United States v. Ronnard Williams

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · August 26, 2025 · No. 23-3044

Summary

This D.C. Circuit opinion addresses whether police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by ordering a driver to lower his illegally tinted windows during a lawful traffic stop. Relying on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the court held that the government's legitimate interest in officer safety outweighs the minimal intrusion of rolling down windows when visibility into the vehicle is obstructed. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of firearms found in plain view after he complied with the order. A concurring judge agreed with the judgment but criticized the majority's adoption of a broad categorical rule, advocating instead for a fact-specific balancing test.

Court
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
WALKER; CHILDS; PAN
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decision date
August 26, 2025
Docket number
23-3044
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:20-cr-00088-2)
Standard of review
De novo for legal issues; clear error for factual findings
Precedential value
published
Parties
Ronnard Williams v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizurecriminal procedureexclusionary rule

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether ordering a driver to lower his windows during a lawful traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether the gun observed in plain view after the windows were lowered is admissible under the plain‑view doctrine.

Holdings

  1. The police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they ordered Williams to lower his windows because the officer‑safety interest outweighs the driver’s minimal inconvenience.
  2. The gun was lawfully seized under the plain‑view doctrine because the officers had a lawful view after the windows were lowered and had probable cause to believe the object was contraband.

Key quotations

Because a “mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer’s safety,” we hold that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they ordered Williams to lower his windows. (at 8)
The gun observed in the backseat after the windows were lowered was lawfully seized under the plain‑view doctrine because the officers had probable cause to believe it was contraband. (at 8)

Factual background

Police officers stopped Williams' illegally parked car with illegally tinted windows. After Williams partially lowered his window, officers ordered him to roll all windows down. The lowered windows allowed officers to see a gun in plain view, leading to his arrest and the discovery of additional contraband.

Procedural history

The district court denied Williams' motion to suppress evidence obtained after officers ordered him to lower his tinted windows during a lawful traffic stop. A jury convicted Williams of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Williams appealed the conviction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…