Opinion ID: 2061668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suitcase Search

Text: Having inadvertently discovered indications of probable criminal activity in the course of the gym bag search, Officer Morgan's purpose in unzipping and searching the suitcase was not merely to look for the vehicle registration certificate. The lawfulness of the suitcase search is controlled by Arkansas v. Sanders (1979), 442 U.S. 753, 762-63, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2593, 61 L.Ed.2d 235, 244, in which the police had ample probable cause to stop a vehicle and seize a suitcase believed to contain contraband: We conclude that the state has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the need for warrantless searches of luggage properly taken from automobiles. A closed suitcase in the trunk of an automobile may be as mobile as the vehicle in which it rides. But as we noted in Chadwick, the exigency of mobility must be assessed at the point immediately before the search  after the police have seized the object to be searched and have it securely within their control. [citation omitted] Once police have seized a suitcase, as they did here, the extent of its mobility is in no way affected by the place from which it was taken. Accordingly, as a general rule there is no greater need for warrantless searches of luggage taken from automobiles than of luggage taken from other places. We conclude that while Officer Morgan's search of the gym bag for an automobile registration certificate may have been reasonable under the circumstances, Sanders requires recognition that the subsequent opening and search of the separate suitcase in the absence of exigent circumstances constituted an unreasonable warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Once cognizant of probable cause for criminal investigation, the police should have delayed further search into constitutionally protected areas until judicial approval has been obtained, if possible without risking themselves or loss of the evidence. By utilizing information discovered in the improper warrantless search of the suitcase to obtain a warrant to search the briefcase, police tainted the warrant with the illegality of their earlier actions. The evidence inside the briefcase thus became the fruit of the poisonous tree and thus inadmissible. Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416. Because of the significance at trial of the contents of both the suitcase and the briefcase, the resulting conviction cannot stand. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, J., concur. GIVAN, J., dissents with opinion, in which PIVARNIK, J., concurs.