Opinion ID: 204671
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Search Incident to Arrest

Text: Mr. Lasley’s challenge to the search of his person is both factual and legal. He contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that during the search incident to arrest, the officers discovered crack cocaine hanging out of Mr. Lasley’s waistband. Instead, Mr. Lasley maintains that the drugs found on his person were concealed behind his genitals, and that the officers therefore engaged in an invasive search to discover them. He contends that such an invasive search exceeded the permissible scope of a search incident to an arrest for traffic warrants. Even assuming that the drugs were concealed in the manner Mr. Lasley suggests, and that they were discovered pursuant to a full search of Mr. Lasley’s person, the search was permissible. The Supreme Court has long held that “in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a ‘reasonable’ search under that Amendment.” United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973) (emphasis added). The Court has also indicated that the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest is not necessarily defined by the existence or absence of evidence of the particular crime for which the arrest is made. See id. at 234 (“The standards traditionally governing a search incident to lawful arrest are not [] commuted to the stricter Terry standards by the absence of probable fruits or further evidence of the particular crime for which the arrest is made.”). Additionally, we have upheld a search incident to arrest in circumstances similar to -6- those presented by this case. In United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1296 (10th Cir. 2000), the defendant challenged a search incident to arrest in which officers discovered cocaine concealed in his groin area. He challenged the search on the grounds that it was “an invasive search conducted with [the defendant’s] pants pulled down, in full view of the public.” Id. There, we held that the officer “was justified in conducting a full, warrantless search of [the defendant’s] person incident to his arrest, and the discovery of the cocaine on [the defendant’s] person was the result of a lawful search incident to arrest.” Id. at 1297. Here, Mr. Lasley does not challenge the legality of his arrest. And, because he was lawfully in custody, the officers were permitted to conduct a full search of his person. Therefore, the scope of the search incident to Mr. Lasley’s arrest was permissible, even if we assume that it was executed in the manner he claims.