seat of the Buick and that, therefore, all else that followed was constitutionally permissible. Given that Moeggenberg saw the revolver in plain view on the passenger’s seat, the officers had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2923.16(C). In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the Supreme Court established that, “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” Id. at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860. Accord, United States v. Martin, 289 F.3d 392, 399 (6th Cir.2002). See also, United States v. Hudgins, 52 F.3d 115 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 891, 116 S.Ct. 237,
recognizing that a protective search of a residence may be justified when the defendant is arrested outside of the home holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle 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 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 the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile