People v. Evans
200 Cal. App. 4th 735
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Evans was stopped for traffic violations after officers observed erratic driving and a failure to signal, prompting questions and Evans to exit the vehicle.
- Evans refused to exit; officers used force, including breaking a window, Tasing, pepper spraying, and placing him on the ground, leading to an arrest for interfering with a police investigation.
- A warrantless search of the car at the scene revealed 11 empty baggies and $65, but no contraband; a second warrantless search at an impound yard uncovered cocaine in the air vent.
- The trial court denied Evans’s suppression motion, ruling the first search as incident to arrest and the second under the automobile exception were lawful.
- Evans pled no contest to count 1 after the suppression ruling and appellate review followed challenging the suppression denial.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that neither the initial nor the impound-yard searches were justified under the Fourth Amendment and directing relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial vehicle search valid as a search incident to arrest? | People contend valid under Chimel/Gant extension. | Evans argues not within reach and no evidence of the arrest crime in car. | Not valid; initial search violates Fourth Amendment. |
| Was the second search at the impound yard justified under the automobile exception? | People rely on Gant's automobile-exception rationale for evidence in car. | Evans asserts no probable cause existed to search for offense-related evidence. | Not justified; automobile exception not satisfied. |
| Does the inevitable discovery doctrine apply to preserve the evidence? | If lawful inventory would inevitably reveal baggies, cash, and cocaine, exclusion not required. | Record insufficient to show inevitable discovery; inventory at impound yard not established as standard. | Not applicable; inevitable discovery not proven; suppression required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (two-part rule for automobile searches after arrest)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of searches incidental to arrest)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (automobile passenger-compartment search incident to arrest)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (nervous, evasive conduct as a factor in probable cause/stop)
- Ross v. United States, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (automobile exception and search scope)
- People v. Nottoli, 199 Cal.App.4th 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Gant's offense-related basis for search)
- Chamberlain, 229 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2010) (Gant language may imply some articulable suspicion standard)
- People v. Nasmeh, 151 Cal.App.4th 85 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (automobile search related to the offense of arrest)