People v. Lopez, C078537M

Officer Moe responded to reports of a specific car driving erratically and later driving after drinking; he located the car and watched the defendant park.
Moe approached the defendant as she exited the vehicle; she appeared panicked but showed no signs of intoxication or Vehicle Code violations.
When asked, defendant said she did not have a driver’s license and indicated there "might be identification in the vehicle."
Officer Moe attempted a control hold; defendant pulled away and was handcuffed. Another officer retrieved a purse from the front passenger seat and handed it to Moe.
Moe opened the purse looking for identification and found a small amount of methamphetamine; defendant was then arrested for drug possession and driving without a license.
Trial court granted defendant’s suppression motion and dismissed the case under Penal Code § 1385, ruling the search violated Gant; the People appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Lopez)	Held
Was the warrantless retrieval and search of the purse (to obtain identification) reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?	The limited Webster/Arturo D. exception permits a warrantless search of areas where identification reasonably may be found; Moe lawfully detained defendant after she admitted driving without a license and could search the purse for ID.	The initial encounter was an unlawful detention; Arturo D. is undermined by Arizona v. Gant, and even if Arturo D. survives, the purse search was not justified on these facts.	The Court of Appeal held the initial approach was consensual, defendant’s admission gave probable cause to detain for driving without a license, and a limited Webster-type search for identification in a purse was reasonable under Arturo D.; Gant does not displace that limited exception. Suppression and dismissal reversed.

In re Arturo D., 27 Cal.4th 60 (Cal. 2002) (approves limited warrantless searches for registration/identification in vehicles when driver cannot produce documentation)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest; permits Belton-type searches only when arrestee could access vehicle or evidence of the offense might be found therein)
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1986) (upheld limited VIN search balancing intrusion against government interest)
Belton v. New York, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (permitted search of passenger compartment incident to lawful arrest)
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1998) (prohibits full-scale search incident to issuance of a citation)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to arrest limited to arrestee’s person and area within immediate control)
People v. Webster, 54 Cal.3d 411 (Cal. 1991) (upheld limited search of glove compartment/visor for registration following a lawful stop)
Ingle v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.3d 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (permitted entry to vehicle to retrieve driver’s license where driver outside car told officer where it was)