People v. Santana, 63 V.I. 25

Background

Defendant Santana moved to suppress evidence from a vehicle search conducted after a February 20, 2012 incident; motion filed February 10, 2014 and opposed by the People.
VIPD officers investigated a collision near the Hovensa refinery; Santana appeared intoxicated and failed a field sobriety test, leading to his arrest.
Officer Thomas observed a plastic bag with smaller bags containing a white powdery substance inside Santana’s pickup truck, after placing Santana in a police vehicle.
A forensic test reportedly confirmed the white powder as cocaine; Santana was charged March 6, 2012 with possession with intent to distribute and DUI.
The court held a suppression hearing April 23, 2014 and granted suppression, suppressing the cocaine seized from the vehicle.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plain view seizure was valid	Santana: no probable cause; items not immediately incriminating.	Santana contends plain view fails because incriminating nature was not immediately apparent.	Plain view not satisfied; no immediate apparent incriminating nature established.
Whether search incident to a lawful arrest applies to the vehicle	People contend Belton/Gant permit vehicle search incident to arrest.	Santana argues arrestee not within reach and no reason to believe vehicle contains evidence.	Search incident to arrest does not apply under Gant; not within reach and no proof vehicle contained relevant evidence.
Whether inevitable discovery/ inventory search doctrine salvages the search	Police would have discovered the cocaine via standard inventory procedures after impoundment.	No showing of standardized inventory procedures or impoundment of the vehicle to trigger inevitable discovery.	Prosecution failed to prove inevitable discovery; inventory procedures not shown to be sufficiently standardized or followed.

Key Cases Cited

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule applies to unreasonable searches and seizures)
Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness of searches with totality of circumstances)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1996) (reasonable expectation and totality of circumstances)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain view presumption of reasonableness subject to exceptions)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause required for plain view incriminating nature)
United States v. Benish, 5 F.3d 20 (3d Cir. 1993) (immediately apparent standard for plain view)
United States v. Scarfo, 685 F.2d 842 (3d Cir. 1982) (plain view applicable when incriminating nature apparent to trained eye)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (immediacy of incriminating nature requires probable cause)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (vehicle search incident to arrest framework)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (two-part test for vehicle searches after arrestee custody)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (continuation of Gant framework for vehicle searches)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory searches permissible under standardized procedures)
Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (standardized criteria for inventory searches)
Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches aimed at producing an inventory, not crime discovery)
Mundy, 621 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2010) (standardization of inventory search procedures)
Carrion-Soto, 493 Fed. Appx. 340 (3d Cir. 2012) (inevitable discovery requires proven standardized procedures and impoundment context)
United States v. Szymkowiak, 727 F.2d 95 (6th Cir. 1984) (immediacy of incriminating nature in plain view)