State v. Eubanks

• Decision Date: 19 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1060,83-1060
• Citation: 355 N.W.2d 57
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Vickey Joe EUBANKS, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 57

355 N.W.2d 57

STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Vickey Joe EUBANKS, Appellee.

No. 83-1060.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 19, 1984.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., John P. Messina, and Marcia Mason, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Robert A. Wright, Jr., Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and McCORMICK, McGIVERIN, CARTER and WOLLE, JJ.

WOLLE, Justice.

In this Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, we must determine the constitutionality of a warrantless search of defendant's purse conducted as part of a lawful search of her automobile. Defendant Vickey Joe Eubanks was issued a citation on May 13, 1983 for possession of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 204.401(3) (1983). Thereafter the district court sustained her motion to suppress the contraband which a state patrolman had seized from her purse. Upon discretionary review of that order, we conclude that the State established it had probable cause to search her lawfully stopped vehicle and therefore also could lawfully search the purse she had in the vehicle when it was stopped. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

The facts of this case are essentially undisputed. On April 13, 1983 a state patrolman stopped defendant's vehicle because it had a faulty headlight. As the officer approached the car, he detected an odor of marijuana emanating from the interior. The patrolman asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, and she reluctantly complied, removing her purse from the car as she exited. While searching the interior of the car, the patrolman observed in an ashtray a pair of forceps clasping a small marijuana cigarette. He found no other evidence of marijuana inside the automobile. The patrolman then asked defendant to hand over her purse so that he could search it. Though defendant refused initially she relinquished the handbag upon the arrival of another officer. The patrolman searched the purse and found, hidden in a makeup case, a bag containing a green leafy-like substance which appeared to the officer to be marijuana. He thereafter issued her citations for the equipment violation and for possession of marijuana. Defendant was not placed in custodial arrest.

The district court sustained defendant's motion to suppress on the ground that the warrantless search violated defendant's federal constitutional rights. In this discretionary appeal, the State contends that the search of defendant's purse fell within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and was incident to a lawful arrest. No state constitutional issue has been raised by either party. Because federal constitutional rights are involved, we review the case de novo in the light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Oliver, 341 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa 1983); State v. Schrier, 283 N.W.2d 338, 341-42 (Iowa 1979).

A search and seizure without a valid warrant is per se unreasonable unless it comes within a recognized exception to constitutional warrant requirements, such as consent, search incident to arrest, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or plain view. State v. Lamp, 322 N.W.2d 48 53 (Iowa 1982); State v. Schrier, 283 N.W.2d at 342. In the absence of a warrant, the burden is on the State to demonstrate that a search and seizure was lawful. State v. Oliver 341 N.W.2d at 32; State v. Ahart, 324 N.W.2d 317, 318 (Iowa 1982); State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974).

It is well established that a police officer may search an automobile without a warrant when probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 459-60, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2035, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 579 (1971); State v. Holderness, 301 N.W.2d 733, 736 (Iowa 1981); State v. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1980). Here, the patrolman clearly had sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents. The patrolman smelled the odor of marijuana drifting from the car when he approached defendant, who was seated behind the steering wheel. The odor of that controlled substance in the automobile gave the patrolman reasonable cause to conduct a comprehensive search of the car. See State v. King, 191 N.W.2d at 655.

The problem this case presents is whether the State satisfied not only the probable cause requirement but also the requirement that exigent circumstances be present. The district court sustained defendant's motion to suppress on the ground that once the patrolman had directed defendant to exit the car, the exigency ordinarily present in vehicle searches had ended. The court noted that at that point, the officer could have conducted a warrantless search of the purse in either of two ways--by making a custodial arrest followed by a booking and inventory procedure, or by seizing but not opening the purse and thereby ensuring his own safety. The court concluded that the officer had not used either of those proper methods and therefore had no lawful basis for opening and searching the purse without a warrant.

We disagree with the trial court's ruling. This court has recognized two reasons for treating the warrant requirements differently for automobiles than for other private property. One reason is the inherent mobility of automobiles; the other is the diluted reasonable expectation of privacy resulting from the "configuration, use and regulation" of automobiles. State v. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d at 218 (quoting Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 761, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2591, 61 L.Ed.2d 235, 243 (1979)). We have adopted the United States Supreme Court statement that the exigent circumstances requirement is satisfied "when the car is movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car's contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained." Id. (quoting Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, 428 (1970)).

In addition, the United States Supreme Court has now simplified and expanded the scope of permissible warrantless automobile searches. In United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), the Court squarely addressed and answered in the affirmative the question whether police officers may open all containers found within a vehicle in the course of a legitimate warrantless search of a stopped vehicle. In Ross the police officers lawfully stopped a car believed to be carrying contraband. After ordering the driver to step out of the car, the officers discovered a bullet in the front seat. The legality of their subsequent search of the car's interior, including the glove compartment and...