State v. Gaskins

Decision Date30 June 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–1915.,13–1915.
Citation866 N.W.2d 1
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jesse Michael GASKINS, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

866 N.W.2d 1

STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Jesse Michael GASKINS, Appellant.

No. 13–1915.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 30, 2015.


866 N.W.2d 2

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Walton, County Attorney, and Patrick A. McElyea, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion

866 N.W.2d 3

HECHT, Justice.

After making a routine traffic stop for an expired license plate, a police officer smelled marijuana and confiscated one marijuana blunt from the motorist. The officer ordered the motorist from the vehicle and arrested him for possession of marijuana. After the motorist and his passenger were placed in a squad car, a search of the passenger compartment at the scene of the arrest revealed a small portable locked safe. A police officer opened the safe without obtaining a search warrant and discovered additional marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a gun. The motorist was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and knowingly transporting a revolver in a vehicle. The district court denied the motorist's motion to suppress the contents of the locked container under the Federal and State Constitutions and convicted the motorist of the charges. Upon our review, we conclude the warrantless search of the container incident to the motorist's arrest violated his rights under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On December 18, 2012, while on second shift patrol, a Davenport police officer observed a van moving on the roadway with expired Iowa license plates. The officer initiated a traffic stop. As he approached the van, the officer noticed a very strong odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The driver of the van identified himself as Jesse Gaskins, and a passenger in the front seat of the vehicle could not produce identification.

The officer asked Gaskins about the odor of burnt marijuana. Gaskins denied there was any marijuana in the vehicle. Suspecting Gaskins's answer was untrue, the officer replied that a drug detection dog was on duty that night and that if it were brought to the scene it would detect that the vehicle did contain marijuana. Upon hearing about the prospect of summoning a drug dog, Gaskins said, “Okay, I'll be honest with you, I got a blunt.” He retrieved a partially-smoked marijuana blunt from the van's ashtray and gave it to the officer. Because there were two van occupants, the officer requested a second police unit be dispatched to the scene. When a second officer arrived, the officers directed Gaskins and his passenger to exit the van. The officer who initially made the stop immediately arrested Gaskins and secured him inside a police car with his passenger.

Based on his interactions with Gaskins—particularly the fact that Gaskins had initially lied about whether there was marijuana in the vehicle—the arresting officer believed the vehicle contained more marijuana than the blunt Gaskins had retrieved. He therefore directed the second officer to conduct a search of the van to look for additional drugs, paraphernalia, drug packaging materials, weapons, or “[a]nything that was illegal.”

The second officer began conducting the search of the van and discovered a small black portable safe between the driver's seat and the rear passenger seats. The safe was locked. The officer found a key to the safe's lock on the keyring in the van's ignition and used it to open the safe. He did not think about getting a warrant before opening the safe, and later testified he considered it the same as if he had found a zipped duffel bag or any other closed container while searching the van.1

866 N.W.2d 4

Inside the safe, he found a loaded handgun with a defaced serial number, several baggies of raw marijuana, several pipes, and some large plastic freezer bags that smelled of marijuana. The vehicle was inventoried, towed, and impounded.

On April 3, 2013, the State charged Gaskins by trial information with three counts: possessing marijuana with intent to deliver, knowingly transporting a revolver in a vehicle, and failing to affix a drug tax stamp.2 See Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d ) ; id. § 453B.12; id. § 724.4(1) (2011). Gaskins filed a motion to suppress the contents of the safe, asserting “[t]here existed no reason to proceed with the search ... without a warrant.” More specifically, he contended the search was not justified by any threat to the officers' safety or danger that evidence would be destroyed because both occupants of the van had been placed in custody and secured in a squad car away from the van. Gaskins requested the court suppress all evidence removed from the safe because, under both the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution, “the [warrantless] search ... violated his right to privacy in a locked safe.”

The State resisted the motion, asserting the warrantless search was a permissible search incident to arrest because it was reasonable to believe the van's passenger compartment contained evidence of the offense—marijuana possession—for which Gaskins was arrested. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 351, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1723–24, 173 L.Ed.2d 485, 501 (2009) (“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.”). The State did not assert that any other theory or exception to the warrant requirement justified the warrantless search the officers performed.

At the suppression hearing, the State contended the locked safe was no different from a duffel bag, a backpack, or any other kind of container encountered during the search of a vehicle. Further, the State asserted the fact the key was on Gaskins's keyring indicated he had access to the safe. Gaskins responded that the locked safe was quite different from duffel bags or backpacks because it was locked, not merely closed, clearly manifesting his expectation of privacy in its contents. The district court denied Gaskins's motion, concluding the search was a valid search incident to arrest. The district court did not decide whether any other exceptions to the warrant requirement supported the search because the State expressly argued only that the search was valid because it was incident to arrest.3

866 N.W.2d 5

Gaskins was convicted on all three counts following a bench trial on the minutes of testimony. Gaskins appealed, and we retained the appeal.

II. The Parties' Positions.

Gaskins asserts the warrantless search of his locked safe violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. In particular, Gaskins contends the search was not justified by officer safety concerns or by a danger that the safe or its contents could be destroyed under the circumstances presented here because the van's occupants had been removed from the vehicle and secured in a squad car.

Alternatively, Gaskins contends trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, he asserts trial counsel breached an essential duty by not discovering criticism and debate about the soundness of the Supreme Court's holdings in Gant and New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), which delineate the circumstances under which—consistent with the Fourth Amendment—officers may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile and its contents incident to the arrest of an occupant. Gaskins asserts that if trial counsel had uncovered the substantial debate about those cases, he could have crafted a much stronger motion to suppress.

The State asserts that existing federal and state court decisions provide sufficient grounds to affirm the district court's conclusion that the warrantless search in this case was a valid search incident to arrest.

III. Scope of Review.

“Because this case concerns the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, our review of the district court's suppression ruling is de novo.” State v. Watts, 801 N.W.2d 845, 850 (Iowa 2011). “We independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances found in the record, including the evidence introduced at both the suppression hearing and at trial.” State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 780 (Iowa 2010).

We ordinarily consider ineffective-assistance claims in postconviction-relief proceedings. Id. at 785. We only resolve them on direct appeal if the record is adequate to address the claim. Id. If the record is adequate, we review ineffective-assistance claims de novo. State v. Halverson, 857 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Iowa 2015). When evaluating ineffective-assistance claims, we apply a two-pronged test: we ask whether trial counsel breached an essential duty and whether prejudice resulted from any such breach. Vance, 790 N.W.2d at 785 ; see Strickland v. Washington, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Clinton v. Garrett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • July 30, 2021
    ...has occasionally read Article I, § 8 to confer distinct and more expansive rights than the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 6–7 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767, 782 & n.10 (Iowa 2011) ; State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260, 284–85 (Iowa 2010). With respect ......
  • State v. Hauge
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 22, 2022
    ...reserve the right to apply the principles differently under the state constitution compared to its federal counterpart. State v. Gaskins , 866 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa 2015) (omission in original) (quoting King v. State , 797 N.W.2d 565, 571 (Iowa 2011) ). Hauge cited the Fourth Amendment to the U......
  • State v. Kilby
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2021
    ...v. Kelly , 430 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Iowa 1988) (en banc))).Fourth, Pettijohn relied heavily on an inapplicable decision, State v. Gaskins , 866 N.W.2d 1, 14 (Iowa 2015), that departed from federal and prior Iowa precedent to limit the search-incident-to-arrest (SITA) doctrine. See Pettijohn , 8......
  • State v. Wright
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2021
    ...nor any question of safety of the officers. Id. at 456, 101 S. Ct. at 2862. Many state courts howled. So did we. State v. Gaskins , 866 N.W.2d 1, 9–13 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Vance , 790 N.W.2d 775, 786–90 (Iowa 2010). Justice Scalia noted that the Supreme Court caselaw assumed that the arre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT