Court Opinion

ID: 9714795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:45:49.071044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.674334
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). Coincident to arrest, Preston v. United States (1964), 376 US 364 *560(84 S Ct 881; 11 L Ed 2d 777) holds that without a warrant, a search may be made of the person arrested or the things under his immediate control for weapons or the fruits or implements used to commit the crime for which the person is arrested.
In the case at bar, the defendant was hiding more than 200 feet away from the car when he was arrested. The arrest was made by an officer who had been informed that a warrant had been issued for the defendant.*
In this case the arrest had been completed and the officer conducted the search after the arrest and removal of the defendant to the police station. He had been informed that the defendant had thrown an automatic pistol at the gas station owner and that the arrest was on the strength of a warrant for some crime. From this the searching officer believed the defendant had committed the crime of “assault with a deadly weapon and/or carrying a concealed weapon” or “assault with attempt to murder.”
The propriety of a search without a warrant is tested by the knowledge and state of mind of the searcher.
Searches incident to arrest may be for weapons threatening the safety of the arresting officer or to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime for which the arrest is made (United States v. Babinowitz [1950], 339 US 56 [70 S Ct 430; 94 L Ed 653]) or for contraband.
From the facts set forth in my brother’s opinion, the searching officer: (1) Was not in danger at the time of the search (the defendant and his companions had been removed to the police station), (2) He did not know what he was looking for (he *561did not know for what crime the men had been arrested), and (3) A sight search of the car by the searching officer revealed no contraband — only an office machine (later established to be a check protector).
On these facts, a magistrate even standing beside the car conld not properly authorize a search warrant.
I would reverse the conviction.

 The searching officer testified that he did not know for what crime the arrest warrant had been issued.