Court Opinion

ID: 9553959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:38:02.762618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:41.224915
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Regardless of whether exigent circumstances justified the search, I believe the search was proper as incident to appellant’s lawful arrest. The jacket was within appellant’s “immediate control,” as that term has been defined by the courts.
The main opinion recognizes that police restraint is not dispositive of the immediate control issue. Therefore, even though appellant was handcuffed during the seizure, the jacket could still have been within his immediate control. See State v. Kent, 665 P.2d 1317, 1317-18 (Utah 1983) (upholding search where defendant was “handcuffed and required to lie on the ground” and ten officers were present); State v. Moreno, 910 P.2d 1245, 1247 (Utah App.) (stating that “doubt about the arrestee’s ability to access weapons or evidence in a particular area because of distance, or police restraint, does not prohibit police from properly searching that area”), cert, denied, 916 P.2d 909 (Utah 1996).
The main opinion concludes that, because the cocaine was “within the lining of the jacket,” it would have been difficult for appellant to grab the evidence. This court, however, has upheld the seizure of a diaper bag containing a gun where it was improbable that the suspects could physically access the weapon. State v. Harrison, 805 P.2d 769, 784-85 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 817 P.2d 327 (Utah 1991); see also United States v. Palumbo, 735 F.2d 1095, 1097 (8th Cir.) (stating that area of immediate control “is not constrained because the arrestee is unlikely at the time of the arrest to actually reach into that area”), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 934, 105 S.Ct. 332, 83 L.Ed.2d 268 (1984); Ricks v. State, 82 Md.App. 369, 571 A.2d 887, 891 (1990) (noting that “the area deemed to be within an arrestee’s reach, lunge or grasp is broad” and is not necessarily limited by “apparent obstacles inhibiting an arrestee’s movement”), affd, 322 Md. 183, 586 A.2d 740 (1991). Furthermore, while the main opinion concludes that no one else was close to the jacket, the record reflects that Jensen was standing near the officers when they searched the jacket. Thus, as in Harrison, the officers in this case may have been concerned that someone might attempt to gain access to the evidence. See Harrison, 805 P.2d at 785.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I strongly disagree that Detective Russo’s testimony was ambiguous in describing the distance between appellant and the jacket. Detective Russo testified as follows:
[Prosecutor]: Okay. All the time you’re talking marijuana and cocaine, is that correct?
[Detective Russo]: Yes.
[Prosecutor]: And Mr. Wells is present? [Detective Russo]: Yes. •
[Prosecutor]: Uh, how close is he to you in the conversation?
[Detective Russo]: He was within feet.
[[Image here]]
[Appellant’s Counsel]: Did you go to the jacket?
[Detective Russo]: Kelly Jensen took me to the jacket, and Sterner picked it up and she said look in the sleeve....
[Appellant’s Counsel]: Okay. Where was Mr. Wells at the time you uh, found the jacket and looked through it?
[Detective Russo]: He was — the basement has, is divided into about three rooms, but they all adjoin, um, I can’t tell you for sure, he was, he was down in the basement just several feet from us.
(Emphasis added.) In my view, Detective Russo’s inability to specify the exact number of feet separating appellant and the jacket is *393not fatal to the State’s argument. I believe that “several feet” is a sufficient approximation of the “area from -within which [appellant] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); see also State v. Robalewski, 418 A.2d 817, 823 (R.I.1980) (requiring an approximation of the distance between the arrestee and the object searched). Therefore, I believe the uneontroverted evidence establishes that the jacket was within appellant’s immediate control.
In State v. Austin, 584 P.2d 853, 856 (Utah 1978), the Utah Supreme Court held that a search incident to arrest must be “properly-confined to a limited area within the [suspect’s] control.” I believe the limited search in this case was so confined. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress the cocaine.