is still inappropriate to suppress the firearm found under the vehicle’s seat. “It is a well-settled principle that we may affirm a district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record.” United States v. Pierson, 219 F.3d 808, 807 (8th Cir.2000) (rejecting the assertion that because the issue of ownership of a searched bag was not raised below it could not be considered on appeal). First, though the government stated the facts differently in its brief, at oral argument both parties acknowledge the glove compartment was opened and the initial search conducted before Rowland was arrested. Because Rowland was not arrested, law enforcement could not have conducted a search incident to arrest pursuant to New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The government’s argument to the contrary,
holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle holding that belton permits the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile even when the defendant is arrested outside as long as the officer made initial contact while the defendant was inside the automobile holding that a lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite to a search since the arrest is the authority of law justifying the search holding when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile he may as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest search the passenger compartment of that automobile holding that after policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile he may as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest examine the contents of any containers including glove compartments found within the passenger compartment