State v. Murdock, No. 88-0918-CR

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
• Writing for the Court: STEINMETZ; SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON
• Citation: 155 Wis.2d 217,455 N.W.2d 618
• Decision Date: 24 May 1990
• Docket Number: No. 88-0918-CR
• Parties: , 58 USLW 2723 STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonard MURDOCK, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.

Page 618

455 N.W.2d 618 155 Wis.2d 217, 58 USLW 2723 STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Leonard MURDOCK, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. No. 88-0918-CR. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued March 7, 1990.
Decided May 24, 1990.

Page 619

[155 Wis.2d 221] David M. Sweet, Milwaukee, for defendant-respondent-petitioner.

Barry M. Levenson, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, Donald J. Hanaway, Atty. Gen., on the brief, for plaintiff-appellant.

STEINMETZ, Justice.

The defendant, Leonard Murdock, seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. Murdock, 151 Wis.2d 198, 445 N.W.2d 319 (Ct.App.1989), reversing an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, Honorable Robert W. Landry. The circuit court order granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized when a detective searched through closed drawers in an open pantry area after the defendant had been arrested in his home pursuant to a valid arrest warrant.

The first issue for review is whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the warrantless search of the defendant's home conducted incident to a lawful arrest violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The second issue asks whether the court of appeals erred in announcing a two-prong test as a "bright-line rule" to be used in

Page 620

determining the validity of a warrantless search of a home incident to a lawful arrest.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals which validated the scope of the search incident to a lawful arrest in this case. However, we disagree that the two-prong "bright-line" rule set down by the court of appeals conforms with law set by the United States Supreme [155 Wis.2d 222] Court in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2039-40, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) and its progeny. Therefore, we reject that test and hold that law enforcement officials may conduct a limited search incident to arrest in the home. That search is reasonable per se if confined to the immediate area surrounding the arrestee at the time of his arrest.

The facts are undisputed. Four detectives from the Milwaukee county sheriff's department went to the defendant's residence, a rooming house, to execute three arrest warrants. The detectives also had information that the defendant might be in possession of a firearm. However, the detectives did not possess a search warrant.

The detectives learned from the landlord that the defendant was renting two rooms in the building, Nos. 2 and 15. The officers went to room 15, knocked on the door, announced their presence and demanded entry. Testimony elicited from the detectives stated that they were made to wait 10 to 15 minutes outside room 15. During this time one detective testified that he heard feet moving and a sound like clicking metal from inside the room. Eventually, a man whose identity was then unknown to the detectives opened the door.

The detectives entered the defendant's home with their weapons drawn. The defendant and two other men present in the room were ordered to "hit the floor." All three men complied immediately without struggle or resistance, and the defendant was arrested.

The defendant and the other two men were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. All three men remained so restrained while lying on the floor face down. None of the men made any movement or motions construed by the detectives as attempts to resist, escape or gain access to the pantry area. While restrained, the [155 Wis.2d 223] defendant's head was approximately three to four feet from the entrance to the pantry.

Contemporaneous with the handcuffing of the three men, a search of the room was executed. ¹ The room itself was small, approximately 10 X 12 feet or 12 X 14 feet. Connected to the room was a pantry-type closet which was approximately 6 X 4 feet. The pantry area either had no door or the door was open at the time the search was executed.

At the time the pantry was searched, Detective Banaszak was standing over the defendant who made no attempt to gain entry to the pantry. Detective Welch joined Detective Banaszak, looked into the pantry and saw a single, unspent .22 caliber bullet sitting in plain view on a pantry shelf. The detective seized the bullet. This seizure is not contested. Detective Welch then searched through the three closed drawers of the pantry and found and seized a short-barreled rifle in the middle drawer.

Murdock was charged with the felony of possessing a short-barreled rifle in violation of sec. 941.28, Stats. ² [155 Wis.2d 224] Murdock did not

Page 621

challenge the lawfulness of his arrest on the three arrest warrants. However, Murdock filed a motion to suppress the rifle as the fruit of an unlawful search.

A hearing was held on the defendant's motion. At the hearing, the detectives testified that they were on the premises for the sole purpose of arresting the defendant pursuant to the arrest warrants. The detectives claimed authority to search the room based on realistic, practical and legitimate concerns for their personal safety.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress distinguishing between the ability of police to search a car versus a home incident to a lawful arrest. The trial court rejected the safety concern as rationale for the search under these facts. Voicing general concern for the safety of police officers, the trial court stated that, under the facts of this case, "it concerns me that the principle be proposed here that the officers had the right to make this search on the pretense of their own safety." The trial court noted the control the officers had over the situation and the strength and speed needed by the defendant to reach the pantry drawers. The trial court also noted that the detectives only had the authority to arrest the defendant and that the search conducted could have resulted in contraband having "nothing to do with self-defense." The court further stated that if a search of a home is authorized upon arrest on a lawful warrant, the search in this case went beyond "a personal search in the immediate environs" of the arrestee and was therefore violative of the constitution.

[155 Wis.2d 225] Upon the granting of the defendant's motion to suppress, the prosecution announced its inability to proceed. The defendant made oral motion to dismiss the criminal complaint which the trial court granted.

The state appealed the suppression ruling. The court of appeals reversed the trial court order and ruled that the search was valid because it was executed in an area into which the defendant might have reached at the time of the arrest. Murdock, 151 Wis.2d at 207, 445 N.W.2d 319. The court of appeals decision adopted a "bright-line rule" consisting of a two-prong test which eliminates an evaluation of the reasonableness of the actions of the police under the specific circumstances of each case. In announcing this "bright-line rule," the court of appeals relied heavily on the assumption that such a rule would guide and protect police officers. The court of appeals held:

[A] warrantless premises search incident to a lawful arrest is valid as long as it is limited to the area generally within the 'arrestee's reach at the time of his arrest,' that is, the room in which the arrest is made including a contiguous open area such as a closet or pantry, and the arresting officers have reasonable grounds to conclude that weapons or destructible evidence might be present in that room. Since the search here satisfies both prongs of this test, it must be upheld. (Footnote omitted.)

Id.

The defendant petitioned this court for review pursuant to sec. 808.10, Stats. We granted the petition.

In reviewing an order suppressing evidence, the trial court's findings of evidentiary or historical fact will be upheld unless they are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. State v. Guzy, 139 Wis.2d[155 Wis.2d 226] 663, 671, 407 N.W.2d 548 (1987). Whether a particular place is an area from which a defendant might secure a weapon is a question of constitutional fact which an appellate court will review independently of the trial court's findings. State v. Fry, 131 Wis.2d 153, 171, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986). Whether the facts satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonableness also presents a question of law which this court reviews independent of the lower court's decisions. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis.2d 824, 829, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989). This court exercises independent appellate review of constitutional facts because " '[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic

Page 622

value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.' " State v. Woods, 117 Wis.2d 701, 715, 345 N.W.2d 457 (1984) quoting State v. Hoyt, 21 Wis.2d 284, 305-06, 128 N.W.2d 645 (1964) (Wilkie, J., concurring).

The defendant's motion to suppress the rifle was based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, ³ and Art. I, sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. ⁴ The texts of these constitutional[155 Wis.2d 227] guarantees are essentially identical. Therefore, this court "has consistently and routinely conformed the law of search and seizure under the state constitution to that developed by the United States Supreme Court under the fourth amendment." Fry, 131 Wis.2d at 172, 388 N.W.2d 565. It is well-established that the fourth amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures but only those that are unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 60, 65, 70 S.Ct. 430, 432, 435, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950) (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925)).

The purpose of the fourth amendment is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials. See Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499...