349 P.3d 953
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Wisdom was arrested for possessing a stolen vehicle after police identified the truck as stolen and cuffed Wisdom.
- A black toiletry/shaving kit bag sat on the front seat; the bag was opened and searched without a warrant or Wisdom’s consent.
- Money was visible through the bag’s mesh; inside the bag Deputy Boyer found methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and cash.
- The search occurred during an impound and a claimed inventory procedure; no warrant was obtained for the bag’s contents.
- Wisdom was charged with multiple drug offenses; suppression was denied by the trial court which held Wisdom had no reasonable privacy expectation after his statement about drugs on the seat.
- Wisdom appeals, arguing the bag’s search was unlawful under both state and federal standards and that the search could not be justified as an inventory or incident-to-arrest search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisdom had standing to challenge the bag search. | Wisdom possessed the bag and thus had standing. | Wisdom’s privacy interest was limited; theft status complicates standing. | Yes, Wisdom had automatic or possession-based standing under state law. |
| Whether the bag search was justified as a search incident to arrest. | Search incident to arrest permits access to evidence; arrestee was secured. | No, after arrest, no right to search the bag; not within reach or necessary for safety. | Not justified under Washington law; search invalid. |
| Whether the inventory search exception justified opening the bag. | Inventory search intended to locate and secure property, not discover contraband. | Department policy and inventory rationale supported the search. | No, inventory search did not justify opening the unlocked bag containing contraband. |
| Whether Washington’s Article I, Section 7 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment. | State constitution alone can bar warrantless intrusions. | No, existing federal precedents suffice? | Article I, Section 7 prohibits warrantless disturbances absent authority of law and requires judicial warrant; not governed by Fourth Amendment standards. |
| Whether the police could rely on an inventory to justify the search despite the open bag’s contents. | Inventory purposes justify safeguarding property; not to discover drugs. | Inventory may cover contents, including opened containers, where permitted. | No, the search exceeded proper inventory scope and was not justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Houser, 95 Wn.2d 143 (1980) (privacy interest in toiletry kit; limits on inventory searches inside unlocked containers)
- State v. Snapp, 174 Wn.2d 177 (2012) (state constitution article I, §7 distinct from Fourth Amendment; warrants preferred)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (importance of neutral magistrate in searches; warrants preferred)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on search incident to arrest after arrestee is secured; need for proximity to evidence or weapon)
- State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761 (2009) (state constitution requires authority of law; warrants align with article I, §7)