Smith v. United States, 283 A.3d 88

Background

Police stopped Smith’s solo-occupied Honda for alleged excessive window tint and saw an unsealed, ~one-third full bottle of Rémy Martin V in the center console.
Officers removed Smith, searched the passenger compartment for other alcohol items, found a black plastic bag containing a small “otter box,” and opened it to discover three small vials of amber liquid and an eyedropper.
After recovering those three vials the officers arrested Smith and, incident to arrest, searched him and found a fourth vial similar to the others.
The officers field-tested the vials as possibly PCP; the officer combined portions of all four vials into a single remediated sample that was sent to a lab, which confirmed a measurable amount of PCP.
Smith moved to suppress the vials as an unlawful Gant search and argued the vial found on his person was fruit of that illegality; the trial court denied suppression and a jury convicted Smith of possession of liquid PCP.
On appeal the court held the vehicle and resulting person-search were unlawful and suppressed all four vials, but found the evidence (including the remediated sample) sufficient to permit retrial on the PCP possession charge.

Issues

Issue	Smith's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of vehicle search under Arizona v. Gant (search-incident-to-arrest standard)	Open container gave probable cause only for POCA but did not support reasonable, articulable suspicion that the vehicle contained additional evidence of POCA; therefore the otter box search was unlawful	Probable cause to arrest for POCA authorized a search for “accouterments of liquor” and the bag/otter box could reasonably be inspected for small alcohol-related items	Search unlawful: government failed to show reasonable, articulable suspicion that evidence of POCA would be in the vehicle or in the tiny otter box (case aligned with Nash, distinguished from Lewis)
Lawfulness of search of Smith’s person / fruit-of-the-tree	The vial found on Smith’s person was discovered only after the unlawful vehicle search and is therefore fruit of the poisonous tree	A search of the person incident to a lawful arrest (Robinson) would have been permissible; on appeal the government also invoked inevitable discovery	Vial on person was fruit of unlawful car search; government failed to prove inevitable discovery or otherwise purge the taint; suppression required
Sufficiency of evidence to convict for possession of liquid PCP	Remediated single sample (mixture of all four vials) cannot tie PCP to any particular vial in Smith’s possession, so evidence was insufficient	Jury could find constructive possession of the vials in the car (plus the remediated sample showing measurable PCP) and convict	Evidence was sufficient: jury could find Smith constructively possessed the vials and the remediated test showed a measurable amount of PCP; retrial permitted
Admissibility of remediated sample and expert testimony	Admission of the combined/remediated vial and ensuing expert testimony was erroneous	Objections were not preserved at trial; plain-error review required	Claims were not preserved and Smith did not show plain error, so the court rejected these arguments on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (governs when officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest — requires reasonable, articulable suspicion that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (search authority for containers limited to those that could conceal the object sought)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search of the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest is categorically permitted)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine governs derivative evidence)
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016) (summarizes exceptions to exclusionary rule: inevitable discovery, independent source, attenuation)
United States v. Nash & Lewis, 100 A.3d 157 (D.C. 2014) (search after POCA held unlawful where no articulable basis to expect additional alcohol-related evidence)
United States v. Lewis, 147 A.3d 236 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) (distinguished Nash — upheld vehicle search where officer testimony supported expectation of cups/other accouterments)
Jones v. United States, 168 A.3d 703 (D.C. 2017) (explains requirements for invoking inevitable-discovery doctrine)