentÏchallenges€[in€its€interlocutory€appeal]€the€conclusions€of€lawÏthat€[the€court]€made€on€a€ground€that€has€little€or€nothing€to€doÏwith€the€hearing€conducted€on€the€motion,€the€arguments€made€orÏindeed,€the€testimony,"€and€expressing€reservations€about€theÏmerits€of€the€government's€new€òòMichiganóó€v.€òòLongóó€argument,€theÐ ð#@( Ðdistrict€court€nonetheless€concluded€that€the€government's€appealÏwas€not€frivolous€and€denied€the€motion€to€sever.Ìà ` àIt€is€a€cardinal€principle€that€"[i]ssues€not€squarelyÏraised€in€the€district€court€will€not€be€entertained€on€appeal."€Ð 0*€%0 ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòBarnettóó,€989€F.2d€546,€554€(1st€Cir.€1993).€€ThisÐ À+'2 Ð"raise„or„waive€rule€prevents€sandbagging;€for€instance,€itÏprecludes€a€party€from€making€a€tactical€decision€to€refrain€fromÏobjecting,€and€subsequently,€should€the€case€turn€sour,€assigningÏerror€(or,€even€worse,€planting€an€error€and€nurturing€the€seed€asÏinsurance€against€an€infelicitous€result)."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð ð @ ÐòòTayloróó,€54€F.3d€967,€972€(1st€Cir.€1995).€€Upon€careful€examinationÐ € Ð  Ðof€the€government's€arguments€below,€we€conclude€that€the€districtÏcourt,€from€its€superior€vantage€point,€correctly€observed€that€theÏgovernment€failed€to€preserve€its€alternative€òòWhrenóó„based€òòLongóóÐ 0€  Ðargument.Ìà ` àThe€government€filed€four€legal€memoranda€objecting€toÏsuppression€of€the€evidence€seized€pursuant€to€the€search€of€Nee'sÏvehicle.€€Although€the€cornerstone€of€the€government's€claim€onÏappeal€as€to€the€irrelevance€of€the€officers'€subjective€intentionsÏis€the€purported€conflict€between€òòWhrenóó€and€òòLottóó,€that€conflict€isÐ à Ðnot€mentioned€in€any€of€these€memoranda.€€Indeed,€the€governmentÏcites€to€òòWhrenóó€only€twice,€both€times€for€the€simple€propositionÐ °  Ðthat€the€officers€could€stop€the€vehicle€and€order€the€occupantsÏout€of€the€car.€€Though€òòLottóó€is€discussed,€the€government€onlyÐ Ð $ Ðdistinguishes€the€facts€in€that€case€from€the€facts€here€as€theÏofficers€presented€them,€rather€than€attacking€the€legal€principlesÏunderlying€the€òòLottóó€holding.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €%Ð * Ðà ` àMoreover,€there€is€nothing€in€the€memoranda€that€servesÏas€an€equivalent€to€the€alternativeòòóó€argument€the€government€nowÐ @ Ðpresses€on€appeal.€€Though€the€government€does€suggest€that€theÏofficers€were€entitled€to€perform€a€full€search€of€the€car€forÏweapons,€this€suggestion€is€based€upon€the€officers'€subjectiveÏmotivations,€as€they€were€expected€to€testify€to€them.€€Indeed,€theÏsubjective€motivations€of€the€officers€are€central€to€the€analysisÏin€the€government's€memoranda.€€The€government€never€argues€thatÏthese€subjective€motivations€are€irrelevant€or€that€the€districtÏcourt€should€ignore€the€officers'€subjective€purpose€and€undertakeÏan€objective€analysis€of€the€facts.€€"Judges€are€not€expected€to€beÏmindreaders.€€Consequently,€a€litigant€has€an€obligation€to€spellÏout€its€arguments€squarely€and€distinctly,€or€else€forever€hold€itsÏpeace."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.€1990)Ð P Ð(internal€citations€and€quotations€omitted).€Ìà ` àAlthough€the€raise„or„waive€rule€is€not€absolute,€"it€isÏrelaxed€only€in€extreme€cases.€€Arguments€not€raised€below€will€beÏentertained€on€appeal€only€in€horrendous€cases€where€a€grossÏmiscarriage€of€justice€would€occur€and,€in€addition,€where€theÏnewly€asserted€ground€is€so€compelling€as€virtually€to€insureÏappellant's€success."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHaggertóó,€980€F.2d€8,€11Ð ð#@( Ð(1st€Cir.€1992)€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnitedÐ €%Ð * ÐStatesóó€v.€òòRamirez„Riveraóó,€241€F.3d€37,€40€(1st€Cir.€2001).€€This€isÐ '`", Ðnot€an€exceptional€case,€despite€the€government's€claim€that€itÏ"could€hardly€be€expected€to€have€anticipated€(or€invited)€theÏdistrict€court's€adverse€credibility€determinations€and€factualÏfindings,"€and€hence€the€need€to€argue€in€the€alternative.€€WeÏreject€this€claim.€€District€courts€routinely€find€facts€and€makeÏcredibility€determinations€during€suppression€hearings.€€No€partyÏis€immune€from€the€possibility€that€those€credibility€judgmentsÏwill€be€adverse.€€If€the€government€had€an€argument,€as€it€nowÏclaims€it€does,€that€would€justify€the€search€of€Nee's€vehicle€noÏmatter€what€credibility€determinations€the€court€made€about€theÏpurpose€of€Cellucci's€search,€the€onus€was€on€the€government€toÏpress€that€argument€in€the€first€instance.€€Not€having€done€so,€theÏgovernment€cannot€raise€it€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€Ìà ` àòòò òAffirmed.ó óóóÐ P Ðà@hh#ìàò òDissentñöñ€ñöññõñing€Opinion€ñõñFollowsó óˆÐ  à0 ÐÑ8€/?Ã/XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€0ÑØØà ` àò òTORRUELLA,€òòCircuit€Judgeñññóóññññòñ,ñòñññññîñóóñîññññ€ñóññîñ(Dñîññóññôñdñôñissenting.ó ó€€The€òòMichiganóó€v.Ð ° ÐòòLongóó€standard€is€clear:€a€protective€area€search€of€the€car€isÐ à Ðconstitutional€as€long€as€the€police€officers€can€point€toÏ"specific€and€articulable€facts€which€.€.€.€reasonably€warrantÏ[them]€in€believing€that€the€suspect€is€dangerous€and€the€suspectÏmay€gain€immediate€control€of€the€weapons."€€463€U.S.€1032,€1049Ï(1977)€(quoting€òòTerryóó€v.€òòOhioóó,€329€U.S.€1,€21€(1968)).€€This€CourtÐ `°  Ðhas€held€that€the€òòLongóó€test€is€subjective,€rather€than€objective.€Ð ð@  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€778,€783„84€(1st€Cir.€1989)Ð €Ð  Ð(highlighting€the€requirements€that€the€officers€"possess"€aÏreasonable€fear€that€their€safety€has€been€compromised€and€thatÏthey€"believe"€and€"suspect"€that€the€detainee€is€armed).׃3×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р0€ ÐConsequently,€under€First€Circuit€law,€a€òòLongóó€search€passes€FourthÐ À ÐAmendment€scrutiny€only€if€the€officers€in€the€field€were€òòactuallyóóÐ P  Ðconcerned€for€their€safety.€€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€at€784.€€Because€IÐ à0 Ðbelieve€the€district€court€did€not€analyze€the€facts€using€thisÏstandard,€I€would€remand€this€case€for€further€factual€findings.Ìà ` àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Officer€Cellucci€stated€that€Ïhe€entered€the€car€for€the€sole€purpose€of€retrieving€Nee'sÏlicense.€€Cellucci€testified€that€while€he€was€reaching€to€theÏcenter€console,€the€passenger€seat€gave€way,€causing€him€toÏ"inadvertently"€discover€the€weapons€inside€the€knapsack.€€TheÏdistrict€court€discounted€this€testimony,€finding€Cellucci'sÏaccount€"simply€not€credible."€€Instead,€it€found€that€CellucciÐ ð(@$. Ðintended€to€search€the€car€when€he€entered€it.€€The€district€courtÏmade€no€further€finding€concerning€the€purpose€of€the€search.€€AÏprotective€area€search€under€òòLongóó€is€consistent€with€theseÐ Ð  Ðfindings.€€That€is,€even€if€the€officers€lied€about€entering€theÏcar€to€retrieve€Nee's€license€and€were€in€fact€conducting€anÏintentional€search€for€weapons,€òòLongóó€permits€such€an€intentionalÐ € Ð  Ðsearch€if€the€officers€believed€that€the€suspects€might€have€accessÏto€weapons€located€therein.€€The€question€for€the€court,€then,€wasÏwhether€the€officers€did€in€fact€possess€a€reasonable€fear€forÏtheir€safety.׃8×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À Ðà ` àThe€majority,€however,€infers€from€the€district€court'sÏopinion€that€the€search€was€for€contraband,€not€weapons,€therebyÏrendering€a€òòLongóó€analysis€irrelevant.€€òòSeeóó€òòLottóó,€F.2d€at€785Ð pÀ Ð(concluding€that€search€was€improper€because€it€"was€not€a€searchÏfor€weapons€only").€€Although€the€opinion€contains€no€such€explicitÏfinding,€the€majority€concludes€that€this€inference€is€the€only€wayÏto€explain€the€district€court's€focus€on€probable€cause,€ratherÏthan€on€òòLongóó.€€In€other€words,€òòbecauseóó€the€court€conducted€only€aÐ @" Ðprobable€cause€analysis,€and€since€a€search€for€contraband€can€onlyÏbe€justified€by€probable€cause,€the€majority€believes€the€districtÏcourt€must€have€concluded,€òòsub€silentioóó,€that€the€search€was€forÐ ð#@( Ðcontraband.€€The€majority€thus€assumes€that€the€district€court€hadÏthe€òòLongóó€argument€in€mind€while€conducting€its€probable€causeÐ '`", Ðanalysis,€and€uses€an€inferred€factual€finding€to€reconcile€anyÐ  (ð#. Ðpossible€contradiction.€€While€I€normally€might€be€inclined€to€giveÏthe€district€court€such€a€benefit€of€the€doubt,€I€am€unwilling€toÏdo€so€in€this€case€for€the€following€reasons.Ìà ` àFirst,€the€inferred€factual€finding€cannot€be€squaredÏwith€the€record,€which€suggests€that€the€officers€consistentlyÏsuspected€that€the€car€contained€weapons.€€It€is€uncontested€thatÏupon€entering€the€scene,€the€officers€frisked€all€of€theÏdefendants.€€òòCf.óó€òòLottóó,€F.2d€at€785€(noting€that€the€officersððÐ  ð  Ðfailure€to€frisk€suspects€after€they€exited€the€vehicleÏdemonstrated€that€they€did€not€fear€for€their€safety).€€In€fact,ÏOfficer€Cellucci's€first€action€upon€entering€the€vehicle€was€toÏfrisk€the€third€occupant€of€the€car€and€to€ask€him€to€exit€theÏvehicle.€€Significant€as€well€is€Officer€Ball's€reason€„„€found€inÏthe€contemporaneous€police€report€as€well€as€the€hearing€transcriptÏ„„€for€not€letting€Nee€back€in€the€car.€€Ball€testified€variousÏtimes€that€he€did€not€want€Nee€to€enter€the€car€because€he€"did€notÏknow€what€[Nee]€had€in€there."€€Officer€Gillis€shared€this€concern,Ïstating,€"We€didn't€know€if€there€was€[sic]€any€weapons€or€anythingÏthat€could€be€used€to€hurt€us€in€that€vehicle."€€Furthermore,€afterÏasking€Cellucci€to€retrieve€Nee's€license,€Ball€asked€Nee€to€stepÏto€the€rear€of€the€vehicle.€€Ball€later€testified€that€"forÏ[reasons€of]€officer€safety,€[he]€wanted€[Nee]€at€the€back€of€theÏcar€so€that€[he]€could€watch€him€and€watch€the€two€officers€in€theÏcar."€€All€of€these€measures€attest€to€the€officers'€subjectiveÏbelief€that€weapons,€not€contraband,€were€located€in€the€car.€ÏNevertheless,€the€majority's€reading€of€the€district€court€opinionÐ À+'2 Ðsuggests€that€upon€entering€the€vehicle,€this€fear€simply€vanishedÏand€the€officers€were€suddenly€motivated€to€"find€evidence€of€aÏcrime,"€presumably€that€the€car€was€stolen.׃<×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Even€if€the€court€didÐ Ð  Ðconclude,€òòsub€silentioóó,€that€the€officers€were€searching€for€suchÐ ` ° Ðevidence,€I€believe€this€conclusion€requires€explicit€justification€Ïby€the€district€court€given€the€record€in€this€case.Ìà ` àSecond,€other€aspects€of€the€district€court's€€opinionÏtend€to€support€a€conclusion€that€the€officers€had€a€reasonableÏfear€for€their€safety.€€€For€example,€in€its€conclusions€of€law,Ïthe€court€states€that€"where€[the€officers']€suspicions€went€beyondÏtraffic€violations,€they€had€a€right€to€be€concerned€aboutÏweapons."€€Earlier€in€that€same€paragraph,€the€court€acknowledgesÏthat€the€officers€had€the€right€to€conduct€an€investigatory€stopÏfor€a€"possible€stolen€car."€€Similarly,€the€decision€indicatesÏthat€"[i]f€the€officers€were€concerned€about€weapons,€they€couldÏhave€ordered€the€occupants€out€of€the€car."€€It€is€plain€from€theÏfacts€that€two€of€the€occupants€were€already€outside€of€the€carÏwhen€the€stop€occurred,€and€the€third€was€frisked€and€ordered€outÏof€the€car€before€the€search€began.€€Once€again,€if€the€court€didÏin€fact€conclude€that€the€officers€were€motivated€to€look€forÏâ âevidence€of€a€crime,€rather€than€by€a€concern€for€their€own€safety,Ð ð#@( Ðthe€district€court's€other,€contradictory€conclusions€requireÏfurther€explanation.Ìâ âà ` àFinally,€I€am€concerned€by€the€fact€that€the€òòMichiganóó€v.Ð Ð  ÐòòLongóó€argument,€although€raised€in€the€district€court,€is€not€soÐ ` ° Ðmuch€as€cited€in€the€district€court's€orders.€€As€the€hearingÏtranscript€reveals,€it€was€also€not€addressed€orally.׃?×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Even€if€aÐ € Ð  Ðfinding€that€the€officers€intended€to€search€for€contraband€mightÏinvalidate€an€otherwise€legal€protective€area€search€under€òòLongóó,׃C¸ ×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ð  Ðit€does€not€absolve€the€court€from€addressing€the€ultimate€issue€inÏthe€analysis,€namely,€whether€the€officers€actually€feared€forÏtheir€safety.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòLottóó,€870€F.2d€at€784€(taking€intoÐ P  Ðaccount€"all€facts€gathered€up€to€the€time€of€the€search"€òòbeforeóóÐ à0 Ðdeciding€that€the€search€was€"fatally€undercut"€due€to€theÏofficers'€improper€motivations).€€Only€when€the€court€considers€theÐ P Ðlegal€theories€raised€by€the€parties€below€and€has€addressed€theÏimplications€of€its€own€factual€findings€upon€them€can€this€CourtÏproperly€review€the€decisions€appealed€therefrom.Ìà ` àTo€conclude,€I€believe€that€the€district€court€failed€toÏcomplete€its€analysis€below€by€neglecting€to€determine€whether€theÏofficers'€intentional€search€was€nevertheless€a€permissible€areaÏsearch€under€òòMichiganóó€v.€òòLongóó.€€For€this€reason,€I€would€remandÐ `  Ðthis€case€for€further€findings€in€that€vein.€€I€respectfullyÏò òdissentó ó.