Opinion ID: 741175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Search of Gas Tank

Text: 30 Mr. Anderson also argues that, once the car was impounded and had been towed to highway patrol headquarters, the officers should have obtained a warrant to search the gas tank where the cocaine was discovered. Trooper Heim described the search at the suppression hearing as a combination of impound, inventory, and also of probable cause. Tr. of Mots. Hr'g at 103, Appellant's App. Tab T. The district court held that the warrantless search of the gas tank did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Anderson, 915 F.Supp. at 1155. 31 The Supreme Court has held that police officers who have probable cause to believe there is contraband inside an automobile that has been stopped on the road may search it without obtaining a warrant. Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380, 381, 104 S.Ct. 1852, 1852-53, 80 L.Ed.2d 381 (1984) (per curiam); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 48, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1979-80, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1528 (10th Cir.1993). Mr. Anderson argues that, because the vehicle was taken to the highway patrol headquarters and searched there, rather than at the roadside where it was initially stopped, Trooper Heim should have obtained a warrant. We disagree. 32 Although the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is based in part on the ready mobility of automobiles, the justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant. Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261, 102 S.Ct. 3079, 3080-81, 73 L.Ed.2d 750 (1982) (per curiam); see also Ludwig, 10 F.3d at 1528. Thus, the Supreme Court has upheld searches conducted after a car was impounded, Meyers, 466 U.S. at 382, 104 S.Ct. at 1853, or was taken to the police station. Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 68, 96 S.Ct. 304, 305, 46 L.Ed.2d 209 (1975); see also Chambers, 399 U.S. at 52 n. 10, 90 S.Ct. at 1981 n. 10 (observing that it was not unreasonable ... to take the car to the station house); United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 586 (4th Cir.1994) ([T]he justification to conduct a warrantless search under the automobile exception does not disappear merely because the car has been immobilized and impounded.); United States v. Lopez, 777 F.2d 543, 550 (10th Cir.1985) (Under the 'automobile exception' then, the police conduct in moving Lopez from Interstate 40 to the Santa Rosa State Police office is proper if it was supported by probable cause.). The crucial question is whether the police have probable cause: [I]f police have probable cause to search a car, they need not get a search warrant first even if they have time and opportunity. Ludwig, 10 F.3d at 1528. 33 We agree with the district court that Trooper Heim had probable cause to search the car's gas tank when he discovered evidence of a hidden compartment. At that point, he had the following information: Mr. Anderson and his passenger gave slightly conflicting versions of their travel itinerary; the passenger seemed particularly vague about their travel destination; he had detected the scent of air freshener in the car; Mr. Anderson carried a pager, which Trooper Heim testified is commonly carried by drugtraffickers; he had observed, in his consensual search of the car, evidence that the gas tank had been tampered with, and then had discovered what appeared to be a hidden compartment in the gas tank. We affirm the district court's conclusion that those factors together furnished probable cause to search the gas tank. 5 Evidence of a hidden compartment can contribute to a finding of probable cause to search. See United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 724 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that evidence of hidden compartment contributed to probable cause to search); United States v. Nicholson, 17 F.3d 1294, 1298 (10th Cir.1994) (same); United States v. Martel-Martines, 988 F.2d 855, 858-59 (8th Cir.1993) (same); United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 447 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that evidence of hidden compartment, along with inadequate amount of luggage for claimed duration of trip, furnished probable cause); United States v. Price, 869 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir.1989) (Once the agents had discovered the secret compartment they had probable cause to search the compartment itself.); see also Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d at 825 (Recent Fourth Amendment cases in this circuit and others have determined that evidence of a concealed compartment can give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.). That evidence, combined with the other suspicious circumstances, furnished probable cause to search the gas tank. Cf. United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786, 795 (10th Cir.1997) (noting that among the factors contributing to suspicion of vehicle was the presence of a strong air freshener scent and the bottle of air freshener); United States v. Alvarez, 68 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir.1995) (McKay, J., concurring) (noting that we have repeatedly held that air freshener coupled with other indicia of criminal activity supports a reasonable brief inquiry), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1436, 134 L.Ed.2d 557 (1996); United States v. Kopp, 45 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1076, 115 S.Ct. 1721, 131 L.Ed.2d 579 (1995) (holding that inconsistent stories from driver and passenger supported continued detention); United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 918-19 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc) (holding that strong masking odor and pager contributed to reasonable suspicion); United States v. Barth, 990 F.2d 422, 425 (8th Cir.1993) (observing that a pager is a tool of the drug trade).