Opinion ID: 186894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recent Occupant/Thornton

Text: 21 Because we conclude the search in this case was incident to [an] arrest, as the Supreme Court has explicated that phrase, we must go on to answer the question whether the officers had reason to believe Powell or his companion was a recent occupant of the vehicle. See Thornton, 541 U.S. at 622, 124 S.Ct. 2127 ( Belton allows police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful custodial arrest of both `occupants' and `recent occupants' (quoting Belton, 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860)). We conclude they did. Although Officer Jones testified he did not know Powell or the other man was a recent occupant, a reasonable police officer would have had good reason to believe as much: indeed, the only reasonable inference, upon finding two men urinating at night in an industrial area a few feet from a car, the only occupant of which was sitting in a passenger seat, is that the two men were recent occupants of the car.