Opinion ID: 2221553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Probable Cause to Search a Motor Vehicle

Text: ¶ 58. We next consider whether Officer Recknagel's search was constitutional because there was probable cause. This exception permits the warrantless search of a vehicle or any containers within the passenger compartment if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the containers hold the object of the search. Ross, 456 U.S. at 824. This rule extends to vehicles stopped in parking lots. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392-93 (1985). The exception also applies to passenger belongings capable of containing the object of the search. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 307. We again emphasize that the rationales and requirements for this exception differ from those that satisfy the search incident to arrest exception. One key distinction is that this exception requires an overriding standard of probable cause. ¶ 59. Warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable; searches of vehicles are not. See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749 (1984). During the course of the last 75 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the unique nature of automobiles sets them apart from other areas protected from warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925). ¶ 60. This probable cause exception for automobiles is built on two key factors that distinguish motor vehicles from other areas to be searched. First, the ready mobility of a vehicle makes it more likely that contraband or evidence of a crime will vanish during the period necessary to secure a valid warrant. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 304 (citing Carney, 471 U.S. at 390); Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153. Second, persons have reduced privacy expectations in motor vehicles, an expectation that is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office. Carney, 471 U.S. at 391. For instance, people are accustomed to the pervasive scheme of regulation governing their automobiles. Id. at 392. Moreover, vehicles, unlike homes, are not devices for storing personal effects, and they move about the roadways with their occupants and contents in full view. Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 (1974). Even when a vehicle is not in motion, its ability to be readily mobile will justify a warrantless search, provided that the overriding standard of probable cause is met. Carney, 471 U.S. at 391-92; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52 (1970). Thus, the exception can arise even if the vehicle is found stationary in a place like a parking lot. Carney, 471 U.S. at 388, 392 (probable cause to search a parked motor home). ¶ 61. At first, the Supreme Court did not extend this exception to containers located within a vehicle. For instance, in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 (1977), the Court reasoned that luggage implicates a higher expectation of privacy. Chadwick held that police violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched a footlocker, even though probable cause existed to believe that the footlocker, although not the vehicle itself, contained marijuana. Id. at 13-14. Similarly, in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 763-64 (1979), the Court observed that the reduced privacy expectations upon which this exception is based do not extend to luggage, even if probable cause exists to believe a suitcase holds marijuana. ¶ 62. Both the Chadwick and Sanders decisions prohibited the warrantless search of luggage, not other generic containers in vehicles, because luggage implicates enhanced privacy expectations. In Sanders, the Supreme Court implied that some containers, unlike luggage, may not trigger the same privacy protections, suggesting that the outward appearance of a container might determine whether the Fourth Amendment applies. Id. at 765 n.13. This observation foreshadowed the difficulty of predicting the degree to which the appearance of a container connotes privacy and which appearances invoke Fourth Amendment protections. ¶ 63. The outward appearance standard proved unworkable, as the Court's plurality opinion in Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420 (1981), showed. In Robbins, the divided Court found that officers may not search containers based on outward appearance alone. Id. at 425. Justice Stewart, writing for the plurality, rejected the notion that luggage is constitutionally distinguishable from less worthy containers. Id. Robbins thereby precluded the warrantless search of a plastic bag because some people, after all, use plastic bags as luggage. Id. at 426-27. ¶ 64. Against this background, the Court suggested that a test that balanc[es] the multifarious circumstances presented by different cases under the probable cause threshold offers little with which to guide police officers engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 213-14 (1979). One standard was essential for measuring the reasonableness of probable cause to search, id., and the Court eventually created one standard for containers situated in vehicles. In Ross, 456 U.S. at 800, the Supreme Court held that when law enforcement officers have probable cause to search a vehicle without a warrant, they also may conduct a warrantless search of all containers found inside the vehicle capable of containing the object of the search. See also California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 576 (1991). ¶ 65. The Ross Court reached this conclusion for two reasons. First, the Court distinguished both Chadwick and Sanders, finding that those decisions explored situations in which police did not have probable cause to search the vehicle itself, only the luggage within it. Ross, 456 U.S. at 814. In Ross, by contrast, probable cause existed to believe that the automobile contained contraband. Id. at 820, 824. The Court stressed that the object of the search, not the nature of the containers, defines the parameters of a legal search. Id. at 824. Second, the Court recognized the practical benefits of a rule that extends the probable standard to all containers. Id. at 820,822. Noting that [c]ontraband goods rarely are strewn across the trunk or floor of a car, the Court declined to burden law enforcement with a rule that would require officers to halt an otherwise permissible search if they encountered a container that required warrant. Id. at 820. ¶ 66. The Ross Court drew no distinction between containers in the possession of the driver and containers belonging to passengers. See Houghton, 526 U.S. at 301-02. In Houghton, a six-to-three decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court reasoned that if the rule of law that Ross announced were limited to contents belonging to the driver, or contents other than those belonging to passengers, one would have expected that substantial limitation to be expressed. Id. at 301. Houghton therefore applied the Ross rule to passenger belongings, holding that officers with probable cause to search a motor vehicle also may inspect those containers capable of concealing the object of the search. Id. at 307. ¶ 67. In Houghton, a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer pulled over an automobile for speeding and displaying a faulty break light during a routine traffic stop. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 297. The driver and two passengers occupied the vehicle. Id. at 297-98. As the officer questioned the driver, he noticed a hypodermic syringe in the driver's shirt pocket. The driver conceded that he used it to take drugs. Id. ¶ 68. Following this admission, backup officers directed the two passengers out of the vehicle and searched the passenger compartment for contraband. Officers found a pocketbook belonging to one of the passengers, Houghton, on the backseat. Upon searching the pocketbook, officers discovered a pouch and wallet-like object containing a syringe, drug paraphernalia, and methamphetamine. Id. Houghton sought to suppress the evidence, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Houghton was convicted. Id. at 299. ¶ 69. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the search violated the constitution because the officer knew or should have known that the purse did not belong to the driver. Id. (quoting Houghton v. State, 956 P.2d 363, 372 (Wyo. 1998), rev'd, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The court reasoned that passenger property exceeds the scope of a valid search unless someone had the opportunity to conceal the contraband within the personal effect to avoid detection and officers have probable cause to believe that contraband has been placed within the passenger property. Id. ¶ 70. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search. Id. at 307. The Court determined that the inquiry turns not on whether the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific `things' to be searched for and seized are located therein. Id. at 302. ¶ 71. Relying on Ross, 456 U.S. at 825, the Houghton Court reasoned that every container within a vehicle and its contents may contain contraband. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 301-02. The Court explicitly declined to create an exception for containers that are passenger property. Id. at 304. Excluding passenger property from the scope of a valid search would impair effective law enforcement because passengers often [] engage[] in a common enterprise with the driver, sharing the same interest of concealing contraband. [15] Id. at 304. Moreover, a passenger property exception would preclude the discovery of contraband a driver might conceal in passenger belongings, even without the passenger's consent or knowledge. Id. at 305. [19] ¶ 72. This court has recognized that passengers and drivers share expectations to privacy. Harris, 206 Wis. 2d at 255. These expectations, however, are not unlimited. Passengers, like drivers, have reduced expectations of privacy for items that they transport in motor vehicles. [16] Houghton, 526 U.S. at 303. In addition, a search of passenger property is less intrusive than the search of a passenger's person. Searches of property implicate fewer traumatic consequences and do not invoke the heightened protection inherent in searches of a person. Id. at 303; id. at 307-08 (Breyer, J., concurring) (citing United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948)). [17] Police examination of belongings does not deprive an individual of the freedom of movement. See Harris, 206 Wis. 2d at 256-57 (citing Guzy, 139 Wis. 2d at 674-75) (same standard of seizure of person applies to drivers and passengers). [20] ¶ 73. Although the Houghton Court, not unlike the Knowles Court before it, appeared to draw another bright line in the sand of Fourth Amendment analysis, Houghton, like other cases under this exception, still requires a threshold showing of the overriding standard of probable cause. See Carney, 471 U.S. at 392. Before police can conduct a warrantless search, they must have probable cause to believe that a passenger compartment holds the particular object of the search. This requirement distinguishes this exception from the search incident to an arrest exception. [21] ¶ 74. To complete our examination of this exception, we therefore briefly turn to the standards that measure probable cause. Probable cause does not require a uniform degree of proof. County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 304, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999). Depending upon the type of proceedingwhether an investigative stop, the issuance of a search warrant, the issuance of an arrest warrant, or the filing of a criminal complaintvarying and sometimes indistinguishable degrees of proof apply. Id. at 319-20 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). In the warrantless search context, the proof necessary to establish probable cause is a fair probability that law enforcement authorities will find evidence in a particular place. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 at ¶ 21 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). Under Gates, 462 U.S. 213, courts invoke a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether fair probability exists. ¶ 75. We now apply the probable-cause-to-search-a-motor-vehicle exception to this case. Pallone argues that beer does not constitute contraband and therefore contends that the search of his duffel bag was improper. Pallone asks us to restrict the meaning of contraband to illegal or prohibited substances, or property that is unlawful to produce or possess. In Wisconsin, beer is not contraband per se, except under circumstances in which its mere possession would be unlawful. [18] See, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 346.93 and 346.935 (1997-98). Nonetheless, beer receptacles and beer can be evidence of a crime. The case law does not exclusively address contraband per se as the legitimate target of a warrantless search. Rather, police may search passenger belongings capable of concealing evidence, the object of the search. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 307. ¶ 76. Open containers of beer were the object of Officer Recknagel's search for evidence. Two Village of Fontana ordinances made it illegal to possess open containers of alcohol in public or in motor vehicles. The beer may not have been contraband per se, but the possibility that open containers of beer were situated in the truck rendered beer the object of the search. [19] Were this court to limit the meaning of contraband to the parameters that Pallone crafts, evidence vital to many proceedings might be excluded. ¶ 77. We agree with the court of appeals that Recknagel had probable cause to carry out a full search of the truck and its contents for additional containers of open beer. See Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d at 280. When Riff stepped out of the truck holding an open bottle and then told Recknagel there were more open bottles in the truck, there was more than a fair probability that the vehicle contained additional evidence. Recknagel had probable cause to search the truck cab, and it was reasonable for him to search the fairly large duffel bag, about twelve inches high, twelve inches wide, and maybe two, two-and-a-half feet long that was situated on the bench in the cab. This spacious container had the capacity to hold additional open or closed bottles of beer, evidence that would support Riff's arrest and perhaps lead to an additional charge. Recknagel explained that he planned to search the duffel bag because it was located inside the vehicle. Recknagel thus apparently followed Ross, 456 U.S. at 825, which authorizes the search of every part of the vehicle and its content that may conceal the object of the search. When Pallone reached for the bag, he upgraded the cause for Recknagel's search. Recknagel testified that when he searched the duffel bag, he was looking both for weapons and evidence relating to the open intoxicants charge. ¶ 78. Under Houghton, the search was not rendered improper because the duffel bag belonged to Pallone. The inquiry turned not on whether Pallone or Riff owned the duffel bag, but whether open containers of beerthe specific thing for which Recknagel searchedmight be in the duffel bag. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 302. [22] ¶ 79. After Officer Recknagel inspected the duffel bag and came upon the baggie box, he candidly stated that he no longer was looking for beer or for a weapon. But there was probable cause to believe that the Inositol Powder bottle and the baggie box contained narcotics or controlled substances. We therefore agree with the circuit court that Recknagel had a basis for extending the search to its logical direction. If authorities discover evidence of a more serious crime during a lawful search, they need not halt their inspection. Mabra, 61 Wis. 2d at 623 (citing Robinson, 414 U.S. 218; Gustafson, 414 U.S. 260). As the court of appeals determined, it would defy common sense to require an officer to overlook incriminating evidence because the evidence did not relate to the initial purpose of the search. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d at 281; see also Ross, 456 U.S. at 823-25. ¶ 80. Finally, we address Pallone's contention that the search violated his expectation of privacy. Under Houghton, passenger Pallone and driver Riff shared a diminished expectation of privacy. Searching the duffel bag was not a traumatically intrusive search and seizure of his person. ¶ 81. Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution affords individuals no greater privacy expectations than those provided under the Fourth Amendment. Wisconsin, in this respect, is different from some other states, like Washington. In Parker, 987 P.2d 73, the Washington Supreme Court afforded passengers enhanced privacy protections. The court premised its conclusion on long-standing state case law that grants individuals greater privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 78. Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution provides, No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. Id. ¶ 82. The Wisconsin Constitution contains no similar private affairs clause. On the contrary, the language of art. I, § 11 is virtually identical to that of the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, this court has refused to interpret Wisconsin's search and seizure provision differently than the Supreme Court, and has not afforded heightened privacy protections under the state constitution than under the Fourth Amendment. There is nothing in this case that tempts us to depart from this seasoned approach. We thus follow the interpretation set forth by the Supreme Court in Houghton, which entitles motor vehicle passengers to no greater privacy expectations than drivers. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 303-04. [23] ¶ 83. We therefore hold that the warrantless search of Pallone's duffel bag was valid under the exception that allows warrantless searches when authorities have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains the object of the search.