Court Opinion

ID: 9633120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:34:36.179008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:29.605629
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
This is a case in which the police clearly overreached in the course of their investigation. The consent obtained was to look inside the suitcase, nothing more. The court is correct in noting that
[cjonsensual searches generally cannot be destructive. United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (8th Cir.2000). Cutting or destroying an object during a search requires either explicit consent for the destructive search or articulable suspicion that supports a finding that probable cause exists to do the destructive search. Id. at 1089.
Ante at 932. Here, there was neither probable cause nor articulable suspicion sufficient to extend the search by cutting into the candles. The best that the court can do by way of precedent is to cite the automobile exception relied upon in cases such as Alverez and United States v. Urbina, 431 F.3d 305, 310 (8th Cir.2005), but the policies underlying the automobile exception are wholly inapplicable here. The constitutional approach required the secur*934ing of the suitcase, which the consent to search its interior permitted, followed by an application for a search warrant. The shortcut adopted by the investigators was fatal to the government’s position. The district court should be reversed. Accordingly, I dissent.