Opinion ID: 889869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inventory search at detention facility

Text: ¶ 47 Nor can the admission of the evidence in this case be justified on the basis that the fanny pack would have been searched at the detention facility in any event. This argument relies on the assumption that Pearson would have been detained for the pepper spray violation alone. However, Officer Pinnick did not testify that he would have authorized a probation hold absent the drug evidence. Rather, he testified that he would have authorized a search of Pearson's vehicle and fanny pack had the officers contacted him after observing the pepper spray. ¶ 48 The actual record in this case belies the Court's decision. After Officer Kristjanson observed the pepper spray in Pearson's vehicle, Pearson was handcuffed and placed in the back of the patrol car so that the officers would be free to search his vehicle. The testimony presented at the hearing on Pearson's motion to suppress indicates that Pearson had not been placed under arrest at that point; he simply was being detained while all four officers at the scene searched his vehicle. In fact, Officer Kristjanson testified that Pearson was not read his Miranda rights at that time. ¶ 49 It was not until after the fanny pack was searched for the second time and the officers found the bindle of methamphetamine that they decided to arrest Pearson and take him to the detention facility. Notably, Officer Kristjanson testified to the following when questioned by the Judge: Q: I think you testified that you intended to take the defendant to jail for the probation violation, that being the pepper spray; is that correct? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Do you ever do that without talking to the probation officer first? A: Never, Your Honor. Q: So at the time on the video that you're placing the defendant in handcuffs, you're detaining him for what you believe to be a probation violation? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: And that's the pepper spray? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: But you would not actually transport him until you talked to the probation officer? A: Correct. [Emphasis added.] And, Officer Pinnick testified to the following when questioned by defense counsel: Q: Probation Officer Pinnick, when you were called by Officer Kristjanson, it's your understanding that the search of the vehicle and the fanny-pack had already occurred? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. So the information that was presented to you is that the officers had found methamphetamine in the defendant's fanny-pack; is that correct? A: Correct. Q: And so you made the consideration as to whether the officers should hold the defendant for a probation violation based on the methamphetamine and the pepper spray; is that correct? A: Both, yes. [Emphasis added.] ¶ 50 It is clear from Officer Kristjanson's testimony that Pearson would not have been transported to the detention facility without Officer Pinnick's authorization. It is also clear from Officer Pinnick's testimony that he only authorized the probation violation hold of Pearson on the discovery of both the pepper spray and the methamphetamine. Consequently, it was not inevitable that the evidence would have been discovered during an inventory search at the detention facility because it was not until after the methamphetamine was discovered that the decision was made to transport Pearson to the detention facility. Thus, the methamphetamine evidence was inadmissible because it was the product of an illegal warrantless search. ¶ 51 In addition, the Court points out that Officer Kristjanson testified that he had intended to detain and arrest Pearson based solely on the pepper spray violation. Opinion, ¶ 27. While that may or may not be the case, Officer Kristjanson did not arrest Pearson until after the discovery of the methamphetamine. The patrol car's video cam shows that several minutes after the officers searched Pearson's fanny pack for the second time, one of the officers returned to the patrol car to give Pearson the cash Pearson left in his vehicle. While the events taking place inside the patrol car are not visible on the video, the audio portion clearly indicates that after counting out the cash in front of Pearson, the officer stated: At this time you're being placed under arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia, criminal possession of dangerous drugsmethamphetamine, and a probation violation. ¶ 52 As already pointed out in this Concurrence and Dissent, the inevitable discovery doctrine allows the introduction of illegally obtained evidence where the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the tainted evidence would inevitably have been discovered through lawful means. Ellis, ¶ 49. The State has not made the requisite showing in this case. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. ¶ 53 The Court continues to emphasize Officer Kristjanson's testimony that he would have taken Pearson to the detention facility based solely on the discovery of the pepper spray. Opinion, ¶ 29. But the conduct of all of the officers is totally inconsistent with that testimony. If the pepper spray alone was enough in the officers' opinion to justify Pearson's arrest, why bother to enlist additional officers to search Pearson's vehicle? Why not just arrest Pearson for the probation violation and take him to jail? Why bother to solicit Pearson's consent to search his vehicle unless the officers felt they did not yet have enough evidence to arrest him? And why, if they had already decided to arrest Pearson after finding the pepper spray, did they wait so long to read him his Miranda rights? ¶ 54 Furthermore, the Court states that after Officer Kristjanson placed Pearson in the patrol car in handcuffs, Officer Kristjanson attempted to contact Officer Pinnick to gain permission to transport Pearson. Opinion, ¶ 27. Why, if Officer Kristjanson intended to arrest Pearson anyway, did he need the permission of Pearson's probation officer to transport Pearson to jail? ¶ 55 In short, the actual record demonstrates that the methamphetamine was seized as the result of an unauthorized, and therefore, illegal, probation search. Officer Pinnick was not contacted until after the unauthorized search, and it is clear from his testimony that Pearson's detention was premised on the discovery of both the pepper spray and the methamphetamine. The record reflects that, based on the pepper spray alone, Pearson would not have been detained. In fact, Officer Kristjanson testified that he would never take a defendant to jail without talking to the probation officer first. Therefore, there would not have been an inventory search. The actual record plainly refutes the Court's determination to affirm the trial court. ¶ 56 Based on the foregoing, I would reverse the District Court on Issue 2, and I dissent from our failure to do so.