943 N.W.2d 845
Wis.2020Background:
- Officer Skelton stopped Mose Coffee (11:17 p.m.) for no front license plate; Coffee pulled into a bar parking lot, parked close to another car, and exited quickly.
- Skelton observed signs of intoxication (slurred speech, bloodshot/glassy eyes), smelled intoxicants on Coffee or from the vehicle, and asked Coffee to perform field sobriety tests.
- Coffee performed poorly on field tests, a PBT read .14, and a subsequent blood test showed .17; he was arrested for OWI and secured in the squad car.
- While Coffee was in custody, two officers searched the passenger compartment and found a cloth bag behind the driver’s seat containing mason jars with suspected marijuana; a subsequent trunk search recovered additional marijuana.
- Coffee moved to suppress the evidence; the circuit court denied suppression, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed—holding the search lawful under a Gant-based reasonableness analysis (but rejecting a categorical rule that OWI alone always justifies such searches).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coffee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vehicle search incident to an OWI arrest is lawful | OWI arrest supplies reasonable basis to search passenger compartment and containers for evidence related to intoxication | Arrest for OWI alone does not justify searching passenger compartment; need case-specific facts | Rejected categorical rule; search must be judged under totality-of-circumstances requiring reasonable suspicion |
| Standard/quantum required under Gant | Search incident to arrest is permissible when it is reasonable to believe evidence of the offense might be in the vehicle (State argued this was met) | Defense argued the court of appeals applied a bright-line rule rather than particularized suspicion | Adopted a reasonableness approach and held reasonable suspicion is the correct quantum in this context |
| Application of facts here — was there reasonable suspicion to search passenger compartment? | Pointed to odor of intoxicants, origin (friend’s house), parking behavior, hasty exit, prior encounter, and extreme intoxication as supporting reasonable suspicion | Argued odor emanated from Coffee (not the car), parking/exit explained by prior warning, and no particularized signs that drinking occurred in the car | Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, officers had reasonable suspicion to search the passenger compartment |
| Lawfulness of searching the specific bag/container | State: container was within reach from driver’s seat and concealable evidence could be inside | Coffee: no furtive movement or specific fact showing evidence was in the bag; small-container cases differ | Court upheld the search of the bag as reasonable (citing container-search precedents and circuit-court findings not clearly erroneous) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search-incident-to-arrest of vehicle lawful when reasonable to believe evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle)
- Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004) (Scalia concurrence advocating that the fact of lawful arrest can justify evidentiary search scope tied to offense)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (earlier broad rule allowing search of vehicle incident to arrest; later limited by Gant)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (protective search rationale and limits on search incident to arrest)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (holding that a lawful custodial arrest justifies a full search of the person)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (permitting search of containers in vehicles when search otherwise justified)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (origin of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (Fourth Amendment disfavors broad bright-line rules; fact-specific balancing required)