Court Opinion

ID: 9790094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:46:03.150458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:26.210159
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J., Concurring.
I reach the same result as the majority, but by a somewhat different route: I would find that there were exigent circumstances on these facts.
While the defendant and another suspect were briefly “detained”—in the words of the majority—during the search of the car, they were not under *17arrest. Nor could they be, because at that time the police had no valid basis to arrest them on any specific charges.
If, as proposed by the dissent, the police had been required to secure the vehicle while an officer obtained a warrant or to tow the vehicle to a garage for that purpose, they would have had no probable cause to further detain the suspects during the longer period necessary to accomplish either alternative. (See, e.g., People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 586-587 [159 Cal.Rptr. 191, 601 P.2d 207].) Thus, by the time the vehicle was ultimately searched and the stolen articles found, the suspects would have been long gone.
Under these facts, an exigency existed that justified the search on the scene. For that reason I concur in the majority conclusion.