917 F.3d 1161
10th Cir.2019Background
- Stacy Knapp called police to report a theft; while officers investigated, dispatch told them Knapp had an outstanding arrest warrant.
- Officer Parker located Knapp in her parked pickup; he told her she could not leave and escorted her back into the store; she voluntarily retrieved her zipped purse from the truck and brought it into the store.
- Officers asked Knapp to sit while they finished the theft investigation; they moved her purse a few chairs away; she attempted to have others take or store the purse but officers refused and she denied consent to search.
- Officers placed Knapp in handcuffs behind her back, walked her to a patrol vehicle, and placed the purse on the patrol car hood about 3–4 feet from her; three officers were present and retained exclusive control of the purse.
- After an officer warned she could be charged for bringing drugs to detention, Knapp stated she had a pistol in the purse; officers then searched the purse and found the firearm.
- Knapp pleaded guilty conditionally to being a felon in possession to preserve suppression appeal; the district court denied suppression under the search-incident-to-arrest exception and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Knapp's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the purse search was "of the person" under Robinson | Purse was not part of her person; even if she carried it earlier, it was a visible handheld container not within clothing | Given a lawful arrest, the search was of property immediately associated with the person and thus permissible | Reversed — a visible handheld purse is not "of the person" under Robinson |
| Whether the search was justified as within the arrestee's immediate control (Chimel/Gant) | At time of search Knapp was handcuffed behind her back, three officers controlled the scene, purse was 3–4 feet away and closed, so she could not access weapon/evidence | Search incident to arrest permissible because purse was within reach/associated with Knapp | Reversed — under Gant/Chimel it was unreasonable to believe she could access the purse at time of search |
| Whether intervening events or police placement of purse defeated incident-to-arrest justification | Officers separated purse and placed it; intervening events meant the search was not truly incident to arrest | Contends factual dispute or that placement did not artificially create reachability | Court did not need to resolve intervening-events claim because Chimel/Gant analysis sufficed to reverse |
| Whether inevitable-discovery supports admission of the firearm | Suppression required; inevitable-discovery not established on record | Government preserved inevitable-discovery argument in district court | Government conceded inevitable-discovery not ripe on appeal; issue not decided (may be renewed on remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search incident to arrest limited to person and area within immediate control)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search of arrestee’s person permitted incident to lawful arrest)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (vehicle-search principles; focus on arrestee’s ability to access weapons/evidence at time of search)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (distinguishing person searches from searches of digital devices; privacy interests in certain items)
- United States v. Parra, 2 F.3d 1058 (factors for assessing reachability of items at time of search)
- United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203 (pre-Gant decision upholding some searches despite arrestee restraint)