Court Opinion

ID: 9540022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:12:18.696729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:32.462735
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE MILLS, dissenting in part and concurring in part: As is the way of all flesh, my brothers are partly wrong, partly right. The initial search was valid. I dissent. The subsequent auto impoundment and search were improper. I concur. The majority says the “flashlight search” of the motel room was valid and I agree. But — they go on to say — there was a second, subsequent search that was not incident to the lawful arrest since “time had passed.” With this I most decidedly disagree. The law officers discovered contraband in plain view, identified it as such, locked and secured the premises, and then awaited the arrival of evidence specialists within their own law enforcement agency to expertly handle the inventory of the prohibited materials. To my view, this was no more than a continuation of the same legal search. It was not a broken-off, second or subsequent search — merely a delayed portion of the same search, or a single search in two segments, if you will. And whatever contraband that was initially eyeballed in plain view by the arresting officers (and later inventoried by their evidence expert colleagues) was certainly admissible in evidence. Since I agree with the other members of the panel as to the impropriety of the auto search, upon the remandment of this case I would permit into evidence the limited fruits of the plain view identification in the motel room.