Opinion ID: 165958
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search incident to Mr. Allen's arrest

Text: 28 The district court concluded that the search of the cab was valid incident to the arrest of Mr. Allen. [W]hen 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. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) (emphasis added). This court has concluded, however, that [a] warrantless search incident to arrest is not valid if it is `remote in time or place from the arrest.' United States v. Lugo, 978 F.2d 631, 634-35 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 764, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969)). A search incident to arrest is unlawful when a suspect is arrested, removed from the scene, and en route to the police station when the search of the arrestee's passenger compartment begins. Id. at 635. 29 Mr. Dennison and the government disagree about Mr. Allen's location when the search of Mr. Dennison's truck began. When asked about Mr. Allen's location as the search of the truck's cab started, Officer Contos responded ambiguously: Officer Schwan was—had Mr. Allen; and she was getting ready, if she hadn't already, to leave to her station to do the domestic violence paperwork on Mr. Allen. Rec. vol. II, at 35. Though the district court validated the search as one incident to Mr. Allen's arrest, it did not resolve the dispute about his location when the search began. See Dist. Ct. Order at 10 (It is ... arguable that ... the police car had left the scene [with Mr. Allen] before the search.); id. (Although Mr. Allen had been removed from the scene, the exigency for an immediate search remained.). 30 When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record. FED.R.CRIM.P. 12(d). While helpful to appellate review, Rule 12[(d)] does not require detailed findings of facts as long as the essential basis of the court's decision is apparent. United States v. Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d 819, 824 (10th Cir.1997). In light of Lugo, the district court needed to make a finding as to Mr. Allen's location when the search began to validate it as one incident to his arrest. Because the district court declined to resolve this issue, and we cannot find facts, we therefore cannot validate the search of the truck under this rationale.