Opinion ID: 3003407
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search of Zahursky’s Vehicle

Text: Zahursky contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his vehicle. We review the district court’s determination of probable cause de novo. United States v. Scott, 516 F.3d 587, 589 (7th Cir. 2008). A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject to a few well-established exceptions. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1716 (2009). The agents lacked a warrant to search Zahursky’s car, so the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the search fell within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. United States v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2000). One of the exceptions is the automobile exception first recognized No. 08-1151 11 in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Under this exception, where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, law enforcement may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle. Id. at 153-56; see also United States v. Pittman, 411 F.3d 813, 817 (7th Cir. 2005). “Probable cause” exists where based on a totality of the circumstances “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983); see Scott, 516 F.3d at 589. It requires a probability, not absolute certainty, that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. United States v. Farmer, 543 F.3d 363, 377 (7th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Sidwell, 440 F.3d 865, 869 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “probable cause requires only a probability or a substantial chance that evidence may be found”); United States v. Funches, 327 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir. 2003) (indicating that probable cause does not require “evidence demonstrating that it is more likely than not” that evidence may be found). In determining whether there is probable cause to search, law enforcement officers may draw reasonable inferences from the facts based on their training and experience. See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 443 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 2006). Zahursky argues that when the agents began searching his car they lacked probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime would be in the vehicle. The district court found it was reasonable for the agents to believe that Zahursky had condoms and lubricant and found further that “when the agents discovered that 12 No. 08-1151 [Zahursky] was not carrying the condoms and lubricant on his person, a reasonable officer would have probable cause to search the car he drove because it was the only other area available to Defendant to store the condoms and lubricant.” The implication is that probable cause to search the car did not exist until the agents discovered no condoms and lubricant on Zahursky’s person. We conclude, however, that the record establishes that probable cause to search the vehicle existed even before the discovery that Zahursky didn’t have any condoms or lubricant on his person. First, the agents knew that Zahursky was the man they wanted. He arrived at Starbucks, the designated meeting place, in the make and color of car that he had described in his chats with Shelly. He was wearing the clothing he had told Shelly he would be wearing, and the agents could observe that his physical appearance fit the one he had described to Shelly. The agents also knew from the internet chats and email messages with Shelly that Zahursky planned to bring condoms and lubricant with him. Thus, they had probable cause, based on Zahursky’s own statements, to believe that Zahursky had these items, which would be evidence of a crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), with him when he met Shelly on June 21. Furthermore, it was reasonable to believe that Zahursky would have left these items in his car instead of taking them into Starbucks. He surely wasn’t going to use the condoms and lubricant inside Starbucks. Zahursky and Shelly had planned only to meet at the Starbucks No. 08-1151 13 before going to Lindsey’s sister’s dorm room where they planned to engage in sexual activity. It seems just as probable, if not more probable, that Zahursky would leave these items safely in his car until he reached his end destination rather than carrying them—need- lessly—into a public coffee shop. Perhaps he would have a condom or two and some lubricant on his person. But based on his chats and emails with Shelly, it was reasonable to believe that Zahursky would have a collection of condoms and lubricant with him. He did, after all, anticipate repeated and continuous sexual activity with Shelly (and Lindsey) rather than one, brief sexual encounter. So, even if incriminating evidence had been found on his person, that would not negate the probability that more of the same would be found in his car. Moreover, as the government argues, the agents had probable cause to search the car for evidence of the crime other than condoms and lubricant. They could search, for example, for evidence of Zahursky’s trip from Lexington, Illinois, to Valparaiso, Indiana. Using a “means of interstate . . . commerce” is an element of the offense. There was a fair probability that the agents would find some evidence of Zahursky’s interstate travel in his car—perhaps a map and/or directions, or a toll or gas receipt. These types of things likely would be found in a vehicle that had been driven some distance (150 miles based on Zahursky’s testimony) and across state lines. And, as we know, the agents did find a printout of directions from Zahursky’s house in Illinois to the Starbucks in Valparaiso. 14 No. 08-1151 Zahursky further contends that none of the policy justifications for the automobile exception apply in his case. The automobile exception is justified by a vehicle’s “ready mobility” which makes “immediate intrusion” necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence. United States v. Washburn, 383 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2004). The second justification for the exception is the individual’s lesser expectation of privacy in a vehicle. Id. Zahursky maintains that there was no threat that his car would be moved or become mobile—it had been seized and was to be impounded—so the first justification is inapplicable. His argument is foreclosed by Washburn. The defendant in Washburn had exited his van and, when he returned was surrounded by officers with their weapons drawn and ordered to the ground. The officers obtained the keys to the van and searched it. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in that search. The district court concluded that the automobile exception applied and that the search was valid. Id. at 64041. On appeal, the defendant argued that the auto- mobile exception was inapplicable because his van had lost its mobility at the time of the stop and he lacked access to his van at the time of the search. Id. at 641. We held that as long as the van “was inherently, even if not immediately, mobile, the application of the automobile exception was still valid based on the diminished expectation of privacy in one’s vehicle.” Id.; see also United States v. Matthews, 32 F.3d 294, 299 (7th Cir. 1994) (stating that “the mobility of the vehicle is not essential to the application of the automobile exception. . . . [T]he diminished expectation of privacy alone is sufficient to No. 08-1151 15 conduct a search on probable cause.”). The defendant’s lack of access to the vehicle at the time of the search did not matter because the van was still inherently mobile. Washburn, 383 F.3d at 641. Similarly here, the agents had arrested Zahursky, placed him in custody and seized his car. Thus, at the time of the search, Zahursky no longer had access to his car. Still, his car was inherently mobile and he had a lesser expectation of privacy in it. Therefore, the automobile exception applied, and Zahursky’s lack of access didn’t matter. In addition, the agents had no reason to know that Zahursky traveled alone or that an accomplice would not have some means of mobilizing the vehicle. Zahursky complains that there were no unforeseeable or exigent circumstances that would have prevented the agents from obtaining a search warrant for the vehicle. True enough, but Zahursky offers nothing to suggest that the agents were required to obtain a search warrant here. And given the application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, they were not. Finally, Zahursky challenges the scope of the search, asserting that the condoms and lubricant were not in plain view. Where law enforcement agents have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may search all areas in the vehicle in which contraband or evidence of criminal activity might be found, including closed containers, packages, compartments, and trunks. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 818-19 (1982); Scott, 516 F.3d at 589. Therefore, the agents could lawfully search the glove compartment and trunk. It was reasonable to believe 16 No. 08-1151 that condoms might be found in the coin purse and duffel bag; thus, upon finding the purse and bag, the agents could lawfully search those items as well. It also was reasonable to believe that lubricant might be found in the duffel bag which likely contained Zahursky’s clothes and personal effects for his overnight visit with Shelly. In sum, the agents had probable cause to search Zahursky’s car. Therefore, the search was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found in the vehicle. (Because we find that probable cause to search Zahursky’s vehicle existed and thus that the automobile exception applied, we need not consider whether the search was justified as an inventory, the other exception relied on by the district court.)