Court Opinion

ID: 9846861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:49:38.235005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:56.173914
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The search of the car in question was not such an incident of defendant’s arrest as to exempt the police from the requirement that a warrant be first procured. The circumstances of the arrest were not such as to make a search of the automobile necessary or desirable from the standpoint of the arresting officer’s safety. There was nothing about the proximity of the automobile to the arrest which made it any more necessary to preserve evidence within it than if it had been parked elsewhere. Neither was any privacy of the defendant in its interior forfeited by him in any way. Therefore, if the search is to be sustained it must be on a basis other than that it was incident to an arrest.
If it is sustained it must be upon the basis that it was reasonable, considering all the circumstances. Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 84 S Ct 881, 11 L ed2d 777 (1964); Cooper v. California, 386 US 58, 59-60, 87 S Ct 788, 17 L ed2d 730, reh and modif den 386 US 988, 87 S Ct 1283,18 L ed2d 243 (1967). There can be no doubt that the police had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested. However, it is not my impression that this alone will comply with federal Fourth Amendment requirements. This is what is normally required for the issuance of a warrant. If probable cause is sufficient to merit a search without a warrant, warrants are superfluous in all cases of searches of automobiles. While Cooper is ambiguous; *183I do not read Cooper to intend this. I see nothing other than the officer’s probable cause which justifies the application of other than the usual rule that a warrant is required.
In considering whether the requirement of a warrant may be dispensed with, it is proper to balance the need for effective law enforcement against the fight of privacy involved. This was the basis for the exception of a search which is incident to an arrest. It may well be that effective law enforcement and the public good will require that this automotive area of privacy be forfeited when the searching officer has probable cause to believe evidence of crime is within the vehicle. Until such time as it more fully appears that this area of privacy must be sacrificed to efficient law enforcement, I view federal constitutional requirements as not permitting a search similar to the one here.
Sloan, J. joins in this dissent.