Court Opinion

ID: 9480950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:03:40.464424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:01.058381
License: Public Domain

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Bouffard’s fate is decided on issues not raised on appeal by the parties, as well as by a side-stepping of concessions made by the government before both the district court and our court. I believe this to be inappropriate and unwarranted particularly because it leads to results that run contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987).
Below, the government conceded defendant's standing to challenge the search. According to the majority, a problem is presented by the concession in that “the record consequently contains insufficient evidence that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Supra at 677. However, in my opinion, the government’s acknowledgment was made because Bouffard’s reasonable expectation of privacy was obvious. Firstly, regardless of whether the permission to use the car had expired,1 Bouffard’s possession gave him a reasonable expectation of privacy. And this expectation applied to the trunk as well. Secondly, the government conceded that the shotgun was in Bouffard’s possession and control. Furthermore, it is clear from the arguments developed below, and in the briefs and oral argument before this court, that the parties assumed the obvious — that Bouffard had legitimate possession and control over the car and the gun, thus creating a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But most important is the fact that the litigants only appeal the issue of whether the police exceeded the scope of the permissible warrantless search of the automobile. This issue is properly before us on appeal because, contrary to the majority’s charac*679terization of the situation, defendant’s motion to suppress based on the unreasonableness of the search presumably referred not merely to the act of opening the trunk but also to the act of lifting the garbage bag. The issues as stated by the parties in their briefs are:
As stated by the appellee:
Whether the district court’s factual finding — that fear for the safety of the missing woman justified the warrant-less search of the trunk of the stolen car — is correct and not “clear error.”
As stated by the appellant:
I. Whether the warrantless search of the trunk of an automobile which had been driven by the defendant was legally justifiable by a combination of exigent circumstances and the “community caretaking function” of the police?
II. Assuming arguendo that the warrantless search of the trunk of an automobile which had been driven by the defendant was legally justifiable by a combination of exigent circumstances and the “community caretaking function” of the police, whether the search as conducted exceeded the scope of a search so justified on the particular facts of this case?
The majority, however, motu propio expands the theater of operations. This is not a proper role for our court to assume.
If this appeal is limited to the issues actually litigated before the district court, and those briefed and argued by the parties on appeal, the following is apparent: The police officer was correct in opening the trunk pursuant to Bouffard’s arrest because the radio dispatch gave him reason to believe that a female might be in peril. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); United States v. Irizarry, 673 F.2d 554, 557 (1st Cir.1982). It is clear that a warrantless search of an automobile may be conducted in every part of the vehicle where there is probable cause to believe that the object of the search may be found. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-24, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2170-72, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). But all that was necessary here, was to open the trunk and look inside for the woman. Upon seeing that no one was inside the trunk, the search should have ceased. Any further search required the issuance of a warrant upon probable cause, because a search must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies that justified its initiation. The “[fjourth Amendment does not countenance warrantless ‘exploratory rummaging’,” and search activity must be related to the purpose of the officer’s presence. United States v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117, 1125 (1st Cir.1978). A bag of clothing sitting on the flat floor of a large automobile trunk, in broad daylight, could not possibly conceal the length, width or depth of a female human being.
The record of the police officer’s examination establishes without doubt that his search of the automobile’s trunk transgressed constitutional limits. When asked if he expected to find a female under the bag, Graves responded that “it could have been a female child.” But he admitted on further inquiry that he had no information that the reported female was a child. He also admitted that he was not looking for a 21 inch human being, which is the approximate area covered by the bag that he moved. These facts clearly indicate that Graves engaged in prohibited “exploratory rummaging.” The moving of the bag was a search separate and apart from the lawful objective of looking for the missing female and it required support by independent probable cause. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. at 324-25, 107 S.Ct. at 1152-53 (moving a stereo turntable “a few inches” to view serial numbers on its bottom, constituted a search separate and apart from the original legal search of the apartment, and required independent probable cause).
There was no support for the actions of the police officer once the trunk was opened and he failed to see any evidence of criminal activity in plain view or any place in the trunk where the object of the search could reasonably have been hidden. Bouffard’s motion to suppress the shotgun should have been granted because his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Graves’ exploratory rummaging of the *680automobile trunk. Lastly, I am opposed to the majority’s disposition of this appeal because by remanding this case to the district court for additional findings, this court is allowing the government to take two bites at an apple it chose not to bite in the first place.
I dissent.

. It should be noted that the owner of the car neither reported her car to the police as stolen nor at any time filed charges to such effect.