Court Opinion

ID: 9786033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:45:40.790987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:40.924863
License: Public Domain

*378BURKE, Justice,
dissenting.
[1386] I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion holds that a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of its driver is not permissible under Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution if "safety concerns or other exigent cireumstances surrounding the arrest and search are not discernable in the record." This holding, like the recent case of Pierce v. State, 2007 WY 182, 171 P.3d 525 (Wyo.2007), is inconsistent with Wyoming precedent establishing that the arrest itself is sufficient justification to search the arrested person and the area within his immediate control. As I analyze Mr. Holman's case, the limited search of his vehicle was reasonable under all of the cireumstances. I would affirm the district court's decision that the search was proper under the Wyoming Constitution.
[137] In discussing the constitutionality of searches and seizures, we have often recited the following:
Neither the federal nor the state constitution forbids all searches and seizures; rather, - they - prohibit - unreasonable searches and seizures. - Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable per se, with but a few exceptions. Those exceptions include:
1) search of an arrested suspect and the area within his control; 2) a search conducted while in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect; 3) a search and/or seizure to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence; 4) a search and/or seizure of an automobile upon probable cause; 5) a search which results when an object is inadvertently in the plain view of police officers while they are where they have a right to be; 6) a search and/or seizure conducted pursuant to consent; and 7) a search which results from an entry into a dwelling in order to prevent loss of life or property.
Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13, 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Morris v. State, 908 P.2d 931, [936] (Wyo.1995)) (emphasis, internal citations, and punctuation different from original). See also Clark v. State, 2006 WY 88, ¶ 16, 138 P.3d 677, 681 (Wyo.2006). The majority opinion discusses two of these established exceptions: 1) search incident to arrest; and 4) automobile search.
[138] Under Wyoming law, analysis of either type of search rests on the foundation of Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476 (Wyo.1999). "Vasques involved the search and seizure of the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest; therefore, the analysis considered both our vehicle search and search incident to arrest jurisprudence." Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 309 (Wyo.1999). Vasquez established the broad rule that, under Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, such searches must be reasonable under all of the cireumstances. 990 P.2d at 488.
[439] The specific question answered in Vasquez was, however, quite narrow:
We have not considered whether, under the state provision, the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest for automobiles includes containers, and the specific question before us is whether the search of the fuse box for evidence related to the crime was reasonable under all of the circumstances.
Id. (emphasis added). narrow question was: The answer to this
In this particular case, we believe that the arrest justified a search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and all containers in it, open or closed, locked or unlocked, for evidence related to the crime and for weapons or contraband which presented an officer or a public safety concern.
Id. at 489 (emphasis added). Vasquez firmly established that exigent cireumstances, such as the suspicion that evidence or weapons might be present, are sufficient to justify a broad and thorough search, extending even to closed and locked containers inside the vehicle. Vasquez did not say that exigent cireumstances must be present to justify the more limited search of an arrested suspect and the area within his control.
[T40] Cases following Vasquee maintained the distinction between broad, intrusive searches and limited searches of the area within an arrested person's control. For example, in Clark, the officer stopped *379Mr. Clark because of a missing headlight, then learned that he was driving with a suspended license, had a prior outstanding ticket for the same offense, and had a Colorado warrant for his arrest for failure to appear on a domestic violence charge. ¶ 19, 138 P.3d at 682. The officer arrested Mr. Clark, and upon searching his vehicle, found marijuana in a box that was closed, secured with duct tape, and placed behind the driver's seat. Id., ¶¶ 3, 20-21, 138 P.3d at 679, 682. On appeal, Mr. Clark argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional "because once he had been arrested and placed in the patrol car it was not reasonable to search the vehicle." Id., ¶ 12, 138 P.3d at 680. He asserted that his case "involved no officer safety issue," and that "evidence related to the crime for which he was arrested-driving under suspension-was unlikely to be found in the vehicle." Id., ¶ 13, 138 P.3d at 680.
[141] We concluded that the cireum-stances surrounding "Mr. Clark's arrest justified a search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and all containers in it, open or closed, locked or unlocked, for weapons or contraband which presented an officer safety concern." Id., ¶ 21, 138 P.3d at 682 (emphasis added). Faithfully following Vas-ques, Clark held that officer safety concerns justified a search thorough enough to encompass the contents of a closed and taped box found behind the driver's seat. Also following Vasquez, Clark did not say that a more limited "search of an arrested suspect and the area within his control" had to be justified by reasonable suspicion of the presence of evidence or weapons.
[142] As noted, Vasquez dealt with both an automobile search and a search incident to arrest. These are separate and distinct exceptions to the prohibition against warrant-less searches, and the two should not be confused. An automobile search may be conducted, even if the driver is not arrested, when it is supported by probable cause. Vassar, ¶ 21, 99 P.3d at 996. Absent an arrest, law enforcement officers may "search an automobile without having a warrant," but only "when they have probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime or contraband." Borgwardt v. State, 946 P.2d 805, 807 (Wyo.1997).
[143] The automobile search necessarily involves an automobile. The search incident to arrest does not. Many of Wyoming's search incident to arrest cases coincidentally deal with automobiles, but not all of them do. See Andrews v. State, 2002 WY 28, 40 P.3d 708 (Wyo.2002) (search incident to arrest conducted in the home where the person was arrested). Thus, in analyzing a search incident to arrest, the focus is not on the search of the vehicle. Rather, as stated in a case cited by the majority, the focus is on the search "of an arrested suspect and the area within his control." Moulton v. State, 2006 WY 152, ¶ 16, 148 P.3d 38, 43 (Wyo.2006). The most distinctive aspect of a search incident to arrest is that it may be conducted only when there is a valid arrest. An arrest "requires justification by probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a crime." Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632, 639 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 220 (Wyo.1994)). Because the arrest is supported by probable cause, a search incident to that arrest requires no additional justification. The crucial difference between an automobile search and a search incident to arrest is reflected in the common wording of the two exceptions. The "search and/or seizure of an automobile upon probable cause," Vassar, ¶ 13, 99 P.3d at 993 (emphasis added), expressly requires probable cause. The "search of an arrested suspect and the area within his control," id., explicitly does not require additional justification, because the arrest is already supported by probable cause.
[144] A search incident to arrest should also be distinguished from a search conducted when a person is merely stopped or detained, but not arrested. We carefully analyzed the constitutional limitations of a search incident to detention in O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005). Mr. O'Boyle was stopped for speeding. He was detained, questioned extensively by the patrolman, released, and then detained again for further questioning. He eventually consented to a search of his vehicle. After the patrolman found marijuana, he arrested Mr. *380O'Boyle. The specific question before the Court was this:
[Whether a traffic stop involving extensive questioning, followed by the defendant's consent to a second detention and more questioning, and culminating in the defendant's consent to a vehicle search was reasonable under all the cireumstances.
Id., ¶ 28, 117 P.3d at 409. We concluded that Mr. O'Boyle's extended detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and that his consent to the vehicle search was coerced. Because the patrolman had no probable cause to make an arrest, no valid consent for the search, and no "suspicion sufficient to warrant further detention or a search," the search of Mr. O'Boyle's vehicle violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. Id., ¶ 32 n. 6, 117 P.3d at 410 un. 6.
[145] Mr. O'Boyle was not arrested before his vehicle was searched, and his appeal "did not arise out of a search incident to arrest." Id., ¶ 31, 117 P.3d at 410. Accordingly, O'Boyle cannot stand for the proposition that a vehicle search incident to arrest requires reasonable suspicion of the presence of evidence or weapons. There is "a significant distinction between investigative detentions and arrests." Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, ¶ 26 n. 3, 146 P.3d 492, 501 n. 3 (Wyo.2006). An arrest requires probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a crime. Putnam, 995 P.2d at 639. A detention, being "of a less intrusive nature than an arrest," is justified by the lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime." Medrano v. State, 914 P.2d 804, 807 (Wyo.1996). See also Keller v. State, 2007 WY 170, ¶ 14, 169 P.3d 867, 870 (Wyo.2007).
[146] This leads to my conclusion that the majority opinion in this case is inconsistent with Wyoming precedent. It blurs the legitimate distinctions among automobile searches, searches incident to detention, and searches incident to arrest. It borrows the probable cause requirement from automobile searches, and the reasonable suspicion requirement from investigatory detention cases, and imposes them as new requirements for searches incident to arrest. Fundamentally, it fails to acknowledge the distinetion between the authority to conduct a search incident to arrest, and the proper scope of that search.
[147] The majority finds it significant that the officer who arrested Mr. Holman did not testify to any particular safety concerns. However, "the test of officer safety is objective rather than subjective, and therefore the officer need not personally be in fear" to justify a search. United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203, 1213 (10th Cir.2005). Whether or not the officer expressed subjective concerns for his safety, it is undisputed that he initiated contact with Mr. Holman based on a report of suspicious behavior, that he did not arrest Mr. Holman until a backup officer arrived to assist, and that the vehicle was not searched until Mr. Holman was removed and handcuffed. The objective facts indicate that, at a minimum, the officer's safety concerns were sufficient to prompt him into taking appropriate safety precautions.
[148] The majority also suggests that the validity of a search incident to arrest is dependent on the nature of the crime. If the nature of the crime indicates that weapons might be present, the majority would uphold the search. In contrast, in both Pierce and Mr. Holman's case, a person arrested for driving with a suspended license is portrayed as posing such minimal risk that the arresting officer may not search the area within the person's control at the time of the arrest. If this is the majority's view, then it would be appropriate to provide sufficient guidance to allow arresting officers to distinguish between crimes that imply the presence of weapons and crimes that do not. I find it impossible to articulate such guidance, because I agree with the United States Supreme Court: "Every arrest must be presumed to present a risk of danger to the arresting officer." Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 817, 70 L.Ed.2d 778, 785 (1982). The risk is no smaller in Wyoming than in the rest of the nation, and it is present regardless of the nature of the crime. Accordingly, I do not agree that the underlying crime should determine whether a search may be conducted. The "constitu*381tionality of a search incident to an arrest does not depend on whether there is any indication that the person arrested possesses weapons or evidence. The fact of a lawful arrest, standing alone, authorizes a search." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 35, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 2631, 61 LEd.2d 343, 348 (1979); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, 694 (1969).
[T49] The factors considered by the majority, such as the officer's subjective safety concerns and the nature of the crime underlying the arrest, are appropriately considered in determining whether the scope of a search incident to arrest is reasonable under all of the circumstances. That is the holding of Vasquez, and that is the key difference between Wyoming precedent and the federal "bright-line" rule established in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). The issue presented in Belton was "the proper scope of a search of the interior of an automobile incident to a lawful custodial arrest of its occupants." 453 U.S at 459, 101 S.Ct. at 2863 (emphasis added). The case of Chimel already established that the police were authorized, upon arresting a suspect, to search his person and the area within his immediate control. Belton recognized, however, that lower courts had "found no workable definition of 'the area within the immediate control of the arrestee when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile." 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S.Ct. at 2864. See David S. Rudstein, Belton Re-dux: Reevaluating Belton's Per Se Rule Governing the Search of an Automobile Incident to an Arrest, 40 Wake Forest L.Rev. 1287, 1292 (2005). The workable definition provided in Belton was this:
[When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. Such a container may, of course, be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have.
453 U.S. at 460-61, 101 S.Ct. at 2864 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).
[T50] In contrast to Belton's "bright-line rule" allowing broad and thorough vehicle searches, our decision in Vasquez established that the Wyoming Constitution restricts the scope of a search incident to arrest to what is reasonable under all of the cireumstances. Vasquez does not prohibit law enforcement officers from searching an arrested person and the area within his immediate control. It prohibits law enforcement officers from expanding the seope of that search beyond reasonable limits. Because there were no exigent circumstances relating to Mr. Holman's arrest, and no reasonable suspicion that evidence or weapons might be present, the officer would not have been justified in expanding the search of Mr. Holman's vehicle to include the inside of a closed fuse box, compare Vasquez, or the inside of a box that was taped shut, compare Clark. However, there is no dispute that Mr. Holman was validly arrested upon probable cause, and no dispute that the search of his vehicle was limited to the area within his immediate control at the time of his arrest. This limited search incident to Mr. Holman's arrest was not improper.
[T51] For the safety of law enforcement officers-along with the person arrested, any passengers, any bystanders, and the public at large-a limited vehicle search incident to an arrest has been, and should be, permissible under the Wyoming Constitution. I disagree with the more restrictive rule suggested by the majority. It does not "make sense to prescribe a constitutional test that is entirely at odds with safe and sensible police procedures." United States v. Fleming, 677 F.2d 602, 607 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 887-88 (9th Cir.1991).
[152] In this case, the majority holds that a search incident to arrest must be justified by testimony establishing probable *382cause, as though it were an automobile search, or by testimony establishing suspicion of the presence of evidence or weapons, as though it were a detention search. This represents an unjustified departure from Wyoming precedent. Consistent with that precedent, I would hold that the valid arrest of Mr. Holman justified the search of his person and of the area within his immediate control at the time of his arrest. Because the search of Mr. Holman's vehicle was limited to the area within his immediate control, it was reasonable under all of the cireum-stances, and I would affirm the district court's decision that the search did not violate Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.