This is аn appeal by the state from the grant of a motion to suppress evidence. The defendant, driving his car down thе road, was stopped by police officers who searched the vehicle and discovered two pоunds of marijuana in the car trunk, which they forced open with a jack. The questions before us are probable cause in stopping the car and arresting the driver, and probable cause in searching the vehicle without a warrant.
1. Watts’ home had been searched in his absence about a week prior to this incident by virtue of a searсh warrant and a small quantity of marijuana had been found. There was “a charge of possession on him” but he had not been arrested because “nobody had been able to see him or find him or anything,” and the warrant had not been drawn. This pаrticular stop therefore could not have been and was not claimed to have been made pursuant to the prior incident of the house search, and is accordingly irrelevant to the probable cause issue before us.
2. “For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying оut an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasоnable under the Fourth Amendment.” Chambers v. Maroney,
3. To establish probable cause (whether for the issuance of a warrant by a magistrate or, under exigent circumstances, for search
*790
without a warrant) three elements are essential: that there is reason to accept the informer’s reliability; that the facts are sufficient to show how the informer obtained his information or that the criminal activity is desсribed in such detail as to negate its being a mere rumor; and, that the information is current, not stale.
Bell v. State,
4. It is, however, very doubtful that the facts set out above were sufficient to establish that the defendant was leaving with the drugs and the trial court hearing the motion to suppress found to the contrary. He further held that there were no exigent circumstances. Watts had been patted down and informed that he was under arrest (based on the search of his home?), and no contraband had been found either on his person or in plain view so as to dispense with a proper warrant. The car was searchеd; the officers asked the defendant for the key to the trunk and when he told them the door had been jammed and he hаd no key with him they pried it open with a jack handle. They then found the drugs partly in plastic bags and partly in a cash box.
The general rule is that one of the exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search is a situation where there is a seizure and search of a moving vehicle, and when the vehicle is indeed moving there is only the requirement that the search and seizure be based upon sufficient probable cause.
State v. Bradley,
Judgment affirmed.