State v. Byrd, 258 P.3d 686

Byrd was arrested for possession of stolen property; police searched her purse while she was handcuffed in a patrol car and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
The trial court suppressed the purse evidence as outside the search-incident-to-arrest scope under Gant and Valdez.
The State appealed, arguing Gant does not apply to a purse search incident to arrest as held in Johnson.
The court concludes Gant applies to purse searches, overruling Johnson’s purse-search stance and aligning with Gant’s scope of the search-incident-to-arrest exception.
Ms. Byrd was secured in a patrol car during the purse search and could not access the purse at that time, undermining the justification for a search incident to arrest.
The outcome is the suppression of the purse search evidence and dismissal of the prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Gant apply to purse searches incident to arrest?	State argued Gant does not apply to purses, as Johnson held, and thus suppression was proper.	Byrd contends Gant applies to the purse search since it was contemporaneous and within arrestee's reach.	Yes; Gant applies to purse searches, so the search was unlawful and suppression is correct.

State v. Johnson, 155 Wash.App. 270 (2010) (held Gant does not apply to purse searches (vehicle focus) before overruling later)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits search-incident-to-arrest to arrestee and area within immediate control)
State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 (2009) (limits Belton interpretation; supports application of Chimel-based scope)
State v. Smith, 119 Wash.2d 675 (1992) (precedent for search-incident-to-arrest under Belton framework)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (authorizes search of containers within the passenger compartment after lawful arrest)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (establishes the basic scope of the search-incident-to-arrest exception)