Opinion ID: 1724606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legality of Search and Seizure.

Text: Both Edwards and defendant were placed under arrest for illegal use of heroin before the officers instituted their search of the premises. An open walk-in closet with no doors was in close proximity to where Edwards was standing or sitting when the officers commenced their search. Edwards stated, Don't bother searching, I know what you really came here for, the gun, and reached into the closet and drew out a loaded 32-caliber revolver. The officers took this revolver from him and continued their search. Underneath some papers on the floor of this closet in a soiled, crumpled white envelope they found two eyedroppers, two hypodermic needle tips attached to the rubber bulbs of the eyedroppers, and a burned bottle cap with a wad of cotton in the center. Laboratory tests showed that the two eyedroppers with the rubber bulbs and hypodermic needle tips inserted in the bulbs contained traces of opium alkaloids. Heroin is an opium compound. In Browne v. State [4] this court struck down Browne's contention that the search of his room for narcotics incident to his arrest was illegal, and declared: Under these circumstances `probable cause to arrest' also supports a determination of probable cause to believe that evidence and instrumentalities of the crime are within in the immediate control of the person arrested. General police experience reveals that most illegal users of narcotics maintain either the drugs or the instrumentalities in use in their rooms, apartments, and homes. Therefore, a search pursuant to a valid arrest under these circumstances was reasonable. [5] The United States supreme court has upheld similar searches in a number of cases. [6] That court has also held that the practicability of obtaining a warrant is not a controlling factor where the search is made incident to the arrest. [7] We conclude that the search and seizure here were reasonable inasmuch as made incidental to the arrest and the open closet was under the immediate control of Edwards and defendant.