Basically Law

Some may think that the point of getting a warrant in this case is unnecessary since the officers would be able to get a warrant anyway.  But, would police get a warrant in this case?  Where is the probable cause to search the vehicle?

Read the opinion, State v. Buelna Valdez and State v. Ruiz

Issue.  Did a warrantless search of a vehicle after the arrest of its passenger violate the Fourth Amendment (and related provision in the Washington State Constitution) or was it allowed as a search incident to arrest?

Background.  Officers pulled over a minivan with only one working headlight.  Jesus David Buelna Valdez was driving and Reyes Rios Ruiz was the passenger.  Officers ran Buelna Valdez's identification and learned that he had an outstanding arrest warrant.  Officers cuffed Buelna Valdez and place him in the back of their car.

Officers asked Ruiz out of the car while they searched the vehicle.  Officers found no evidence of contraband but did notice some loose panels.  They brought in a drug sniffing dog who aided officers in finding approximately two pounds of methamphetamine.  Ruiz was arrested.

Both admitted to possessing and to intending to sell the drugs.  At trial, they moved to suppress the evidence.  The trial court denied the motion because it found the search proper within the scope of a search incident to arrest.  The two were convicted and appealed.  The Washington Court of Appeals ruled to suppress the evidence and the Washington Supreme Court agreed.

Court's Analysis.  The Washington Supreme Court had to decide to what extent officers can search an automobile incident to an arrest.  Washington's protections against warrantless (unreasonable) searches is greater than that of the U.S. Constitution.  Still, under either standard, the search was unreasonable.

Warrantless searches are only valid if "exigencies of the situtation [make] that course imperative."  Thus, there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement.  One such exception is a search incident to arrest.  When officers arrest an individual, there is the possibility that the arrestee may reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence.  In such a situation, there is no time to get a warrant, so officers can search the immediate vicinity of the arrestee.

But, the search must be narrowly tailored to prevent an arrestee from grabbing a weapon or destroying evidence.  If a search can be delayed to obtain a warrant without running afoul of these concerns, officers must get a warrant.  The Court writes:

A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible under the search incident to arrest exception when that search is necessary to preserve officer safety or prevent destruction or concealment of evidence of the crime of arrest.

In this case, the search was conducted when Buelna Valdez was handcuffed.  There was no possibility that he could grab a weapon or destroy evidence.  Further, there was no need for the search since Buelna Valdez was arrested on an outstanding warrant.  Thus, the search was unconstitutional.

Even though the two had confessed, a confession, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of a crime (evidence/fact that a crime actually occurred).  Therefore, the convictions of the two individuals was reversed for lack of evidence.