Supreme Court Limits Search Incident to Arrest

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that an individuals right to privacy in their vehicle still exists.

While it appeared that the appellate courts were on a path to completely eliminate an individuals right to privacy in their vehicle, the United States Supreme Court unexpectedly reaffirmed the concept of personal privacy and protection against governmental intrusion. In the decision of Arizona v. Grant, filed today, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf, the United States Supreme Court condemned the practice of courts sanctioning law enforcement searches of vehicles after an occupant has been placed under arrest for an offense unrelated to the search. For years in Iowa, law enforcement would routinely arrest occupants of a vehicle on outstanding warrants or traffic violations and then search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle, including any and all containers in that area, pursuant to that otherwise lawful arrest. Many times these subsequent searches would lead to additional charges included illegal possession of firearms or other weapons or drug offenses. This practice has long been criticized by defense lawyers, academics and even members of various appellate courts including the United States Supreme Court as not falling within the purpose of the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. The purpose behind the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement has always been officer safety, to prevent an individual from arming themselves and injuring officers, and also to preserve evidence. Neither one of these purposes are served when a vehicle is searched after an occupant has been arrested, handcuffed, and secured either on the side of the road or in the rear of a squad car. Our Supreme Court has finally put an end to this practice.

The United States Supreme Court specifically held that the search incident to arrest rationale "authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search." In a footnote, the Supreme Court then recognized that "Because officers have many means of ensuring the safe arrest of vehicle occupants, it will be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee's vehicle remains." fn4. In reaching its ultimate conclusion however, the Court did clarify that it is the offense for which the person is being arrested that makes all the difference. They left it open that "circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle." Thus, if the person is arrested for a traffic violation or outstanding warrant, the police may not search the vehicle incident to that arrest. However, if the person is arrested for a drug offense and the officers have reason to believe that additional evidence of the drug offense may be present in the vehicle, they may then search the interior of the vehicle without a warrant in order to "secure potential evidence."

The rule announced today makes perfect sense and prevents officers in abusing their authority to arrest for even minor violations as a facade or excuse to search the interior of the persons vehicle. As Justice Stevens pointed out: "A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals." While there are numerous other exceptions that law enforcement may attempt to rely upon to search a vehicle, one has been narrowed and the Court has taken a large step in realing in prior decisions that have severely limited an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy.

Lazy Officer Exception to the Warrant Requirement?

The Iowa Supreme Court recently created what some may call the "Lazy Officer Exception" to the search warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8, of the Iowa Constitution. In the State of Iowa v. Christopher Leon Christopher, filed September 12, 2008, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that officer Butler from the Des Moines Police Department was justified in arresting Mr. Christopher without a warrant for the offense of driving while barred he witnessed Mr. Christopher commit some five weeks prior. Officer Butler witnessed Mr. Christopher driving while he was off duty believing him to have a barred driver's license and took no measures to stop him at that time for the violation. Officer Butler confirmed that Mr. Christopher was barred the next day while he was on duty and then saw Mr. Christopher five weeks later and decided to arrest him without a warrant for the offense of driving while barred. Following Mr. Christopher's arrest, he was searched and drugs were discovered.

Prior to trial, Mr. Christopher moved to exclude the use of the drugs at trial arguing that his arrest violated the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Iowa Constitution. Mr. Christopher argued that the warrantless arrest was not lawful because it was not done within a reasonable time following the commission of the crime.

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the arrest concluding that a reasonable time requirement between the time the officer observed he offense and the warrantless arrest is not "necessary to protect the rights of the accused."

From a defense perspective, this poses a problem since officers are now allowed to apparently make a warrantless arrest at any time following the commission of a crime that they witnessed so long as it is within the statute of limitations and are free to conduct a warrantless "search incident to that arrest" of the person following the arrest. Some would argue that officers now can be an ostrich with their head in the sand for a crime that they witness until they believe that a person may have evidence of other crimes on their person in order to hurdle the confines of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Iowa Supreme Court seemed to somewhat address this concern in the decision by cautioning that if the Police delay an arrest to gain a tactical advantage over the an accused, there may be a due process violation.