Court Opinion

ID: 9581136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:11:57.87178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:44.014069
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge
(specially concurring):
While I concur in this decision, I do so only because of the pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Robinson, supra, and Gustafson v. Florida, supra. I note also that neither of those decisions, nor this decision, makes entirely clear what constitutes a “custodial arrest,” except as it appears in footnote 2 to the Robinson decision, wherein it discusses the evidentiary hearing testimony offered by Sergeant Dennis C. Donaldson, a Division Instructor, when he defined the “full custody arrest.” The footnote recites in part: “. . . when a police officer makes ‘a full custody arrest’ which he [Donaldson] defined as where an officer ‘would arrest a subject and subsequently *1335transport him to a police facility for booking,’ the officer is trained to make a full ‘field type search’. . . 414 U.S. at page 221, 94 S.Ct. at page 470, 38 L.Ed.2d at page 433.
Consequently, I interpret this Court’s statement, “ . . . that a full personal search incident to a valid, custodial arrest, based on probable cause, does not require further justification, and does not violate Article 2, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution, . . . ” applies only to those violations which would otherwise authorize the arresting officer to make a full custodial arrest for the purpose of booking and jailing the person arrested; and that such does not apply to minor traffic violations under municipal ordinances, and state statutes which generally provide for the issuance of a citation. Admittedly, driving without a proper operator’s permit is an offense for which one may be arrested and incarcerated.
It should be noted also that footnote 6, to the majority decision in Robinson, states:
“The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals also discussed its understanding of the law where the police officer makes what the court characterized as ‘a routine traffic stop,’ i. e., where the officer would simply issue a notice of violation and allow the offender to proceed. Since in this case the officer did not make a full custody arrest of the violator, we do not reach the question dismissed by the Court of Appeals.” 414 U.S. at page 236, 94 S.Ct. at page 477, 38 L.Ed.2d at page 441. (Emphasis added.)
Finally, I do not subscribe to the broad sweeping statement of this Court’s decision which states, “ . . . all cases in conflict with this opinion and the opinions of the Supreme Court in Robinson and Gus-tafson, are expressly overruled.” As I view the subject, Robinson and Gustafson have left too much undecided to warrant such a broad statement. Otherwise, I concur.