State v. Hinderman

• Citation: 361 Wis.2d 287,862 N.W.2d 620 (Table)
• Decision Date: 12 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014AP1787–CR.,2014AP1787–CR.
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Miranda K. HINDERMAN, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

361 Wis.2d 287

862 N.W.2d 620 (Table)

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Miranda K. HINDERMAN, Defendant–Respondent.

No. 2014AP1787–CR.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Feb. 12, 2015.

Opinion

¶ 1 HIGGINBOTHAM, J.¹

The State of Wisconsin appeals an order from the Grant County circuit court suppressing evidence of tetrahydrocannabinols (marijuana) and drug paraphernalia confiscated by law enforcement officers from the vehicle of Miranda K. Hinderman following a traffic stop and subsequent arrest for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). On appeal, the State argues that the court erred in suppressing the evidence because under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), a law enforcement officer may search containers in a vehicle for evidence of intoxicants or other substances that could impair driving after a lawful arrest for OWI. Hinderman responds that, in this case, the circuit court correctly concluded that officers must have a reasonable belief that evidence relating to the crime of arrest could be found in the vehicle, and specifically, inside a three-by-three inch pouch located inside Hinderman's purse, and that here, no reasonable belief existed. We conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the search of the pouch within Hinderman's purse was not reasonable because the officer did not have sufficient articulable facts to form a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime for which Hinderman was arrested, OWI, was inside the unopened pouch. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The following facts are taken from the criminal complaint and the suppression hearing before the circuit court. In March 2014, Deputy Jerry Vesperman observed a silver vehicle cross the center lane three times while driving north on Highway 80 in Grant County. The deputy conducted a traffic stop and observed a female, Miranda K. Hinderman, in the driver's seat. While speaking to Hinderman, the deputy smelled a strong odor of intoxicants coming from within the vehicle. The deputy described Hinderman's eyes as bloodshot and glassy. When asked how many drinks Hinderman had consumed that night, she responded, “just a couple.”

¶ 3 The deputy asked Hinderman to perform field sobriety tests. Based upon Hinderman's performance of the sobriety tests, the odor of intoxicants, Hinderman's slurred speech, glossy eyes, and admission to drinking, the deputy placed Hinderman under arrest for OWI, second offense. After being told that she was under arrest, Hinderman was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the squad car. Deputy Vesperman stated that he asked Hinderman whether she wanted her keys and cell phone from her vehicle, and she responded yes. He also asked Hinderman if she wanted her purse, which was sitting on the passenger seat of the motor vehicle. Hinderman was equivocal in answering no, but responded that she wanted her cell phone, keys, and her car locked up.

¶ 4 While Deputy Vesperman was talking with Hinderman about her purse, a second deputy went to Hinderman's car and began to search the vehicle.² Vesperman eventually joined the second deputy and they searched the vehicle together. At the time, neither of the deputies observed any alcohol containers in plain view. While searching Hinderman's car, the second deputy found a purse, which was eventually identified as belonging to Hinderman, looked inside the purse and found a closed, red zippered pouch, approximately three-by-three inches in length and one-half inch to three quarters of an inch wide. The deputy opened the pouch, where he found a metal one hitter smoking device, a small wooden box, and a clear plastic bag containing marijuana.

¶ 5 Subsequently, Hinderman was charged with OWI, second offense, operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, second offense, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Hinderman filed a motion to suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia, on the ground that the warrantless search of her motor vehicle and the red pouch found in her purse inside the vehicle in particular, violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures secured by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Wis. Const. art. 1, § 11, under the rule expressed in Gant, pertaining to warrantless searches of motor vehicles pursuant to a lawful arrest.

¶ 6 A hearing was held on Hinderman's motion, and the circuit court granted Hinderman's motion to suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia. The State appeals the suppression order.

DISCUSSION

¶ 7 Review of an order granting or denying a motion to suppress evidence presents a question of constitutional fact. State v. Wantland, 2014 WI 58, ¶ 18, 355 Wis.2d 135, 848 N.W.2d 810. “When presented with a question of constitutional fact, this court engages in a two-step inquiry. First, we review the circuit court's findings of historical fact under a deferential standard, upholding them unless they are clearly erroneous. Second, we independently apply constitutional principals to those facts.” Id., ¶ 19 (citations and quoted source omitted).

¶ 8 The State argues that Gant governs the outcome of this case. In Gant, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers may search a motor vehicle without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest when: (1) “the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search,” or (2) “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’ “ Gant, 556 U.S. at 343 (quoting another source); see also State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84, ¶ 26, 327 Wis.2d 252, 786 N.W.2d 97. In this case, the parties agree that the first prong in Gant is inapplicable because there was no concern for officer safety. There is no dispute that Hinderman was under arrest and secure in the squad car at the time of the search. Thus, our analysis focuses on the second prong, namely, whether sufficient articulable facts existed at the time of Hinderman's arrest for the officers to reasonably believe that Hinderman's vehicle contained “evidence relevant to the crime of arrest,” OWI. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 343.

¶ 9 Applying the second prong in Gant, the State contends that the deputies were justified in searching Hinderman's vehicle and any containers located therein for evidence that she was driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. As for searching Hinderman's purse, the State argues that the deputies were justified in looking inside Hinderman's purse and inside the three-by-three inch pouch after arresting Hinderman because the pouch was a container that could have held a small, single-serving container of alcohol.³ In response, Hinderman argues that the State did not present specific articulable facts providing a reason to believe that Hinderman's vehicle, or the pouch, may contain evidence of the OWI arrest. We agree.

¶ 10 After hearing testimony from Deputy Vesperman and arguments from both parties, the circuit court gave a thoughtful and well-reasoned explanation in support of its decision to grant the motion to suppress the marijuana and drug paraphernalia found in the pouch located inside Hinderman's purse:

I'm persuaded by the observation in Gant itself. That although motorists' privacy interests in a vehicle is less substantial, it's nonetheless important and deserving of constitutional protection. That the concern in the Fourth Amendment is about giving unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a

...