Opinion ID: 1213091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the warrantless search of the automobile and seizure of the four articles

Text: Appellant, having failed in his argument that his constitutional rights were violated when his automobile was stopped and he was ordered out and frisked, argues further that his same constitutional rights [10] were nevertheless violated by the police when a warrantless search of the automobile was conducted by the police, and since all four articles were illegally seized, they should have been suppressed by the trial court. [11] We are again requested to deal with the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. In two recent decisions, State v. Elliott, 61 Haw. ___, 605 P.2d 930 (1980) and State v. Powell, 61 Haw. 316, 603 P.2d 143 (1979), we discussed the automobile exception so we need not repeat such discussion here. In view of Elliott and Powell, we hold that, in the case at bar, there were exigent circumstances for the police to conduct the warrantless search of the automobile. The automobile was parked on a public highway, near an apartment complex, and adjacent to a shopping center parking lot. The police had reason to be concerned with the security of any contraband that could have been in the vehicle. [12] Appellant persists in his argument that the police should have secured the car after its seizure and complied with the warrant requirement thereafter. The language of Elliott is dispositive: ... Of course, they (police) might have impounded the vehicle or posted guards around it (car) while they applied for a warrant, but for constitutional purposes there is little to choose in terms of practical consequences between an immediate search without a warrant and the car's immobilization until a warrant is obtained. (Citation omitted.) Having resolved the issue as to the warrantless search of the car, we now reach the issue of whether it was constitutionally permissible for the police to seize the four articles found in the car. These items were not stolen from Grimes' apartment but were actually stolen from a neighbor's apartment. If, in the course of a lawful search, the police inadvertently discovered evidence of a crime other than that for which the arrest was made, the police may seize it and use it as evidence against the arrestee. State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 367, 520 P.2d 51, 55 (1974); State v. Park, 50 Haw. 275, 276, 439 P.2d 212 (1968). The police may legally seize any evidence of a crime in open view so long as the searching officer is in a lawful position to conduct such search. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2035, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Powell, supra ; State v. Hook, 60 Haw. 197, 587 P.2d 1224 (1978); State v. Davenport, 55 Haw. 90, 516 P.2d 65 (1973). Having ruled that the police were lawfully authorized to conduct the automobile search, we hold that the police were justified in seizing all four articles which were visible and in open view. Therefore, the wine jug and the oral testimony [13] concerning the other articles were admissible into evidence and the motion to suppress was properly denied. [14]