Court Opinion

ID: 9848403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:18:49.761855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.707376
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, J.,
specially concurring.
The majority opinion upholds the search in the present case on the ground that it was incident to the arrest. This is erroneous. A search and seizure cannot be an “incident” of an arrest which took place at a later time. It is not made any the more so by assertions that “the arrest and search Avere part of one uninterrupted transaction” or that the search is “not remote in time or place from the site of the arrest.”
However, the search and seizure in the present case can be upheld upon another ground. The information Officer Rothermel had received, together with his ob*625servations before lifting tbe trunk lid, was sufficient to give him probable cause to believe that the stolen gun was in the trunk. Upon the basis of this information, there would have been no difficulty in obtaining a search warrant. But to obtain a warrant it would have been necessary for Rothermel to leave the car and if he left it he could not know when the person who drove the car there would return and drive it away together with the evidence in it. Rothermel had been informed that those who had driven up in the car were in the immediate vicinity. Because of the risk of losing the evidence if a warrant were sought, it was impracticable to obtain a warrant. Under these circumstances a search of the trunk was reasonable.
In the course of the lawful search the officer observed the beer. According to his description “the trunk was full of it.” The large quantity of beer, the fact that it was with other stolen property, the location of the car, and other factors were sufficient to give the officer probable cause to believe that the beer had been stolen. The officer, having probable cause to believe that the beer was stolen, had the right to seize it. The principle is essentially the same as that which is applied when an officer in the course of searching pursuant to a warrant or as an incident to an arrest discovers evidence of a crime other than that which prompted the search. In such cases the officer is entitled to seize what he observes if he has probable cause to believe that it is evidence of the commission of another crime.
Holman, J., concurs in this opinion.