State v. Newsom, 24697
| Citation | 979 P.2d 100,132 Idaho 698 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 24697,24697 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lori Kay NEWSOM, Defendant-Appellant. Boise, October 1998 Term |
Stewart A. Morris, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Michael A. Henderson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Michael A. Henderson argued.
This is a criminal case. We conclude that the search of a passenger's purse as part of a vehicle search following the arrest of the driver violated the passenger's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
Two Boise police officers (the officers) saw a vehicle that made several turn signal violations. The officers initiated a registration check and continued to watch the vehicle while waiting for the results. The officers saw a passenger (the passenger) enter the vehicle and then saw the vehicle make more turn signal violations as it drove away. Through the registration check the officers learned that there were outstanding felony arrest warrants for the registered owner of the vehicle. The officers stopped the vehicle based on this information and the turn signal violations. Through an identification check the officers learned that the driver was not the owner of the vehicle and that there were outstanding felony arrest warrants for the driver. One of the officers (the first officer) arrested the driver. At that time, the passenger, Lori Kay Newsom, was sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle. She later testified at a suppression hearing that her purse was in her lap at that time. The other The passenger was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, pled not guilty, and requested that the trial court suppress the methamphetamine taken from her purse. Relying on New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the trial court denied suppression, stating that "it was a search incident to a valid arrest under the Belton case." The passenger requested that the trial court make factual findings. The trial court made only the following finding, which was prepared by the State at the request of the trial court:
officer (the second officer) asked the passenger to get out of the vehicle. According to the passenger's testimony at the suppression hearing, she began to get out of the vehicle while holding her purse but the second officer ordered her to leave her purse in the vehicle. During his testimony at the suppression hearing, the second officer was not asked whether he ordered the passenger to leave her purse in the vehicle. On this subject, his only testimony was that when the passenger stepped out of the vehicle, "[s]he didn't have a purse with her. It was inside the car." While the second officer questioned the passenger, the first officer searched the vehicle incident to the driver's arrest and found the passenger's purse. Inside the purse, the first officer found "a little blue change purse" that contained two glass vials and several tinfoil bindles of methamphetamine. After being questioned by the officers, the passenger admitted that the purse was hers
Having heard the testimony submitted at the Suppression Hearing from [the first and second officers], as well as the testimony of [the passenger], the Court finds that the officers['] actions were appropriate and that the search of [the passenger's] purse was lawful incident to the arrest of the driver of the vehicle.
The trial court did not make a finding about where the passenger's purse was at the time of the driver's arrest or whether the passenger's purse was left in the vehicle by the passenger voluntarily or at the second officer's direction.
The passenger entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. The trial court accepted the conditional plea and entered a judgment of conviction. The passenger appealed. This Court assigned the case to the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the search was lawful. On the passenger's request, we granted review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION BASED ON BELTON.
The passenger asserts that the trial court should not have denied suppression based on Belton. We agree.
When we review a trial court's order denying a motion to suppress evidence on constitutional grounds, we defer to the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and we freely review whether constitutional requirements have been satisfied in light of the facts found. State v. Webb, 130 Idaho 462, 465, 943 P.2d 52, 55 (1997). In the present case, the only findings to which we defer are those actually made by the trial court or any that are implicit in the trial court's decision. State v. Kirkwood, 111 Idaho 623, 625, 726 P.2d 735, 737 (1986).
In Belton, the United States Supreme Court announced the following rule:
[W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. Such a container may, of course, be searched whether it is open or closed....
453 U.S. at 460-61, 101 S.Ct. 2860 (citations omitted).
Belton does not authorize the search of another occupant of the automobile merely because the other occupant was there when the arrest occurred. As the Supreme Court carefully pointed out in Belton, "the lawful custodial arrest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mercier, 20150275.
...Holland, 135 Idaho 159, 15 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2000) ). Accord: State v. Boyd, 275 Kan. 271, 64 P.3d 419, 427 (2003) ; State v. Newsom, 132 Idaho 698, 979 P.2d 100, 102 (1998) ; State v. Seitz, 86 Wash.App. 865, 941 P.2d 5, 8 (1997). But see State v. Steele, 613 N.W.2d 825, 830 (S.D.2000).[¶ 6......
-
State v. Roe
...P.2d 311, 315 (1983). The issue in this case is whether the search of Roe's shorts was valid incident to arrest. In State v. Newsom, 132 Idaho 698, 979 P.2d 100 (1998), the Idaho Supreme Court held that a search of the vehicle compartment could not extend to a passenger's purse when the off......
-
State v. Tognotti, 20030015.
...a search of a nonarrested passenger based solely on the arrest of the driver or another occupant of the vehicle. State v. Newsom, 132 Idaho 698, 979 P.2d 100, 102 (1998). Consequently, if Tognotti was standing outside the vehicle with her purse when her passenger, Decoteau, was arrested, th......
-
State v. Hoskins, Docket No. 46605
...He argued that the traffic stop "evolved into an illegal detention and seizure of the Defendant’s person" and cited State v. Newsom, 132 Idaho 698, 979 P.2d 100 (1998), for the proposition that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated after ......
-
Bright lines on the road: the Fourth Amendment, the automatic companion rule, the "automatic container" rule, and a new rule for drug- or firearm-related traffic stop companion searches incident to lawful arrest.
..."'any containers' situated in the compartment"). (68.) State v. Tanner, 915 So.2d 762, 764 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005); State v. Newsom, 979 P.2d 100, 100-02 (Idaho 1998); State v. Boyd, 64 P.3d 419, 427 (Kan. 2003); State v. Tognotti, 663 N.W.2d 642, 650 (N.D. 2003); Commonwealth v. Staglia......