State v. Smith
2014 SD 50
| S.D. | 2014Background
- Trooper Biehl stopped a vehicle for following too closely; Smith was a passenger and Corpuz the driver.
- Trooper smelled marijuana on Corpuz and in the car; Corpuz admitted past marijuana use and Smith admitted there was "half a blunt" in the back.
- Trooper asked Smith for ID; Smith said his wallet had been stolen. Trooper handcuffed Smith for officer safety and patted him down ~10 minutes after the stop.
- During the pat-down Trooper found a bulge in Smith’s sock that turned out to be a package of white powder; Smith said it was cocaine.
- Trooper later searched the car and uncovered small amounts of marijuana, multiple large vacuum-sealed marijuana packages in door panels, and Smith’s wallet under the passenger seat.
- The circuit court suppressed the cocaine found on Smith, concluding the pat-down/search was not justified as incident to arrest or a valid safety pat-down; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless search of Smith’s person was valid as search incident to arrest | Search was valid under search-incident-to-arrest doctrine (Rawlings) because formal arrest followed the search | Search preceded arrest by 27 minutes and was not contemporaneous; no probable cause for arrest at time of search | Search was valid as incident to arrest: probable cause to arrest for marijuana existed before the search and the arrest later followed quickly enough; alternatively, inevitable discovery applies |
| Whether probable cause existed to arrest Smith prior to the pat-down | Trooper had probable cause from smell of marijuana, admission of “half a blunt,” and marijuana odor on Corpuz and the vehicle | No probable cause to arrest Smith at that time; officer’s subjective belief insufficient | Probable cause objectively existed to arrest Smith for possession of marijuana prior to the pat-down |
| Whether the Rawlings contemporaneity rule was satisfied when search preceded arrest by 27 minutes | Rawlings permits searches that precede formal arrest if arrest follows quickly and the fruits were not necessary to support probable cause | 27-minute gap made the search non-contemporaneous and therefore invalid under Rawlings | 27-minute gap did not exceed outer limits given the continuous investigatory transaction; Rawlings applies here; but even if not, inevitable discovery saves the evidence |
| Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine admits the cocaine if search was unlawful | Not separately argued; State contends cocaine would inevitably have been discovered during a lawful search incident to the later arrest for marijuana | Inevitable discovery inapplicable because initial search unlawful and arrest not contemporaneous | Court concludes cocaine would inevitably have been discovered during lawful search incident to arrest for marijuana; doctrine applies and evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (search incident to arrest may be valid where formal arrest closely follows a search that preceded it)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (probable cause and reasonable suspicion reviewed under an objective totality-of-circumstances standard)
- Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (objective circumstances, not an officer’s subjective beliefs, govern probable cause analysis)
- United States v. Sanchez, 555 F.3d 910 (10th Cir.) (discussing outer limits of contemporaneity between search and subsequent arrest)
- State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126 (S.D.) (search incident to arrest must be substantially contemporaneous and near the arrest)