Opinion ID: 1871258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Possibility of Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Text: Although Reilly never explicitly told Radford he was concerned about losing evidence, he did testify that he believed that anybody in the vehicle could possibly have had narcotics on them. He also asked Horn to pat down Voichahoske at the scene, and in his police report, he described it as a search for narcotics. Moreover, Reilly testified that he agreed with Horn that the occupants needed to be searched and the videotape reveals that Reilly agreed that the bulge in Voichahoske's shoe needed to be investigated. Why would Reilly want the occupants searched if not to find concealed evidence? Reilly testified that when he called the dispatcher for assistance, the occupants had already been handcuffed. And the record provides no indication that the occupants threatened his safety. Moreover, if Reilly had not been concerned that the occupants would discard evidence, he and Horn could have driven the four, two to a car. Instead, he opted to wait for separate transportation, so the suspects could not leave contraband in the patrol car and possibly blame their fellow passengers. Reilly also had an objective reason to believe that Voichahoske was concealing evidence and that given the opportunity, he might destroy it. Reilly already had probable cause to believe Voichahoske was concealing drugs on his person, which, in turn, justified his arrest. See State v. Dussault, 193 Neb. 122, 225 N.W.2d 558 (1975) (holding that under Fourth Amendment, standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same). Because a search of his person was inevitable, Reilly could reasonably believe Voichahoske would seize the opportunity to destroy or discard the drugs. Thus, the record shows both subjectively and objectively that Voichahoske might conceal or destroy evidence.