United States v. Justin Stegall
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4347
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police responded to a 911 call reporting a driver of a silver SUV had brandished a gun during a road-rage incident.
- Officers located the described SUV unoccupied in a shopping-center parking lot; a witness saw the driver access the rear hatch and hide something.
- The witness and the 911 caller identified Justin Stegall as the driver; Stegall admitted he was the driver and said he “probably” had a firearm in the vehicle; he refused consent to search.
- Officers arrested Stegall for terroristic threatening, placed him in custody, and began an inventory/search of the vehicle before towing it.
- During the search they found a handgun and a short-barreled AR-15; Stegall was charged with possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle; he moved to suppress, arguing the inventory search was a pretext for an impermissible investigatory search.
- The district court denied suppression, concluding the warrantless search was permissible under the vehicle search-incident-to-arrest doctrine (Arizona v. Gant); a jury convicted Stegall and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ warrantless search of Stegall’s SUV was unlawful because Stegall was handcuffed and in custody | Stegall: no exigency — he was restrained and could not reach or destroy evidence, so Gant’s vehicle-search exception does not apply | Government: under Gant’s second exception, officers reasonably believed the vehicle contained evidence of the crime of arrest, so a warrantless search was permissible | Court: Affirmed — second Gant exception applies when officers reasonably believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest, even if arrestee is restrained |
| Whether the hatchback/rear cargo area is excluded from a Gant search (i.e., akin to a trunk) | Stegall: the hatchback is like a trunk and not subject to search incident to arrest under Gant/Belton/Chimel | Government: hatchback can be part of the passenger compartment for Gant purposes if an occupant could have reached it | Court: Affirmed that the rear hatch can be part of the passenger compartment and searchable under Gant when an occupant could have accessed it |
| Whether the search should be evaluated as an inventory-pretext rather than incident-to-arrest | Stegall: officers used an inventory as a ruse to conduct an investigatory search | Government: alternatively defends search as a valid inventory search; primary defense is Gant exception | Court: Did not decide inventory issue because search was lawful under Gant’s second exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (establishes two circumstances for vehicle search incident to arrest, including when vehicle likely contains evidence of the offense of arrest)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest based on safety and evidence near the arrestee)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (earlier rule on vehicle searches incident to arrest; partially abrogated by Gant)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (discusses Gant’s addition of an independent vehicle-related exception for evidence of the offense of arrest)
- United States v. Barnes, 374 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 2004) (holds hatchback/rear cargo area can be part of passenger compartment for search-incident-to-arrest if reachable)
- United States v. Allen, 713 F.3d 382 (8th Cir. 2013) (applies Gant’s second exception; officers may search vehicle after arrest when reasonable belief evidence related to arrest will be found)