Meister v. State, 68A04-0604-CV-196
4th Dist., 08-31-09, Ind.App.
Attorney:
Holding: On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), Court of Appeals found a search of a car was justified under the automobile exception even if not authorized as a search incident to arrest. In Gant, the Supreme Court’s primary aim was to revisit New York v. Belton, 101 S.Ct. 2860 (1981). The Gant Court clarified that, henceforth, Belton should be understood only to permit an officer to conduct a vehicle search when an arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. However, the Gant Court did not disturb other established exceptions to the warrant requirement that authorize a vehicle search under additional circumstances when safety or evidentiary concerns demand. For instance, a search falls within the automobile exception when a vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. Here, the State filed a forfeiture action for Defendant’s car in which drugs were found when her son was arrested for driving with a suspended license. The officer had arrested the son on two prior occasions and both times found drugs either on his person or in his vehicle. While arresting the son, officer patted the son down and discovered an ink pen without any of its internal parts, with a powdery-looking residue inside of it. The officer then searched the son’s car and found more white substance which field tested positive for methamphetamine. Although the search would not have been justified by Gant because the son was already removed from car, handcuffed and was being arrested for driving while suspended for which no evidence could be found in the car, the son’s prior drug arrests and the powdery substance in his pen constituted probable cause to believe a search of the car would uncover contraband. Thus, the search was proper under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and trial court properly denied the motion to suppress in the forfeiture of Defendant’s car. Held, judgment affirmed; Riley, J., dissenting on basis that the son was not being arrested for drug possession at the time of the search, and thus, the search of the car was unconstitutional.
