Opinion ID: 2445500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reason to Search the Vehicle

Text: In this case, the front seat passenger was arrested after the officers found a handgun beneath his legs. After they removed the driver and his passengers from the car, the officers searched for other objects, other contraband related to the weapon, other weapons, ammunition, items of that sort. The officer who first saw the gun testified that, based on his training and experience, where there is one gun there may be more than one. Crediting the officers' testimony, the trial judge found that at the time of the search the police had reason to believe that there might be evidence of the offense of arrest [] carrying a pistol without a license [] in the passenger compartment of the car, including containers in the passenger compartment, and [he concluded that] they were therefore justified in searching [appellant's] purse. We find no error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal conclusion. The officer in this case observed the handgun in plain view on the floor of the car. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 740, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (There is no legitimate expectation of privacy . . . shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers.) (citation omitted). The sight of the handgun was evidence that a weapons offense was being committed, as was the front passenger's attempt at concealment. See, e.g., D.C.Code § 22-4504(a) (No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law. . . .). In addition, the trial judge credited testimony from one of the officers that where there is one gun, there may be more guns or ammunition. [4] In the totality of the circumstances, it was, at a minimum, reasonable to believe that the vehicle contained additional weapons or ammunition. See, e.g., Dawkins, 987 A.2d at 476 ([H]aving observed appellant lean into the car and close the door shortly before he was seen with a marijuana blunt, the officers reasonably could have believed that appellant had additional marijuana or drug paraphernalia in the car such that it was `reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.' (quoting Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719)); United States v. Vinton, 389 U.S.App. D.C. 199, 211, 594 F.3d 14, 26 (2010) (it was reasonable for officer to believe that there might be additional weapons in the car, particularly in the locked briefcase found on the backseat. (applying Gant )); People v. Osborne, 175 Cal.App.4th 1052, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 696, 705 (2009) (Although the firearm found on defendant was loaded, it was reasonable to believe that the vehicle might contain additional items related to the crime of gun possession such as more ammunition or a holster. (applying Gant )). Indeed, cases addressing similar circumstances establish that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle. See Andrews v. United States, 922 A.2d 449, 457 n. 13 (D.C.2007) (Once Officer Dean saw the ammunition clip in plain view, the police had probable cause to seize and search the vehicle.); Hurley v. United States, 273 A.2d 840, 841 (D.C.1971) (holding that the discovery of nine bullets but no weapon during the search of a driver created probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband, that is, the pistol); United States v. Boucher, 909 F.2d 1170, 1175 (8th Cir.1990) (Cooper . . . had probable cause to search the vehicle resulting from his observation of the concealed weapon in the front seat.); cf. United States v. Watson, 697 A.2d 36, 38 (D.C. 1997) ([W]hen the police saw Watson smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette, and smelled the distinctive odor of burnt marijuana as they approached his car on foot, they had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the car.); id. ([T]he probable cause which the police had to search the car was not exhausted when they found the marijuana cigarette in the ashtray.); Minnick v. United States, 607 A.2d 519, 525 (D.C. 1992) (holding that a police officer who smells the identifiable aroma of a contraband drug emanating from a car has probable cause to believe that the car contains a quantity of that drug.). [5] Because there was probable cause to search, there was, perforce, reason to believe that the car contained evidence related to the crime of carrying a pistol without a license for which the front passenger had been arrested. We therefore need not decide whether a level of suspicion less than probable cause will suffice under the reasonable to believe prong of Gant. [6]