Opinion ID: 168860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: s earch incident to a rrest

Text: Mr. Murphy next argues that the firearm was not discovered during a valid search incident to arrest and, consequently, should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, but it is well established that, “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981). An -12- officer’s right to conduct such a search is based on “the need [of police officers] to remove any weapons that [the arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape and the need to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.” Id. at 457 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Murphy argues that the firearm was not discovered during a valid search incident to arrest because Mr. Baxter was handcuffed and secured in the backseat of Officer Weir’s patrol car when the search was conducted. Specifically, he posits that applying the search incident to arrest exception to this case “perverts the rationale underlying the Belton rule” because “there was no way Baxter could have access to Murphy’s vehicle.” Aplt’s Br. at 18 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question whether the search incident to arrest exception applies when an arrestee is handcuffed and inside a patrol car during the search. Nonetheless, the Court recently sanctioned a search under Belton where it was performed after a police officer “handcuffed [the arrestee] . . . and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car.” Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 618, 623-24 (2004) (affirmatively answering the question whether Belton applied to “recent occupant[s]” of automobiles). Similarly, we have approved searches of automobiles incident to arrest under Belton when the arrestee was handcuffed and in a patrol car during the search. See e.g., United States v. Humphrey, 208 F.3d 1190, 1202 (10th Cir. 2000) (reasoning that “Belton emphasized that its holding created a ‘bright line’ rule intended to provide specific and -13- coherent guidance to officers in the field”). We have, however, refused to apply the search incident to arrest exception when a search was “remote in time or place from the arrest.” Dennison, 410 F.3d at 1210 (quotations omitted). See, e.g., United States v. Lugo, 978 F.2d 631, 635 (10th Cir. 1992) (Belton rule inapplicable when defendant “had been taken from the scene” and “was handcuffed and sitting in the back seat of a patrol car proceeding toward [the jail]” during the search); United States v. Edwards, 242 F.3d 928, 937 (10th Cir. 2001) (Belton rule inapplicable when defendant “was incapacitated with handcuffs and sitting in the back of a police car approximately 100-150 feet away” during search and there was “no evidence whatsoever that [defendant] had any control over the rental car immediately preceding or at the time of his arrest”). In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Thornton and our decision in Humphrey, we hold that Officer Weir’s search was a valid search incident to arrest. Like the arrestees in Thornton and Humphrey, Mr. Baxter was handcuffed and seated in Officer Weir’s patrol when the firearm was discovered. Furthermore, unlike Lugo and Edwards, where the arrestees were large distances away from the location of the search, the record indicates that Officer Weir’s patrol car was parked only ten to fifteen feet away from the searched vehicle. -14-