UNITED STATES v. DAVID D. LEWIS
147 A.3d 236
| D.C. | 2016Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., Park Police Officer Alto stopped David Lewis for a broken headlight, learned Lewis’s license was suspended, and approached the car.
- Alto observed a half-full bottle of Patrón in the center console; passenger Brittney Gibbs claimed it and handed the bottle to the officer.
- Officers then decided to check the vehicle for additional open containers and contraband; Officer Brown smelled marijuana, found an alcoholic cup, a marijuana cigarette, ammunition, and a loaded handgun in the car.
- Gibbs was not under arrest when the search began; she was handcuffed only after the handgun was found; subsequent search led to marijuana found on Gibbs and her arrest for POCA and possession.
- The trial court suppressed the gun, ammo, and marijuana as fruit of an unlawful search for lack of reasonable, articulable suspicion to search for POCA evidence; the en banc D.C. Court reversed.
- The en banc majority framed and adopted a five‑part test permitting a Gant evidence search before formal arrest when (a) probable cause to arrest exists; (b) suspect recently occupied the vehicle; (c) reasonable suspicion the vehicle contains evidence of the offense; (d) suspect not released or cited at time of search; and (e) formal arrest follows quickly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vehicle search under Arizona v. Gant must occur after a formal arrest | Lewis: A completed or at least an "underway" arrest is required; a search preceding arrest that is investigative is not a lawful search-incident-to-arrest | Government: A Gant evidence search is lawful if objective conditions exist even if the search precedes formal arrest and officers did not subjectively intend to arrest | Held: A Gant evidence search may precede formal arrest if five objective conditions are met (probable cause to arrest; recent vehicle occupancy; reasonable suspicion vehicle contains evidence; suspect not released/cited; prompt subsequent arrest) |
| Whether officers’ subjective intent to arrest matters to the validity of a Gant evidence search | Lewis: Legality depends on whether officers intended to arrest ("underway") at time of search | Government: Fourth Amendment analysis is objective; subjective motive is irrelevant so long as objective requirements are satisfied | Held: Subjective intent is irrelevant; objective circumstances control (citing Supreme Court precedent rejecting subjective‑intent inquiries) |
| Whether a search that produces the probable‑cause basis for arrest can be treated as incident to arrest | Lewis: A search cannot be used to create the arrest that justifies it (search cannot be the cause of the arrest) | Government: Validity depends on preexisting probable cause and the search’s proximity to a prompt arrest, not on whether the search produced the arrest | Held: The court rejects a per se rule barring searches that lead to arrest so long as preexisting probable cause existed and other conditions are met |
| Whether Gant’s limits (to avoid "rummaging at will") are undermined by allowing pre‑arrest searches | Lewis: Allowing pre‑arrest Gant searches risks investigative rummaging and discriminatory policing; a completed/underway arrest requirement is a useful safeguard | Government: The court’s five‑part, objective test preserves Gant’s protections and provides workable guidance | Held: Majority found Gant’s limits preserved by the objective five‑part test; dissent warned the holding expands Gant and invites abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (permits vehicle searches incident to arrest only when arrestee unsecured/within reach or when reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (search incident to arrest may precede formal arrest if formal arrest follows quickly)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) (search incident to citation is not permitted; objective circumstances—citation v. arrest—matter)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest doctrine justified by officer safety and preservation of evidence within arrestee’s reach)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness determined objectively; officer’s actual subjective intent generally irrelevant)
- Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004) (Scalia concurrence discussed evidence‑gathering rationale and "fact of prior lawful arrest")
- Peters v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (upheld search incident to arrest without relying on officer’s subjective intent)