State v. BergmanState v. Bergman
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Sol Gothard, Thomas F. Daley, Susan M. Chehardy
Defendant, Thomas Bergman, entered a guilty plea to charges of possession of alprazolam in violation of
FACTS:
At the hearing on the Motion to Suppress, Deputy Thomas Bryson testified that while driving on the Huey P. Long Bridge he observed a vehicle driving in both the left and right hand lanes. He followed the vehicle, a 4x4 truck, and saw it strike the left guardrail and then move to the right side and strike the right guardrail where the vehicle climbed up the rail before landing back in the lane. Deputy Bryson testified that at this point, he activated his emergency lights and siren. Thereafter, he observed the truck strike the guardrail three more times before it stopped at the Circle K in Bridge City.
LAW AND DISCUSSION:
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress the evidence because the alprazolam was illegally seized. He first contends the pill bottle was seized as the result of an illegal search of his vehicle. Defendant asserts the search of his vehicle was not part of a valid search incident to arrest. He maintains the police were limited to searching the area within his immediate control, which did not include his vehicle since he was detained out of reach of his truck. Defendant further asserts he did not consent to a search of the vehicle and maintains exigent circumstances were not present to justify a search of his truck. He next argues the pills in the bottle were not in plain view and, therefore, there was no justification for the police officer to open the bottle and retrieve the pills. Defendant contends the police had no reason to suspect the pill bottle contained anything illegal. He also asserts the pill bottle itself, which was under the driver‘s seat, was not in plain view.
The State responds the seizure of the alprazolam was justified as a search incident to arrest and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The State argues defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, which provided the police with the authority to arrest him. Once defendant was arrested, the State maintains the police had the authority to search his vehicle. The State contends the plain view doctrine is inapplicable because the search, which yielded the narcotics, was made pursuant to a lawful arrest.
In a hearing on a Motion to Suppress, the State bears the burden of proof in establishing the admissibility of evidence seized without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
One exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); State v. Joseph, 02-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/27/03), 850 So.2d 1049, 1051. Once a lawful arrest has been made, a warrantless search of the arrestee‘s person and of
Defendant was stopped and arrested for careless operation of a vehicle, a violation of
In State v. Alaimo, 95-1044 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/95), 657 So.2d 1102, 1104,4 the Fourth Circuit, relying on New York v. Belton, supra, stated “the police may search the passenger compartment of a car and any containers therein even though the occupant has been removed, so long as the former occupant was lawfully arrested and had been an occupant just prior to that arrest.” In Alaimo, defendant and his passenger were removed from their car after a traffic stop. The defendant was subsequently arrested for various traffic violations. After defendant‘s arrest, the police searched the vehicle and found two tinfoil packets in the ashtray. The packets were opened and found to contain heroin.
The Fourth Circuit found that if the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for traffic violations, the search of the passenger compartment of the car was permissible as a search incident to arrest and the heroin was not subject to suppression. The trial court had not determined if probable cause existed to arrest the defendant so the matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. The court further noted its earlier decision in State v. Smith, 489 So.2d 966 (La.App. 4 Cir.1986), where it found that police officers were justified in conducting a search of an automobile and in opening a container found inside that contained drugs as incident to defendant‘s arrest.
The rationale in Alaimo is consistent with the United States Supreme Court‘s
In so ruling, the Supreme Court discussed the dangerous situation created by a custodial arrest. The Supreme Court stated that “the arrest of a suspect who is next to a vehicle presents identical concerns regarding officer safety and the destruction of evidence as the arrest of one who is inside the vehicle.” Id. at 124 S.Ct. at 2131. The Supreme Court noted a custodial arrest creates a highly volatile situation for the officer. The court acknowledged that not all contraband in the passenger compartment is likely to be readily accessible to a recent occupant of the vehicle, but concluded it was reasonable to allow officers to ensure their safety by searching the entire passenger compartment. Id. at 124 S.Ct. at 2132.
In the present case, testimony at the Motion to Suppress indicates that defendant was lawfully arrested following a traffic violation. He was advised of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, he advised Deputy Bryson that he had a gun in the vehicle. While Deputy Bryson admitted it is not illegal to keep a gun in a car, he went to retrieve the gun out of safety concerns. The passenger remained outside the vehicle by the curb and, therefore, was in close proximity to the vehicle and gun. In searching for the gun, Deputy Bryson looked under the driver‘s seat where he discovered the pill bottle containing the alprazolam. Under Belton, supra, and the rationale of Thornton, supra, Deputy Bryson was justified in searching the vehicle and opening the containers therein as incident to defendant‘s lawful arrest. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant‘s Motion to Suppress.
The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court denying defendant‘s Motion to Suppress is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.