447 P.3d 481
Okla. Crim. App.2019Background
- Lawton PD received an anonymous tip that Cousan was selling crack from a Motel 6 room; surveillance showed many people coming and going.
- Detective Morton obtained a search warrant for the motel room; officers continued surveillance while warrant preparations proceeded.
- Lt. Mull observed Cousan exit the room and enter a pickup; officers stopped the pickup about eight blocks from the motel before the warrant was executed.
- During the stop, Cousan acted aggressively and reached into the truck; officers searched him and found a Mentos container with >10 grams of crack; he was arrested.
- The subsequent search of the motel room (executing the warrant) uncovered a backpack with scale, the room receipt in Cousan’s name, a gun, and a Mentos container with cocaine residue.
- The district court suppressed evidence seized from Cousan’s person as an unlawful detention/search; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop/search eight blocks from the motel was lawful as detention incident to execution of the warrant | Stop/search lawful under Summers (detention incident to search warrant) | Detention occurred outside immediate vicinity; Summers does not authorize it | Bailey limits Summers to immediate vicinity; detention could not be justified under Summers |
| Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Cousan at time of stop | Officers had probable cause based on surveillance, named purchaser, and corroborating facts | Arrest lacked probable cause; stop/search unlawful | Court held totality of facts amounted to probable cause; search valid as incident to arrest |
| If not probable cause, whether reasonable suspicion or inevitable discovery saved the evidence | Even absent probable cause, officers had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop; evidence would have been inevitably discovered when warrant executed | Stop/search unlawful and evidence should be suppressed | Court found at least reasonable suspicion and that inevitable discovery would apply if needed |
| Whether subjective officer belief that warrant authorized search of person invalidates seizure | Subjective intent irrelevant if objective probable cause exists | Officer reliance on warrant wording cannot justify out-of-area search | Court held subjective intent irrelevant; admissibility turns on objective probable cause/reasonable suspicion and inevitable discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (officers executing a search warrant may detain occupants of the premises)
- Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013) (limits Summers detentions to the immediate vicinity of the premises)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (brief investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (detention authority incident to a search is categorical)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective intent of officers irrelevant to Fourth Amendment probable-cause analysis)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- United States v. Anchondo, 156 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 1998) (search incident to arrest valid where probable cause existed despite officer intent)