Court Opinion

ID: 9728703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:14:39.407278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:51.147843
License: Public Domain

WHITE, P. J.
I respectfully dissent.
Officer Christopherson testified that “Yes” she placed Ms. Prance under custodial arrest for possessing the drugs that she “saw between Mr. Kint’s legs as he was getting out of the car; ...” Christopherson based her belief that the white substance present in the vial was a controlled substance “on all of [her] experience and training.” She further testified that she “[knew] from experience that people who use controlled substances when they are in a vehicle together, they’re usually in the process of sharing controlled substances.” The magistrate concluded, however, that “[s]he did not have the right,” i.e., probable cause, to place Ms. Prance under (custodial) arrest for (jointly) possessing “those drugs.” He reasoned “it has nothing to do with the fact that she was wrong about them being drugs, . . . she had an inadequate basis [i.e., her experience] to connect Ms. Prance with those drugs.” After finding it to be a fact that Officer Christopherson “believed [the basis] she was relying on was that it [i.e., the warrantless search] was subject [incident]—to the arrest of Ms. Prance,” the magistrate concluded: “That falls because the arrest of Ms. Prance was not lawful.” As regards the lawfulness of Christopherson’s arrest, however, the magistrate concluded that “the officer was reasonable in her conclusion—had probable cause to believe initially that there were drugs in the vial, even though there were not drugs in the vial, and that she, therefore, could arrest Mr. Kint and move him away from the vehicle and put him under arrest.” The magistrate further found that the police conducted “a Belton-type search” of items that “did not and clearly to the officer’s knowledge did not belong to the arrestee,” i.e., Mr. Kint. This fact raised “an interesting issue” in the magistrate’s mind, one that “frankly” he was “able to conjure up reasonable theories that went either way.”
*1535The magistrate in the final analysis held Ms. Prance to answer charges on the basis of, I think, his misperception of dictum appearing in United States v. Vaughan (9th Cir. 1983) 718 F.2d 332, 334. Vaughan was a backseat auto passenger when the driver was stopped and served with a grand jury warrant for his arrest; a front seat passenger was arrested by warrant for an alleged violation of probation. When the car was stopped by government agents, all three occupants got out. Rather than “ ‘freeze’ ” as ordered at gunpoint, Vaughan, with his vinyl briefcase under his arm, attempted to walk away not once but twice. All of which resulted in Vaughan being handcuffed even though probable cause to arrest was lacking. The agents did not know of Vaughan, i.e., neither his identity nor his involvement in a conspiracy to smuggle drugs. An agent seized and fully searched Vaughan’s briefcase on the scene without the benefit of a warrant. Fletcher, J., writing for an unanimous panel of the court consisting of Goodwin, J. and Tang, J., held that the briefcase search was not authorized by New York v. Belton (1981) 453 U.S. 454 [69 L.Ed.2d 768, 101 S.Ct. 2860], Judge Fletcher reasoned that no doubt existed as to Vaughan’s ownership of the briefcase because he carried it out with him rather than leave it behind in the car. In addition, he was not in the car when his companions were arrested. In words not necessary to the court’s decision, Fletcher, J., opined “[i]f he had left the briefcase in the car, admittedly it could have been searched.” (United States v. Vaughan, supra, 718 F.2d at p. 334.)
The magistrate decided that he was going to “defer” to the last above quoted “dicta.” He apparently concluded, then, that because Ms. Prance left her purse and blue denim jacket behind on the bench seat of the truck, the park police could under Belton constitutionally search her personal possessions contemporaneously incident to Mr. Kint’s lawful custodial arrest. As I see his factual findings and separate conclusions, which he thought to be “clear,” the magistrate found that Ms. Prance, like Vaughan, was not in the truck when Mr. Kint’s arrest became a fait accompli. In addition, the magistrate found, in light of Christopherson’s testimony, that “the items searched did not and clearly to the officer’s knowledge did not belong to the arrestee,” i.e., Mr. Kint. As was the case in Vaughan’s instance, then, no doubt existed as to Ms. Prance’s ownership of the items searched.
All of the above written to this point is prompted because today the majority attempts to hold constitutionally reasonable Officers Christopher-son’s and Dickey’s warrantless searches of Ms. Prance’s purse and blue denim jacket, relying on the authority of the straightforward, workable, bright-line rule of Belton, supra, viewing the searches under review as being container searches “contemporaneously incident” to Christopherson’s lawful custodial arrest of Mr. Kint. The majority points out that Ms. Prance’s *1536appellate counsel, assigned to her by this court, does not question on appeal the “validity” of Mr. Kint’s custodial arrest, an act of omission which I think defies rational explanation. During the 1538.5 hearing, the deputy public defender’s cross-examination certainly challenged the lawfulness of Kint’s custodial arrest. Over the deputy district attorney’s objection that Ms. Prance “does not have standing to object to the arrest of Mr. Kint,” the magistrate allowed the questioning because as he stated: “it seems to me to be relevant to the arrest of his client. And presumably, any searches that took place incident to that arrest could be challenged if her arrest was invalid.” Further, in making his “clear” factual findings, the magistrate stated: “By the way, one thing I haven’t said, I believe Ms. Prance has standing to object to the search of each of those items,” i.e., “the jacket and the purse in the car.” In addition, respondent’s brief concedes that “appellant has standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim. We do not contend, on appeal, that appellant abandoned property found inside the truck cab by walking ten feet from the truck.” Surely the warrantless search of Ms. Prance’s purse and jacket, both personal “effects” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, raised a Fourth Amendment claim. Even after the truth-in-evidence provision of Proposition 8, both containers carry with them, particularly when closed, a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to summon forth the protective guarantees of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “In the area of Fourth Amendment guarantees, the courts have a vital obligation in warrantless search cases to ensure that citizens’ rights are not unreasonably invaded by police activity.” Bird, C. J., dissenting in Tamborino v. Superior Court (1986) 41 Cal.3d 919, 927 [226 Cal.Rptr. 868, 719 P.2d 242].
For my part then, it bears noting, if only in passing, that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to establish as to Mr. Kint a reasonable cause for his warrantless custodial arrest. The prosecution’s proof established Officer Christopherson’s subjective belief that in her presence Kint possessed rock cocaine, a controlled substance. Christopherson’s mind settled upon her belief based on the fact that Kint apparently had between his legs while seated in the truck a small plastic vial best described as containing a white substance. “Best described,” that is, because Christopherson seized and pocketed the vial without examining it closely to determine its true content. Instead she arrested, patsearched and handcuffed Mr. Kint’s hands behind him.
“Police officers cannot properly claim that probable cause supports an arrest unless ‘the facts available to the officers at the moment of arrest would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that an offense has been committed.’ Officers cannot reasonably conclude on the basis of behavior that is entirely consistent with innocent activity that an offense has *1537been committed.” (People v. Miller (1972) 7 Cal.3d 219, 225 [101 Cal.Rptr. 860, 496 P.2d 1228], citations omitted.) The fact of Mr. Kint’s vial containing cotton appearing as a white substance was entirely consistent with possession of over-the-counter pill medication, an innocent activity. Moreover, “a man of reasonable caution” would have determined that the vial contained naught but innocent cotton by examining it close-up by sight, touch and smell before jumping to Officer Christopherson’s unreasonable conclusion. On this question of law, then, my independent judgment, albeit not sought by the parties on this appeal, is opposite from the magistrate’s. But, of course, probable cause was a question of law in the magistrate’s court, and is one of law when raised in this court.
Manifestly, when I use the legal objective yardstick, i.e., probable cause, to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the arresting officer’s subjective belief that Mr. Kint had committed a jailable offense, I conclude that Kint’s warrantless custodial arrest was unlawful, i.e., unreasonable police conduct prohibited by the federal Constitution and that of our state. Moreover, once Christopherson, in keeping with her training, decided to exercise ordinary caution or prudence, she reasonably discovered that her subjective belief was “wrong,” quoting the magistrate. Reasonably, Christopherson concluded both that she in fact had no probable cause to arrest Mr. Kint and further that she had no reasonable basis justifying Mr. Kint’s or Ms. Prance’s continuing arrest and maximum restraint. Moreover, under the circumstances known to the police, it was at law, subterfuge, pure and simple on their part to attempt justification of their warrantless search as being contemporaneously incident to lawful custodial arrests; whether said to be that of Mr. Kint or Ms. Prance, Officer Christopherson testified that when searching the truck, she was searching for “controlled substances.” But, of course, on this record the prosecution has never shown that the officer had probable cause to believe that a controlled substance was anywhere in the passenger cab of the truck. And, of course, a warrantless search is never justified by what it turns up. Further discussion of an issue not framed on this appeal, I say naught.
Now I dissent from the court’s majority opinion, recognizing, as I must, that by decision of Ms. Prance’s appellate counsel the lawfulness of Mr. Kint’s custodial arrest is not at issue on this appeal, albeit an issue of law. In any event, I must dissent.
In my view neither Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 [23 L.Ed.2d 685, 89 S.Ct. 2034] nor New York v. Belton, supra, 453 U.S. 454, provides an adequate basis for upholding the warrantless search of appellant’s purse and jacket.
*1538To be slightly more precise than the majority, Chimel stated: “When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule.” (Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at pp. 762-763 [23 L.Ed.2d at p. 694].)
However, the Chimel “immediate-control” test is limited. Once a suspect has been handcuffed outside a vehicle, it cannot be said that he or she has immediate control of the interior of the vehicle (see United States v. McCormick (9th Cir. 1974) 502 F.2d 281, 286); nor is it likely that he or she has control of the vehicle’s passenger compartment after being placed in a patrol car.
My colleagues place great reliance on the fact that appellant’s purse and jacket were in immediate reach of Kint while he was still in the truck. They reason that either item could have contained a weapon, posing an immediate threat to the officer’s personal safety. However, they ignore the fact that by the time of the search of appellant’s property, both appellant and Kint had been handcuffed, patsearched and placed into two separate patrol cars. Under these circumstances the Chimel rationale is inappropriate.
Similarly, I do not believe the search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle pursuant to Belton extends to the search of property which obviously is owned by an individual for whom there is no probable cause to arrest.
I do not intend to discuss the myriad shortcomings of Belton here. Justice Brennan anticipated the difficulties in his dissent. (See New York v. Belton, supra, 453 U.S. at pp. 463-472 [69 L.Ed.2d at pp. 777-782]; see also 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed. 1987) § 7.1(c), pp. 12-21.) Rather, I focus on an individual’s Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” when that person has not been legally arrested.
The Belton reasoning is based in large part on the finding of a lawful custodial arrest: “ ‘The authority to search the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence, does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would *1539in fact be found upon the person of the suspect. A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.’ ” (New York v. Belton, supra, 453 U.S. at p. 461 [69 L.Ed.2d at pp. 775-776], quoting United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, 235 [38 L.Ed.2d 427, 440-441, 94 S.Ct. 467].) The issue that Belton did not consider, and with which we are here faced, is what happens to the Fourth Amendment rights of the person for whom there is no probable cause to arrest. There is a paucity of case law on the issue.
In State v. Peck (1982) 305 N.C. 734 [291 S.E.2d 637], the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the search of a passenger in a car whose driver had been arrested on a Terry1 stop rationale. In a concurring opinion Justice Mitchell stated he would uphold the search on both Terry and Belton. He reasoned that since Belton authorized the search of containers in the passenger compartment, a patdown of passengers would also be authorized. (Peck, supra, at p. 643.)
This reasoning was rejected in United States v. Bell (6th Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 495, 499-500, footnote 5: “Because Bell was legitimately possessed of his own expectation of privacy, Belton [does] not support the proposition that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile authorized by Belton . . . extends to passengers in a car driven by one who is being arrested pursuant to a warrant.”
The municipal court judge and the Attorney General find support for the search of appellant’s property in United States v. Vaughan, supra, 718 F.2d 332. In that case, as heretofore discussed (see this dissent, ante, p. 1535), the defendant was a passenger in a car which had been stopped. The driver and another passenger had warrants out for their arrests. The three exited the vehicle and defendant, carrying his briefcase under his arm, started walking away. The police brought defendant back to the car, took the briefcase and opened it. Finding the search unauthorized by Belton, the appellate court stated: “. . . Vaughan did not leave the briefcase in the car, nor was he in the car when his companions were arrested. If he had left the briefcase in the car, admittedly it could have been searched.” (Id., at p. 334.)
Vaughan is inapposite to the case at bench. If Vaughan had left his briefcase in the automobile, the police would not have known to whom it belonged and therefore would have been justified in searching it. To the extent the dicta in Vaughan means that the police could search the *1540briefcase, knowing that it was the personal property of a person for whom they had no probable cause to arrest, I disagree.
In my view, this case represents the type of pretextual search described in David Silk’s Comment, When Bright Lines Break Down: Limiting New York v. Belton (1987) 136 U. Pa.L.Rev. 281, 308-311. However, the consequences are even more egregious. I hold that the search of the pickup truck was illegal. Officer Christopherson noticed a vehicle without its front license plate; she went to investigate and arrested Kint when the vial, which she believed contained cocaine, dropped to the floor. However, she searched the passenger compartment of the truck after she realized that the vial only contained cotton. Even if such a procedure can be condoned, the question is, what became of appellant’s Fourth Amendment right?
If, as I believe, the rationale for Belton searches is that a legal custodial arrest justifies an intrusion into the arrestee’s right to privacy, there is no justification for the search of the personal property belonging to a person who has not been legally arrested. If the rule is otherwise, any individual relinquishes his or her Fourth Amendment right by riding in a vehicle with another person. Can any citizen be given a guaranty that somebody with whom he or she is travelling is not going to be arrested?
There is no question in the case at bench that Officer Christopherson knew the purse and jacket in the pickup truck belonged to appellant. She stated that these items obviously did not belong to Mr. Kint. Since the search of appellant’s property cannot be justified as incident to her lawful custodial arrest, evidence of the contents of defendant’s property should have been suppressed.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause to determine the sufficiency of the affidavit in support of the search warrant for appellant’s home.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 21, 1991, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 11, 1991. Mosk, J., Broussard, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

 Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868].