State v. Overby

• Decision Date: 18 March 1999
• Docket Number: Nos. 980227,980228,s. 980227
• Citation: State v. Overby, 590 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 1999)
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dale Garry OVERBY, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 703

590 N.W.2d 703

1999 ND 47

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.Dale Garry OVERBY, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. 980227, 980228.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

March 18, 1999.

Lawrence P. Kropp, of Kropp Law Office, Jamestown, N.D., for defendant and appellant.

Frederick R. Fremgen, Assistant State's Attorney, Jamestown, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.

MARING, Justice.

¶1Dale Overby appeals the judgments of conviction entered June 23, 1998, contending the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his person following a routine traffic stop.We affirm, holding the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment as a search incident to arrest.

I

¶2 Just after midnight on December 17, 1997, Officer Thomas Nagel of the Jamestown Police Department stopped Dale Overby because his vehicle had a broken tail light.¹Officer Nagel testified at the suppression hearing "as soon as the vehicle was stopped the driver side door immediately came open and [Overby] put one foot outside the car and he kind of leaned to his left and he appeared to be fiddling around with something, stuffing something or doing something with his right pocket."Concerned about Overby's movements, Officer Nagel approached the vehicle "cautiously" and upon arriving at the vehicle, "smelled a very strong odor of marijuana."Nagel testified "there was no doubt in my mind that marijuana had just been smoked inside the vehicle."²Overby was alone in his vehicle.

¶3 Officer Nagel then ordered Overby to exit his vehicle, and because he was concerned about Overby's "unusual" actions in reaching for his pocket, performed a pat-down search for safety concerns.During the search, Nagel felt an "L-shaped object" in the right front pocket of Overby's coat.There was conflicting testimony whether Nagel merely patted down or "squeezed and manipulated" the pocket of Overby's coat.When Overby did not respond to being asked what was in his pocket, Nagel reached in and seized the object, a marijuana pipe with marijuana in its bowl.Overby then replied "that's all there is, you got it all."Nagel formally arrested Overby "within one to four minutes" of searching him and seizing the marijuana pipe.Overby was charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, both class A misdemeanors.

¶4 In March 1998, Overby moved to suppress the fruits of the search, arguing the pat-down search violated Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889(1968).The State countered by arguing the Terry search was valid, and in any event, the search was justified as a search incident to lawful arrest.The district court concluded the pat-down search was unreasonable under Terry, but was valid as a search incident to arrest.The court accordingly declined to suppress the fruits of the search.³Overby conditionally plead guilty under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), preserving the issues argued in his suppression motion for appeal.The district court entered two judgments of conviction on June 23, 1998, and Overby timely appealed from those judgments.

II

¶5We recently reviewed our standard of review of a trial court's denial of a suppression motion in State v. Kitchen, 1997 ND 241, p 11, 572 N.W.2d 106(internal citations omitted):

We will defer to a trial court's findings of fact in the disposition of a motion to suppress.Conflicts in testimony will be resolved in favor of affirmance, as we recognize the trial court is in a superior position to assess credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence.Generally, a trial court's decision to deny a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the trial court's findings, and if its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

"While we defer to the trial court's findings of fact, questions of law are fully reviewable."State v. Hawley, 540 N.W.2d 390, 392(N.D.1995).We have reviewed the record, and conclude the district court's denial of the suppression motion is not contrary to law or the manifest weight of the evidence.We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Overby's suppression motion.

III

¶6 Overby first argues the search of his person went beyond the parameters of Terry.We find it unnecessary to reach the Terry issues raised by Overby, however, because we conclude the search of his person was justified as a search incident to arrest.Cf.Hawley, 540 N.W.2d at 393(reasoning although the trial court ruled "a Fourth Amendment seizure did not occur ... it is unnecessary to decide whether a seizure actually occurred here [because] a reasonable and articulable suspicion justified [the officer's] investigation in any event").We note although Officer Nagel initiated the search as a "frisk for weapons" and out of a concern for his safety, typically the basis for a Terry search, an officer's subjective intent has no bearing on "ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis."City of Fargo v. Sivertson, 1997 ND 204, p 15, 571 N.W.2d 137.

¶7 A warrantless search, to be valid, "must fall within a narrow and specifically delineated exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."State v. Gilberts, 497 N.W.2d 93, 97(N.D.1993).A search incident to lawful arrest is one of those exceptions.SeeState v. Olson, 1998 ND 41, p 13, 575 N.W.2d 649(recognizing the search incident to arrest exception).A search incident to arrest is justified because "[a] custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification ... [i]t is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search."United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427(1973).

¶8 A valid arrest based upon probable cause clearly justifies a warrantless search of the arrestee, but as the name of this exception implies, lawful arrest typically precedes the search.This case presents to us for the first time the issue of whether a warrantless search preceding arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Supreme Court has answered that question in the affirmative, so long as probable cause to arrest existed before the search, and the arrest and search are substantially contemporaneous.SeeRawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633(1980)(holding"[w]here the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner's person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa," so long as the fruits of the search were "not necessary to support probable cause to arrest").Id. n. 6.While the Rawlings Court did not further discuss its reason for so holding, we agree with Justice Traynor, who was ahead of his time when he stated

if the officer is entitled to make an arrest on the basis of information available to him before he searches, and as an incident to that arrest is entitled to make a reasonable search of the person arrested ..., there is nothing unreasonable in his conduct if he makes the search before instead of after the arrest.In fact, if the person searched is innocent and the search convinces the officer that his reasonable belief to the contrary is erroneous, it is to the advantage of the person searched not to be arrested.On the other hand, if he is not innocent or the search does not establish his innocence, the security of his person ... suffers no more from a search preceding his arrest than it would from the same search following it.

People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531, 533(1955).Several jurisdictions have similarly held.See, e.g., Matter of the Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 694-95(Minn.1997)(because police had probable cause to believe the defendant's pouch contained cocaine, and thus had probable cause to arrest the defendant, the warrantless search of the pouch was a valid "search incident to arrest" even though it preceded defendant's arrest);see also3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 5.4(a), at 153-55 n. 7 (3rd ed.1996)(collecting cases).

¶9 Under the Rawlings search incident to arrest rationale, Officer Nagel's search of Overby was reasonable if: (1) Nagel had probable cause to arrest Overby before searching him; and (2) the arrest was substantially contemporaneous to the search.In State v. Ackerman, 499 N.W.2d 882, 885(N.D.1993), we concluded a "search was not incident to an arrest because no arrests were made until more than an hour after the search."The second prong is easily met here, however, because Overby was formally arrested within minutes of being searched.Thus, the dispositive issue concerns the first prong; whether Officer Nagel had probable cause to make a warrantless arrest when he"smelled a very strong odor of marijuana" emanating from Overby's vehicle.

¶10N.D.C.C. § 29-06-15(1)(a) authorizes a law enforcement officer to make a warrantless arrest when there is probable cause to believe a suspect has committed or attempted to commit a public offense in the officer's presence.The term "public offense" includes misdemeanors.SeeState v. Littlewind, 417 N.W.2d 361, 363(N.D.1987);State v. Bergeron, 326 N.W.2d 684, 685(N.D.1982).The State argues our decision in State v. Binns, 194 N.W.2d 756(N.D.1972), specifically held the odor of marijuana emanating from a suspect's vehicle supplied the requisite probable cause to make a warrantless arrest of the suspect under N.D.C.C. § 29-06-15(1)(a).Seeid. at 759(holding"[t]he officer, through his sense of smell, had reasonable cause ⁴ to believe that the person arrested had committed a public offense, and this, under Section 29-06-15(1), justified the warrantless arrest").Overby reads Binns differently, however.He argues Binns held...