686 F. App'x 166
4th Cir.2017Background
- Late-night 911 hang-up with dispatcher hearing disorderly noise prompted deputies to a Pamplico, SC residence where two groups of people were outside and a Chevrolet Tahoe was parked in the roadway.
- Deputy Reid approached the Tahoe, saw two open beer containers in plain view, ordered Graham (driver) to turn off the vehicle and wait, and requested a warrants check and backup.
- Dispatcher informed officers of an outstanding Myrtle Beach warrant for Graham with an attachment: “use caution, consider armed and dangerous.” Backup (Deputy Lowder) arrived; officers detained, handcuffed, and moved Graham away from the vehicle.
- While handcuffed and before Miranda warnings, Graham told officers there was a firearm under the driver’s seat; Deputy Lowder retrieved the loaded gun from the truck.
- Graham was later indicted for being a felon in possession, moved to suppress the gun, and reserved the right to appeal after pleading guilty; the district court denied suppression, relying on exigent circumstances.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed: it held the warrantless search and seizure were not justified by exigent circumstances, search-incident-to-arrest, or the automobile exception, vacated the conviction, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Graham) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the Tahoe | No — scene was peaceful, Graham detained, no evidence gun was known to others or imminently at risk | Yes — crowd present, 911 disturbance, and officer safety concerns (plus warrant note "armed and dangerous") justified immediate seizure | Exigent circumstances do not apply; officers lacked specific facts showing imminent threat or risk of loss/destruction |
| Whether search-incident-to-arrest justified the vehicle search | No — Graham was handcuffed and secured away from vehicle; not within reaching distance and crime of arrest unrelated to vehicle | Yes — officers may search incident to arrest when officer safety or evidence preservation justify it | Not applicable; Gant precludes such a search because Graham was secured and vehicle unlikely to contain evidence of the arresting offense |
| Whether the automobile exception (probable cause + mobility) justified the search | No — officers did not have probable cause to believe vehicle contained contraband at time of search (conviction unknown until after retrieval) | Yes — open containers in plain view and later knowledge of felony status supplied probable cause | Automobile exception does not apply: no probable cause to search at the time Lowder seized the gun and Lowder was not shown to have known of open containers |
| Whether the gun and statements should be suppressed | Suppress gun (warrantless, no exception); statements admissibility not contested on appeal | Government argued exceptions and public-safety rationale for admission | Gun suppressed; conviction vacated and case remanded (statements not challenged on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (officer safety can justify warrantless action)
- Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (exigency can justify warrantless entry)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (warrantless entry to prevent evidence destruction or escape)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle search incident to arrest)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of vehicle searches with probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (automobile exception: mobility + probable cause)
- United States v. Newbourn, 600 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. — gun in vehicle can create exigency in some circumstances)
- United States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526 (4th Cir. — nonexhaustive factors for exigent-circumstances analysis)