Court Opinion

ID: 9745504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:05:08.23952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:02.039982
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As noted by the majority, a search pursuant to Chimel is valid if it is justified by the need to seize weapons and other things which might be used to assault an officer ..., as well as by the need to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime — things which might easily happen where the weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 764, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Taking a step back, it is well established that the “touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,” and reasonableness is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996).
The majority concludes that the search was not designed to prevent the destruction of evidence because the officers testified that when they “heard the distinct, porcelain-on-porcelain sound, they thought the occupants might be hiding evidence, not destroying it.” Op. at 14. As noted above, however, the applicable standard is objective. Therefore, the subjective intentions of an officer “ ‘do[ ] not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.’ ” Robinette, 519 U.S. at 38, 117 S.Ct. 417 (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)).
Here, all three officers testified explicitly and consistently that before they entered the room, they heard a “very distinct sound that appeared to be porcelain-on-porcelain, which in [the officers’] experience sounded like a toilet lid being *846knocked around.” Tr. p. 12. I believe that as an objective matter, a reasonable officer could have inferred from this sound that one of the occupants of the hotel room was attempting to destroy evidence — specifically, drugs — by dumping it into the toilet tank. Because the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the officers’ actions pursuant to Chimel, their subjective intentions and concerns do not invalidate the search. Thus, I believe that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment and would affirm the trial court’s admission of the evidence.