Title: State v. Schrier

State: iowa

Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court

Document:

283 N.W.2d 338 (1979) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Roger Alan SCHRIER, Appellant. No. 62348. Supreme Court of Iowa. September 19, 1979. Judd Golden, Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Cleland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. *339 Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and UHLENHOPP, HARRIS, ALLBEE, and LARSON, JJ. UHLENHOPP, Justice. This appeal presents the question of the propriety of a warrantless search and seizure of a small knapsack containing marijuana and related paraphernalia, lying on the floor of an automobile near the place where the driver's feet would be. See Arkansas v. Sanders, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977). The question comes down to whether the facts place the case on the side of the line exemplified by such decisions as United States v. Neumann, 585 F.2d 355 (8th Cir. 1978); and United States v. Pugh, 566 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), or on the other side exemplified by United States v. Stevie, 582 F.2d 1175 (8th Cir. 1978), and United States v. Schleis, 582 F.2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1978). The facts therefore play a vital role. At about 12:15 a. m. on April 22, 1978, Officer Merrill Carns stopped defendant Roger Alan Schrier for speeding in Indianola, Iowa. Defendant had two companions with him in the front seat, a man and a young woman. The officer asked defendant for his driver's license and, smelling alcohol, also asked defendant to get out of his car. Defendant got out, and the officer arrested him for driving while under the influence of intoxicants. The officer radioed for another officer to check the other two occupants of the car for intoxication and meanwhile waited in his patrol car with defendant. Officer James Hildreth answered the call for assistance. Hildreth had been "aware of" Roger Alan Schrier in connection with "drug-related matters" for the past four or five years. Hildreth was also familiar with bags of the type involved here; he testified, "The only thing that I have retrieved from bags like that has been a controlled substance." Another officer, a deputy sheriff, also came to the scene; he remained in his car on the opposite side of the street and observed the situation. Hildreth approached defendant's car from the driver's side; the door was open and the window was down. He asked the two occupants to step out. He testified at trial: Also: A subsequent test showed that the plant-like material was marijuana. Hildreth further testified: In addition: Hildreth then proceeded as follows: Further regarding this part of the occurrence, Hildreth testified at a pretrial suppression hearing: The knapsack is about five and one-half inches wide, five inches deep, and eight inches high. The flap over the open end may be latched tightly or loosely depending on the adjustment of the strap. If it is latched tightly and the ends are placed over the sides of the knapsack, the contents of the knapsack are not visible. If the flap is not tight when latched, part of the contents of the knapsack may be visible at one or both sides of the flap. Apparently the strap was not very tight at the time in question, as the officer saw part of the contents by pushing the flap aside. Regarding the nature of the bag and his observation of its contents, Hildreth testified at trial: A subsequent test demonstrated that Hildreth's belief about the contents constituted the fact. Further: Hildreth concluded that the two occupants of the car were not intoxicated and released them. Carns proceeded to the police station with defendant, and Hildreth also went there, bringing the green bag. Regarding events at the station in defendant's presence, Hildreth testified: Hildreth testified that when he dumped the contents of the bag he also observed a small brown tray with a set of scales taped to it, a razor blade, and a green notebook. Hildreth stated he gave defendant the Miranda warning and the following occurred: The county attorney charged defendant with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Defendant pleaded not guilty and made a motion to suppress the physical evidence consisting of the bag and contents and also his oral statements at the station when confronted with those contents. After a hearing the trial court overruled the motion. At trial the State introduced the contents of the bag and defendant's statements, over defendant's objection. The jury found defendant guilty. After sentence, defendant appealed. In this court defendant urges that the trial court should have sustained the suppression motion and also defendant's objections to the physical evidence and the oral statements. The State concedes that the physical evidence and the oral statements stand or fall together. We review *342 the case de novo in the light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Cullison, 227 N.W.2d 121, 126 (Iowa 1975). I. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees: Evidence obtained in violation of this guarantee is inadmissible in a prosecution, no matter how relevant or probative the evidence may be. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 1090 (1961). A search and seizure without a valid warrant is per se unreasonable unless it comes within a recognized exception such as consent, search incident to arrest, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or plain view. State v. King, 191 N.W.2d 650, 654-55 (Iowa 1971). II. Largely because of the mobility of motor vehicles and the diminished expectation of privacy with respect to them, the probable cause and exigent circumstances exception may, in a given case, be found to be applicable in the search of a car, where it would not apply to the search of a stationary object. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 48-51, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 1979-81, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419, 426-29 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 150, 45 S. Ct. 280, 285, 69 L. Ed. 543, 550 (1925). We are not dealing here with an object which is itself relevant in the particular case, such as a pistol or a crowbar; we are dealing with a knapsack, a container. One school of thought previously held that the so-called Chambers-Carroll exception for the search of a car applied to the search of items seized in the car. The United States Supreme Court laid that contention to rest for containers, however, or at least for most containers, in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977). That case involved a locked footlocker which officers removed from a car and had in their possession for over an hour at a federal building before opening it. They had good reason to believe it contained contraband. In suppressing the evidence and distinguishing the automobile exception, the Court stated, 433 U.S. at 11-13, 97 S. Ct. at 2483-84, 53 L.Ed.2d at 548-49: The answer lies in the diminished expectation of privacy which surrounds the automobile: "One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects . . .. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view." Other factors reduce automobile privacy. "All States require vehicles to be registered and operators to be licensed. States and localities have enacted *343 extensive and detailed codes regulating the condition and manner in which motor vehicles may be operated on public streets and highways." Automobiles periodically undergo official inspection, and they are often taken into police custody in the interests of public safety. The Court recently further developed this principle in Arkansas v. Sanders, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979). There officers opened an unlocked suitcase taken from a car. They had good reason to believe it contained marijuana. The Court again suppressed the evidence. It stated its conclusions thus, ___ U.S. at ___, 99 S. Ct. at 2593, 2594, 61 L.Ed.2d at 244-46: III. The language of the Chadwick-Sanders opinions is very strong. Does the language mean that, absent exigent circumstances, a warrant must invariably be obtained before opening a container seized in a car notwithstanding probable cause? Justice Powell stated for the Court in Sanders, ___ U.S. at ___, 99 S. Ct. at 2593 n.13, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 245 n.13: Four decisions from the Court of Appeals for this circuit have been particularly instructive on this problem, two going one way and two the other. Although all were decided before Sanders, the Court of Appeals appears to have anticipated and applied the Sanders' rationale before it was expressly stated. The first of these decisions is United States v. Pugh, 566 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). An officer stopped Pugh for a traffic violation. Pugh stated he had no driver's license, and when he reached in his coat pocket for papers two plastic bags containing a white substance were exposed. The officer arrested him. The car had no license plates, and the officer went to examine the identification number of the car by looking inside. He saw a partially opened briefcase containing a book entitled "Cocaine." He then searched the briefcase. The court of appeals held that items from the briefcase were admissible under the plain view exception. The court stated in 566 F.2d at 627-28: The second case is United States v. Neumann, 585 F.2d 355 (8th Cir. 1978). After officers attempted to purchase drugs of them, the Neumanns left in their car under suspicious circumstances. The officers stopped the car and the Neumanns got out. Defendant Sandy Neumann dropped a packet of heroin in so doing, and three more packets were found in her mouth. The officers searched the vehicle and removed the lid from a closed department store box located on the floor of the driver's side; the box contained demerol pills. The court upheld the search of the box, stating at pages 360-61: This court is of the opinion that the warrant requirement in Chadwick should not be extended to the facts of this case. There is simply an insufficient expectation of privacy in an unsecured cardboard box sitting in plain view in the passenger compartment of an automobile. The arresting officers merely lifted the lid of the box and discovered a large quantity of pills. Unlike the situation in Stevie, where the officers could have seized and inventoried the locked suitcase as a unit without fear of loss or theft of the contents, here it was reasonable for the officers *345 to promptly examine the contents of the box and later to have the drugs properly inventoried and secured. This procedure protected the legitimate interests of the arresting officers, including protection against unwarranted allegations of theft or loss, and could well have protected the interests of the Neumanns in having their property properly identified, safely kept and returned had not the box contained a controlled substance. A third decision is United States v. Schleis, 582 F.2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1978). In that case an officer observed Schleis's conduct, which indicated the effects of drug injection. Other suspicious circumstances existed. The officer searched Schleis and found a bulky wallet which, when placed on a car roof, opened to reveal marijuana. Schleis also had a briefcase. Officers took Schleis to the station where one of them forced open the briefcase, revealing cocaine in plastic bags. The court held the search of the briefcase was illegal, stating at page 1172: The fourth case is United States v. Stevie, 582 F.2d 1175 (8th Cir. 1978). There officers apprehended two individuals under suspicious circumstances indicating that they probably had drugs in two suitcases which they brought on an airplane and placed in a rented car. The officers stopped the car, arrested the individuals, and opened one of the suitcases, which contained bricks of marijuana. The court held this search of the suitcase to be illegal and stated at pages 1178-79: Further: IV. What do these cases tell us about the case at hand? We have no doubt that Carns acted properly in stopping the car for speeding and in arresting defendant, and also that Hildreth acted properly in requesting the other two occupants of the car to alight, in flashing his light into the car when the woman reached down, and in removing the knapsack from the car. But did Hildreth transgress the proscription on unreasonable searches and seizures when, without unlatching the bag, he then peered into it by pushing the flap aside and, upon seeing the contents, in later opening the bag at the station and emptying its contents? The answer appears to turn on whether, under the circumstances, defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the contents. One of the circumstances was the presence of a plastic bag of marijuana on the exterior of the knapsack, protruding two or three inches. This indicates a certain nonchalance about the marijuana. True, the plastic bag on the outside would probably indicate only possession, whereas the articles inside indicated possession with intent to deliver. Nonetheless, placing the plastic bag on the outside reveals defendant's attitude in the matter of privacy or secrecy with respect to the marijuana. It also recalls Justice Powell's remark, "Thus, some containers (for example a kit of burglar tools or a gun case) by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance." Arkansas v. Sanders, ___ U.S. at ___, 99 S. Ct. at 2593, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 245 n.13. The nature of the knapsack points in the same direction. While the bag had a latch, it was not constructed like a footlocker, briefcase, or suitcase which securely conceals articles from view unless unlatched. Unless the strap was tight and the sides of the flap were pulled down, contents of the knapsack became visible by simply pushing the flap aside, as on this occasion. We believe that the facts here do not reveal a reasonable expectation of privacy such that, after Hildreth properly seized the bag, he acted unreasonably in looking into it at the scene. To hold otherwise would require us to tell the officer that although he knew the bag contained what appeared to be marijuana in its pouch, he could not look in the main compartment of the bag by pushing aside the flap. We must also consider the events at the station. After Hildreth saw the bag of marijuana protruding from the exterior pouch and also saw bags of marijuana in the main part of the bag, we think the fourth amendment did not require him to obtain a warrant before unlatching the bag and removing the contents. Events flowed in natural sequence. True, Hildreth then saw other items, but he had already seen what appeared to be marijuana on the outside and also on the inside. To require a warrant at this point would exalt form over substance and require us to tell the officer that although he had looked inside the main compartment of the bag he could not open it up and empty it out. In sum, under the particular circumstances of this case the officer's conduct at the scene and at the station house does not appear to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. In so holding we fully appreciate the constrictions of Sanders and Chadwick in the search and seizure of containers and the necessity of applying those decisions with full vigor whether a car is or is not involved. We do not believe, however, that those cases hold a warrantless search and seizure of a container is never permissible under any state of facts. This state of facts appears to us to render the search and seizure reasonable. The trial court decided the Fourth Amendment issue correctly. AFFIRMED.