Opinion ID: 1723259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: LAW I. Search and Seizure

Text: Ferrell contends that the trial court's determination that the search of the automobile was valid as a search incident to arrest and a plain view search was erroneous. We agree.
In Mississippi authorities may search a vehicle as an incident to arrest even when the underlying offense for which the defendant has been arrested is a traffic violation. Watts v. State, 196 So.2d 79, 86 (Miss. 1967). However, in the instant case there appears to be a question as to whether the search was actually an incident to the arrest. Ferrell was stopped for speeding. When the officers found that his license was suspended, he was asked to exit the car, at which time he was placed under arrest. No weapons or contraband were found on Ferrell's person when he was searched and handcuffed. He was then escorted across the street and placed in a patrol car. Officer Byrd then returned to the car Ferrell was driving only after he was requested to retrieve the keys. The United States Supreme Court has held that the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement. Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 295, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 2003, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973). In the case of a search incident to arrest, the exception to the warrant requirement is founded upon the reasonable concern that the arrestee might have a weapon on his person or within reach, and that he may attempt to destroy evidence which is within his grasp. Cupp, 412 U.S. at 295, 93 S.Ct. at 2003. The search of Ferrell's car cannot be classified as incident to arrest under Cupp. At the time Officer Byrd searched the car, Ferrell had already been frisked, handcuffed, and placed in the backseat of Officer Byrd's patrol car. Consequently, he could have had no reasonable fear that Ferrell might have a weapon. Furthermore, based upon the defendant's behavior and the prior pat-down there was no reason to think that Ferrell might be in a position to destroy incriminating evidence from the crime which led to his arrest, i.e., a suspended driver's license.
In order for a search to fit within the perimeters of the plain view doctrine, the object in question must itself be in plain view; here, the contraband was not in plain view. When Officer Byrd entered the car to retrieve the keys, he saw the keys on the passenger seat and an ordinary matchbox located next to them. No drugs or drug paraphernalia were visible. Nonetheless, Byrd lifted the first matchbox which held only matches and discovered the yellow pill, and then opened the second matchbox between the car seats discovering the crack cocaine. [1] Although this Court has not spoken to this exact issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has. The Fifth Circuit held: The plain view exception is intended to allow police officers to seize incriminating items that are discovered in the course of their legitimate law enforcement activities, see Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2307-08, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); [ United States v. ] Donnes, 947 F.2d [1430] at 1438 [(10th Cir.1991)]; United States v. Eschweiler, 745 F.2d 435, 439-40 (7th Cir.1984), not to justify warrantless, exploratory searches of containers that purport to contain innocuous materials. United States v. Villarreal, 963 F.2d 770, 776 (5th Cir.1992). According to the Fifth Circuit, a container cannot be opened unless its contents are in plain view or they can be inferred from the container's outward appearance. United States v. Sylvester, 848 F.2d 520, 525 (5th Cir.1988) (emphasis added). We find, therefore, that the seizure of the contraband from the car Ferrell was driving does not fit the plain view exception. At the time Byrd entered the car, no incriminating evidence was visible. See generally Wayne R. LaFave and Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 3.2(b) (1984) (discussing plain view doctrine and requirement that contraband be immediately apparent). Nevertheless, he proceeded to lift the matchbox in search of contraband. Moreover, Byrd was not content after he discovered that the first matchbox contained matches, but continued the search and opened the second matchbox. Given their utility and wide availability, matches are common objects in the every day world. The mere presence of a matchbox on the front seat of a car ordinarily cannot be termed an incriminating object in plain view.