Carstairs v. State
575 P.2d 927
Nev.
1978
Check Treatment

OPINION

Per Curiam: 1

On Oсtober 26, 1976, Washoe County Sheriff’s Deputy Meek and Probation Officers Nollsch and Bernstone went to a residence in Reno, Nevada, in search of Stanley Chavez. Meek sought Chavez for questioning as a suspect in a felony battery case, and Nollsch and Bеrnstone sought to arrest Chavez on a bench warrant for probation violation.

Whilе Meek and Nollsch maintained surveillance in an alley near the residence, they observed a truck with two occupants approaching them and tentatively idеntified Chavez as the driver. The truck suddenly turned dowwn a side street and the officers temporarily lost sight of it. They immediately gave chase and when they located the truck one to ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍two minutes later, it was parked by the side of the road and appellant was the only occupant. The officers advised appellant of their desire to lоcate and arrest Chavez on criminal charges, but appellant denied having any knowledge as to Chavez’s whereabouts and, further, repeatedly denied that anyоne else had been in the vehicle with him.

*127Deputy Meek left the scene to summon assistance in searching for Chavez. During Meek’s absence, Nollsch placed appellant under arrest for harboring a fugitive, a violation of NRS 195.030. Meek subsequently returned to the area of the original stop and observed appellant in handcuffs. Although he was never advised that appellant was under arrest, Meek decided to search appellant for weapons before transporting him to the sheriff’s office fоr additional interrogation. In the course of his search, Meek reached inside the front pocket of a down-filled vest, a location where Meek believed а weapon could be hidden, and found three (3) marijuana cigarettes. Appellаnt was taken to the Washoe County Jail and charged with possession of a controlled substance, a violation of NRS 453.336. He was subsequently ordered to stand trial for (1) possession of marijuana and (2) harboring a fugitive.

A pretrial motion to suppress contendеd the marijuana was the product of an illegal search. The district court ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍denied thе motion “based on the knowledge of all of the officers and the circumstances existing at the time.”

A jury acquitted appellant on the harboring charge, but found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance. In asking us to reverse, appellant cоntends the district court erred in refusing to suppress the marijuana. The thrust of appellant’s contention is that there was no probable cause for Nollsch to make the arrest; thus, any evidence seized as a result of the search incident to that arrеst was inadmissible. We reject the contention.

Appellant’s arrest was based on probable cause. Nollsch testified he had tentatively identified Chavez as the driver of the truck and that there was another person in the truck with Chavez. When the officers lоcated the truck one to two minutes later, appellant was the only ocсupant. When questioned by the officers, appellant repeatedly denied thаt ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍Chavez or anyone else had been with him, and was otherwise evasive in his answers to the officers’ questions. These facts and circumstances were sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that appellant was assisting Chavez in evading authorities аnd, therefore, Nollsch had probable cause to make the arrest for harbоring a fugitive. NRS 171.124. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949); Marschall v. City of Carson, 86 Nev. 107, 464 P.2d 494 (1970); Thomas v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 551, 459 P.2d 219 (1969); Fairman v. Warden, 83 Nev. 332, 431 P.2d 660 (1967). The subsequent search by Meek was incident to that arrest and, therefore, was reasonable. A Minor v. State, 91 Nev. 456, 537 P.2d 477 (1975); Thomas v. Sheriff, cited above. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973), where Mr. Justice Rehnquist wrote:

*128A custodial arrest of a suspect based on prоbable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that instrusion being lawful, a sеarch incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lаwful arrest which establishes ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exceptiоn to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a “reasonable” searсh under that Amendment.

See also Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260 (1973). Since the search was reasonable, the contraband was admissible. See Lightford v. State, 90 Nev. 136, 520 P.2d 955 (1974).

Affirmed.

The Governor designated Hon. Merlyn H. Hoyt, Judge of the Seventh Judicial District, to sit in place of Hon. ‍‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍Gordon Thompson, Justice, who voluntarily disqualified himself in this case. Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4.