Opinion ID: 1865825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Merits of the Motion to Suppress

Text: At the outset it should be noted that Savoie concedes the validity of his custodial arrest. The question to be determined is whether the search of the contents of the attache case Savoie was carrying at the time of his arrest was a reasonable search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-established exception to the requirement of a search warrant. [2] Petitioner contends that the search of the attache case was not within the proper scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest. Petitioner theorizes that, because the attache case was beyond his control at the time of the search, its contents were not a threat to the arresting officers nor was there any possibility that petitioner could destroy the evidence contained within the case. As a result, petitioner argues, the search was no longer a search incident to a lawful arrest under the reasoning in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). We disagree. In United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 14, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2485, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), the United States Supreme Court stated that searches incident to a lawful custodial arrest may be conducted whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested may have a weapon or is about to destroy evidence. We find that the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), clearly controls our disposition of this case. In Belton, the majority upheld, as a valid search incident to a lawful arrest, the search of a closed zipper-pocket in the defendant's jacket, which was seized from inside the passenger compartment of defendant's automobile. The search occurred after the defendant had been arrested and while he was being held by police outside his vehicle. The majority opinion states: [W]e hold that 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. It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. Id. at 460, 101 S.Ct. at 2864 (footnotes omitted). The majority emphasized that [a] custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. Id. at 461, 101 S.Ct. at 2864 (quoting from United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 476, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973) (emphasis added)). It is clear from the dissenting opinions in Belton by Justices Brennan and White that the majority in Belton rejected the theory advanced by petitioner in this case that the actual ability of one placed under custodial arrest to reach a weapon or destroy evidence is the determinative consideration in deciding whether a search incident to an arrest is valid. Petitioner would have us hold that a container carried by a person at the time of his arrest could not be searched after it was seized. This interpretation is illogical and unreasonable in light of the decision in Belton that a container left inside a car at the time of an arrest can validly be searched without a warrant as part of a search incident to a lawful arrest. In our view, the law is now clear that when there is a lawful arrest it is a reasonable intrusion incident to that arrest to search both the person and any container that person is carrying. See also United States v. Brown, 671 F.2d 585 (D.C. Cir.1982). We, therefore, conclude that the trial judge was correct in denying the motion to suppress the contents of Savoie's attache case. For the reasons expressed, the judgment and sentence, as affirmed by the district court, are approved, but the reasoning contained in the district court's opinion, based as it is upon a waiver theory, is disapproved. It is so ordered. ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.