{1} This case presents circumstances under which the warrantless seizure of drugs from a vehicle was permissible under two exceptions to the warrant requirement, exigent circumstances and search incident to arrest. An officer saw methamphetamine, clearly contraband, in plain view in a vehicle occupied only by the driver, Defendant Jerald Weidner. The officer therefore instantly had probable cause to believe that Defendant was committing a crime. The officer first seized the drugs from within the vehicle and then immediately arrested Defendant outside the vehicle. Because the drugs were within Defendant’s reach and immediate control, and Defendant was in control of the vehicle and able to drive off, we hold that the seizure was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Further, because the seizure and arrest were contemporaneous, and the methamphetamine was in Defendant’s immediate control, we hold the seizure was justified as a search incident to arrest. We therefore reverse the district court’s suppression of the drugs.
BACKGROUND
{2} Officers John Ahlm and Michael Graff stopped Defendant’s vehicle because his vehicle was similar in description to one reported leaving the scene of a nearby robbery. Defendant was alone in the vehicle. Officer Graff approached the driver’s side and asked Defendant for his license, registration, and insurance. Approaching the passenger side, Officer Ahlm “stood as a cover officer” and observed the encounter through the passenger window. When Defendant lowered his visor to retrieve his registration and insurance, Officer Ahlm saw a bindle of methamphetamine in an elastic band on the visor.
{3} Officer Ahlm testified that the Defendant quickly flipped the visor back up, in what appeared to the officer to be an attempt to conceal the methamphetamine. Officer Ahlm testified that “[t]he other officer clearly didn’t see it by his demeanor____I couldn’t really tell him, ‘hey, there’s dope in the visor,’ because that might not be prudent with [Defendant] sitting behind the wheel.” Instead, Officer Ahlm opened the passenger door and told Defendant to hand him the methamphetamine and get out of the vehicle, and Defendant did as he was ordered. Officer Ahlm then went around to the driver’s side of the vehicle and handcuffed Defendant.
{4} In the district court, the State relied on two exceptions to the warrant requirement, the plain view doctrine and the search incident to arrest doctrine. The court found that the officer entered the vehicle by reaching into the vehicle for the methamphetamine and the court concluded that the entry into the vehicle was a search. The court further concluded that the search was not justified because there were no exigent circumstances as required under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution in order to breach the plane of the vehicle and seize the methamphetamine without a warrant. In addition, the court found that the officer did not place Defendant under arrest when the officer told Defendant to hand him the methamphetamine. The court also concluded that the search incident to arrest doctrine did not apply. On appeal, the State argues that (1) the seizure of obviously illegal and incriminating evidence in plain view is reasonable under Article II, Section 10 and should be held to be lawful; (2) exigent circumstances should be presumed where obviously illegal drugs are in plain view and the driver is in control of the vehicle; and (3) the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement allowed the seizure of the evidence.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
{5} A motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Garcia,
The Evidence Was Admissible Under the Exigent Circumstances Exception to the Warrant Requirement
{6} Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution require searches and seizures to be reasonable. State v. Gutierrez,
{7} The Supreme Court’s cases of Garcia,
{8} In Gomez, the officer encountered the defendant when he responded to a report of a “party disturbance.”
{9} The Court in Gomez held that, under an objective test of reasonableness, the officer’s judgment that an exigency existed which required him to search the vehicle before getting a warrant because the evidence might be removed or destroyed was reasonable. Id. M4(M2. The Court also stated that “[i]f reasonable people might differ about whether exigent circumstances existed, we defer to the officer’s good judgment.” Id. ¶ 40.
{10} In Garcia, the officers observed a vehicle drive through a gas station parking lot at a very low rate of speed and believed something was amiss because the vehicle had a dealer demonstration tag but it was after dealership business hours.
{11} The Court in Garcia held that the search of the ear and the seizure of the gun, which was in plain view, was justified. Id. ¶ 32. The weapon was seen in plain view by the officer when he was outside the vehicle in a location where he was lawfully entitled to be. Id. ¶ 29. In addition, exigent circumstances
Although [the officer] searched the car under the mistaken belief that the plain view doctrine permitted him to do so, ... [w]e may uphold a search or seizure if the facts known to the officer, viewed objectively, would provide valid constitutional grounds for the officer’s actions, even though the officer subjectively relied on a legally insufficient theory.
Id.
{12} In Jones, an officer approached the defendant’s parked car after getting a tip about a suspicious parked vehicle in an area in which there had been a string of burglaries.
{14} The facts of the present case differ significantly from those in Garcia, Gomez, and Jones. In those three cases, the search or seizure occurred after the defendant was out of the vehicle. There existed no indication that the defendants in those cases could reach the item at issue. Yet, despite the fact that the defendants in Garcia and Gomez were handcuffed and in a patrol car at the time of the searches, our Supreme Court nonetheless held that the searches or seizures were reasonable because exigent circumstances existed. Garcia,
{15} The State argues that in the present case, exigent circumstances existed justifying the seizure of the methamphetamine, given that Defendant was still in the vehicle, which could have been driven away, and that he could easily access the methamphetamine, which was within arm’s reach. We find this argument persuasive. The exigency in the present ease is stronger than it was in Garcia or Gomez, because in this case Defendant was still behind the steering wheel and within arm’s reach of the methamphetamine.
{16} Garcia and Gomez are compatible with the present case. Under Garcia, we are to consider the objective facts known to the officer at the time of the seizure, even though the officer may not articulate the facts as creating a particular urgency. Garcia,
Quite simply, if there is no reasonable basis for believing an automobile will be moved or its search will otherwise be compromised by delay, then a warrant is required. While it may be true that in most cases involving vehicles there will be exigent circumstances justifying a warrant-less search, we do not accept the federal bright-line automobile exception.
Id. ¶ 44.
{17} In the present case, the officer’s testimony in support of the seizure of the methamphetamine referred to Defendant as sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle. The officer testified that it would not have been prudent to tell the officer on the driver’s side about the methamphetamine. The officer knew the methamphetamine was within Defendant’s reach. Based on the objective facts known to Officer Ahlm at the time of his seizure of the methamphetamine, and because reasonable people might differ about whether exigent circumstances existed, we defer to the officer’s good judgment. We conclude the present case falls within the majority of cases anticipated in Gomez in which “there will be exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search.” Id. We uphold the seizure as lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The objective facts and the officer’s subjective view of the circumstances combine to provide valid constitutional grounds for the officer’s actions.
The Evidence Was Also Admissible Under the Search Incident to Arrest Exception
{18} The State has the burden of proving that the warrantless search was lawful under the search incident to arrest exception. See Gutierrez,
{19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search.” State v. Ortega,
{20} The State proved the elements of the search incident to arrest exception in the present case. Upon seeing the methamphetamine, the officer had probable cause to believe that Defendant was committing the crime of possession of methamphetamine and thus was justified in arresting Defendant. The formal arrest followed immediately after the seizure of the methamphetamine. Thus, the requirements for a contemporaneous search, or as in this case, seizure and arrest, were met. See Ortega,
{21} Defendant appears to contend that the search incident to arrest exception requires some exigency greater or different than that required in Arredondo, in arguing that under Garcia, Gomez, and Jones the State must obtain consent or prove exigent circumstances when a warrantless search or seizure is based on a search incident to arrest exception. While we have already held that exigent circumstances existed in this ease, we believe it is necessary to clarify that the existence of exigent circumstances is not required to justify a search or seizure under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances and search incident to arrest are two among several exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Duffy,
{22} In Arredondo, the Gomez exigent circumstances exception and the search incident to arrest exception were separately considered. See Arredondo,
{23} In addressing the later search, pursuant to which the cocaine was discovered, we made it clear in Arredondo that the test for whether a search is justified under the search incident to arrest exception was whether the State proved “that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control.” Id. ¶27. We indicated that the rationale underlying the control requirement was concern about the danger of concealment of weapons or destruction of evidence. Id. In regard to drugs, this rationale emits a sense of preventative need coupled with urgency created because drugs are within the immediate control of a person arrested.
{24} The seizure of drugs within the immediate control of a driver of a vehicle who is sitting behind the wheel and able to drive away, together with the contemporaneous arrest of the driver once he is removed from the vehicle, satisfies the requirements and permits the application of the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Under the circumstances of this case, we see no basis on which to conclude that the seizure of the methamphetamine with the contemporaneous arrest of Defendant was unreasonable or unlawful under Garcia, Gomez, or Jones.
Cautionary Note
{25} We wish to make it clear that our holding in the present case should not be construed to mean that, based on similar circumstances, the exigent circumstances and search incident to arrest exceptions to the warrant requirement can be applied to justify a generalized warrantless search of a vehicle for drugs. See Arredondo,
The Drug Paraphernalia
{26} The officer in this case also found drug paraphernalia, stating that he found it while inventorying the vehicle. The court made no explicit findings or conclusions relating to the paraphernalia. Given our reversal of the suppression of the methamphetamine, we allow Defendant to renew his motion to suppress only with respect to the paraphernalia.
CONCLUSION
{27} We reverse the suppression of the methamphetamine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{28} IT IS SO ORDERED.