US v. Nathaniel Martin

Circuit 4Apr 17, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 69/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Reversed

The Fourth Circuit held that a Forest Service officer exceeded the permissible scope of a traffic stop when he immediately questioned occupants about firearms and pursued an unrelated criminal investigation, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress and vacated Nathaniel Martin’s guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether police may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, automatically inquire about the presence of weapons during any traffic stop (a per-se officer-safety rule) or may do so only when the totality of circumstances creates a reasonable officer-safety concern and the inquiry does not prolong the stop.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 3Circuit 9

Per-se rule – questions about weapons are always allowable during a traffic stop on officer-safety grounds.

Circuit 0Circuit 2Circuit 4(this circuit)Circuit 6Circuit 7

Totality-of-the-circumstances rule – weapon questions are permissible only if reasonably related to officer safety and do not prolong the stop.

Conflict Summary

Some circuits treat an officer’s question about weapons as always permissible because it is inherently tied to officer safety (per-se rule), while others—including the Fourth Circuit—permit the question only when it is justified by specific, articulable officer-safety concerns and does not extend the duration of the stop beyond what is necessary for the traffic mission.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Nathaniel Martin
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Lex A. Coleman, Office of the Federal Public Defender (argument); Wesley P. Page & Jonathan D. Byrne on brief
Appellee:Donald Keith Randolph, Office of the United States Attorney (argument); Lisa G. Johnston, Acting United States Attorney, on brief