576 S.W.3d 520
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- At ~2:30 a.m. Officer Gentry stopped a car for speeding; Karen Sossamon was the driver (gave a false name), Selah Dyer owned the car and was a back-seat passenger, Angela Kush was a front-seat passenger. Backup was called.
- Gentry ran ID checks; Dyer had a felony drug history. Dyer consented to a search of her vehicle; Sossamon expressly refused consent to search her personal bags and removed two bags from the car.
- During the consent search of the car, Gentry found drugs and paraphernalia inside a purse that Dyer said was hers. After that discovery, Gentry consulted his sergeant, then searched the two bags Sossamon had removed and found drugs and distribution items.
- Gentry conceded he did not have probable cause to search Sossamon’s bags when she removed them and that his initial search of the vehicle was consent-based, not probable-cause-based. He also did not know Sossamon’s identity was false until after her arrest.
- The circuit court denied Sossamon’s motion to suppress; she was convicted on multiple drug and related counts and sentenced. On appeal, Sossamon challenged only the denial of the suppression motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the warrantless search of Sossamon’s bags was unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sossamon) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dyer’s consent to search the vehicle extended to Sossamon’s personal bags | Dyer’s consent did not reach Sossamon’s bags because Sossamon expressly withheld consent and removed the bags from the car | Once contraband was found in the car (Dyer’s purse), police had probable cause to search containers associated with the vehicle, including the removed bags | Dyer’s consent did not extend to Sossamon’s bags; Sossamon validly refused consent |
| Whether discovery of contraband in Dyer’s purse created probable cause to search Sossamon’s bags that had been removed from the car | Finding drugs in Dyer’s purse did not supply individualized probable cause as to Sossamon or her bags | Houghton and Ross allow searching passenger containers once probable cause to search the vehicle exists | Court held the discovery did not create probable cause to search Sossamon’s removed bags; the search was unreasonable |
| Whether the automobile exception justified the warrantless search of Sossamon’s bags | Automobile exception does not apply because the bags were not in the vehicle when searched and no individualized probable cause existed | The State relied on Houghton to argue passenger containers in cars can be searched when police have probable cause to search the vehicle | Automobile exception did not justify searching bags that had been removed prior to vehicle search and before probable cause existed |
| Whether the inevitable-discovery doctrine salvages admission of the evidence | Evidence would not inevitably have been discovered; State cannot show by a preponderance that lawful means would have led to the drugs | State argued Sossamon could have been arrested for driving without a license or for giving a false name, leading to a search incident to arrest | Court rejected inevitable-discovery: State failed to prove the drugs would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (recognizes warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent an exception)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (establishes the automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of warrantless automobile search defined by object of search and places it may be found)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (holding that passenger containers in a car may be searched when there is probable cause to search the car)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (probable cause must be particularized to the person searched)
- State v. Villines, 304 Ark. 128 (presence of small amounts of drugs in passenger compartment did not justify probable-cause search of locked trunk)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent measured by objective-reasonableness)
- Griffin v. State, 347 Ark. 788 (State bears burden to prove consent was freely given)