Court Opinion

ID: 9760204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:43:09.460513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.285023
License: Public Domain

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result and agree with the reasoning expressed on all but one issue — the search. On that issue the majority opinion sanctions the search of the passenger compartment and the resulting seizure of evidence on the basis of a search incident to an arrest. That part of the holding disregards the Fourth Amendment because an investigatory stop does not require probable cause. In a footnote the majority opinion states that the search also can be justified as a search incident to arrest. That latter reason is the only basis on which this case can be sustained. “It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) quoted in Michigan v. Summers, 450 U.S. 905, 101 S. Ct. 2587 (1981). Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). In this case there are two seizures, seizure of the person and seizure of the evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States has treated the two in differing ways. Seizure of the person involves a higher governmental interest than does seizure of evidence. The former allows an official intrusion for the intense governmental interest of protecting the safety of the arresting officer while the latter allows a lesser intrusion based only upon the governmental interest in preventing the concealment or destruction of evidence. The Court has traditionally limited the reach of any Fourth Amendment exception to that which is necessary to accommodate the identified needs of society. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979). The difference between the two seizures is illustrated by stating the general rule for each. An arrest, or seizure of a person, without a warrant is valid only when the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person has committed a felony, Johnson v. State, 249 Ark. 208, 458 S.W. 2d 409 (1970); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948): Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), while a seizure of evidence without a warrant is, per se, unreasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized four exceptions, which are material to this case, where warrantless seizures of the person can be based on less than probable cause and still comply with the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment. First, in Terry v. Ohio, supra, a limited stop and frisk was approved. Second, in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) a stop was approved to investigate an informant’s tip that the person stopped was armed and carrying narcotics. Third, in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Court held that border patrol officers may make investigatory stops of vehicles near the country’s borders if there are articulable facts that reasonably warrant a suspicion that the vehicle contains illegal aliens. Fourth, in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), the Court held that police could make an investigatory stop where there is an objective manifestation that the person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Again, the investigatory stop does not have to be based on probable cause, it can be based upon the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. Not one of these cases discussing a warrantless arrest upon only a reasonable suspicion intimates that an accompanying search and seizure of evidence can go beyond protection of the police officer’s safety. A seizure of evidence without a warrant is, per se, unreasonable. The Supreme Court of the United States has set forth only one narrowly drawn exception where a seizure of evidence can be based on less than probable cause. It is the protective search doctrine set out in Terry v. Ohio, supra, and Adams v. Williams, supra. It authorizes a search of the clothing and that area which is immediately reachable by the arrested person. The basis of this exception is that the arresting officer has every right to assure himself that the person does not have within reach a weapon, although the weapon may be evidence. The rationale of this exception is applicable to an investigatory stop, an arrest, a frisk, or any other seizure. It was applicable to the case before us and the frisk of the appellant was obviously valid. If a gun had been discovered during the frisk, it would have been admissible evidence. However, the appellant had been behind his car, had already been frisked and was about to be placed in the arresting officer’s car when a second officer conducted a search of the interior of appellant’s car. The search of the interior of the car was not necessary for the officer’s protection. It was necessary only to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. See A. R. Crim. P. 3.4, Vol. 4A (Repl. 1977). All cases approving a warrantless search to prevent the concealment of evidence are synthesized with probable cause. Until probable cause is shown the warrantless search is narrowly limited to the governmental interest or protecting the police officer. After the probable cause standard is met the Court has not so narrowly defined the governmental interest and, as a result, the sanctioned area of the search is not as narrow. The Court has stated that a warrantless search of an automobile can be valid where the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. The governmental interest causing the Court to authorize this exception is the mobility of an automobile and the concealment of evidence. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Arkansas v. Sanders, supra; Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980). There is also the “automobile exception” where the scope of a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest, as opposed to investigatory stop, extends over the entire passenger compartment of the automobile in which the person arrested was riding. New York v. Belton, 450 U.S. 1028, 101 S. Ct. 2860 (1981). Generally, however, the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest is governed by the principles set forth in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). These exceptions, based on probable cause, sanction a limited search to prevent the concealment or the destruction of evidence. While this area of search is limited, it is broader than the very narrow area of protective search based only upon reasonable suspicion. The reason is that the higher standard of probable cause allows the sanctioning of a greater governmental interest without violating the reasonableness clause of the Fourth Amendment. The exceptions announced in Carroll, Arkansas, Colorado, New York and Chimel have two governmental interest bases; first, the need to protect the officer and, second, the need to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. The first basis can be authorized by reasonable suspicion, while the second is authorized only when there is probable cause either for the arrest or for believing the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. Yet, the majority opinion sanctions a search to prevent the concealment of evidence, not on arrest and probable cause, but on an investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion. That result is based upon the fallacious assumption that a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment for the seizure of a person on less than probable cause creates a second exception of equal standing for the seizure of evidence. Such a double exception swallows the general rule that Fourth Amendment seizures of evidence are reasonable only if based on probable cause. In the case before us the police had probable cause to arrest appellant, as opposed to stop to investigate, and that is the only basis upon which the search of the passenger compartment of the automobile can be sustained. I would affirm on that basis. See New York v. Belton, supra. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Holt joins in this opinion.