| Useful Information |
|
TO: ALL COMMANDERS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FIELD ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STAFF REFERENCE: INFORMATION ON THE SUPREME COURT CASE, ARIZONA V. GANT, SEARCHES INCIDENTAL TO ARREST. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN ARIZONA V. GANT CHANGED THE LAW WITH SEARCH INCIDENTS TO ARREST. THE NEW YORK V. BELTON CASE (1981) NO LONGER AUTHORIZES A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AFTER THE ARRESTEE HAS BEEN HANDCUFFED AND PLACED IN THE BACK OF A PATROL VEHICLE. THIS DECISION MEANS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN NO LONGER AUTOMATICALLY RELY ON "SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST" AS GROUNDS FOR SEARCHING A VEHICLE. BUT THE DECISION DOES NOT MEAN THAT A VEHICLE CAN NEVER BE SEARCHED FOLLOWING AN ARREST. WHAT IS NOW REQUIRED IS THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE GROUNDS FOR A VEHICLE SEARCH. THE GANT DECISION IDENTIFIES FOUR JUSTIFICATIONS FOR LAWFUL VEHICLE SEARCHES: (1) THE NEW "REASON TO BELIEVE" TEST - OFFICERS MAY STILL CONDUCT A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST WHEN THERE IS "REASON TO BELIEVE" THAT EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE CRIME OF ARREST MIGHT BE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE. IT WILL GREATLY ASSIST OFFICERS CALLED TO TESTIFY AND PROSECUTORS IF OFFICERS INCLUDE IN THEIR REPORTS THE FACTS FOR AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE EVIDENCE MAY BE LOCATED IN THE VEHICLE. (2) THE "AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION" - ANY PART OF A VEHICLE, INCLUDING THE TRUNK AND CLOSED CONTAINERS, MAY BE SEARCHED IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE VEHICLE CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND THE EVIDENCE MAY BE LOCATED IN THE AREA SEARCHED. (3) VEHICLE "PAT DOWNS" - DURING A DETENTION, IT IS LAWFUL TO CONDUCT A LIMITED SEARCH OF A PASSENGER COMPARTMENT FOR WEAPONS WHEN THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE DETAINEE OR ANOTHER PERSON ON THE SCENE IS DANGEROUS AND MAY GAIN IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO A WEAPON. (4) "SAFETY OR EVIDENTIARY INTERESTS" - PROTECTIVE SWEEPS, THE GANT COURT ADDED THAT THERE MAY BE STILL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SAFETY OR EVIDENTIARY INTERESTS WOULD JUSTIFY A SEARCH. THIS PROVIDES A CATCHALL FOR THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT YET DECIDED BY CASE LAW. ADDITIONAL BASES FOR CONDUCTING A LAWFUL SEARCH IN CALIFORNIA ALSO INCLUDES: (5) VEHICLE IMPOUND/INVENTORIES - VEHICLES PROPERLY IMPOUNDED PURSUANT TO A DEPARTMENTAL "STANDARDIZED" POLICY MAY BE INVENTORIED. THE POLICY NEED NOT BE IN WRITING, BUT OFFICERS MAY BE ASKED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING TO TESTIFY AS TO THE POLICY DIRECTIVES. (6) PAROLE AND PROBATION SEARCHES - IF AN OFFICER KNOWS THAT A PERSON CONNECTED TO THE VEHICLE IS ON PAROLE OR ON SEARCHABLE PROBATION, THE VEHICLE MAY BE SEARCHED PURSUANT TO THE PAROLEE'S OR PROBATIONER'S SEARCH CONDITION. (7) SEARCH FOR REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS - IF A DRIVER STOPPED FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION DENIES HAVING REGISTRATION, OFFICERS MAY, PRIOR TO ISSUING A CITATION, ENTER THE VEHICLE AND CONDUCT A LIMITED SEARCH OF THE AREAS WHERE SUCH DOCUMENTATION "REASONABLY MAY BE EXPECTED TO BE FOUND." GANT MAY HAVE LIMITED RETROACTIVITY. PROSECUTORS WORKING ON CASES WITH SEARCHES CONDUCTED PRIOR TO GANT WILL BE ABLE TO ARGUE THAT THE RECENT DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. HERRING PRECLUDES THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. BELTON WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW FOR 28 YEARS. FOLLOWING HERRING, EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRES A SHOWING THAT (1) THE OFFICER'S CONDUCT RESULTING IN THE UNLAWFUL SEARCH WAS OBJECTIVELY CULPABLE AND (2) SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE WILL SERVE A "DETERRENT EFFECT." BOTH OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ABSENT FOR SEARCHES CONDUCTED UNDER THE LONG-ESTABLISHED BELTON PRECEDENT. THESE CHANGES WILL BE INCORPORATED IN GENERAL ORDER 100.91, SEARCH AND SEIZURE POLICY. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS COMM-NET MESSAGE, OR PREVIOUS COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER, MAY BE DIRECTED TO OFFICER JEREMY LINSON OR SERGEANT JO PINI, FIELD SUPPORT SECTION, AT (916) 445-0752. CHP HDQTRS/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FIELD/ESD/JP/JL/BRUNET/MNB
|
