Opinion
No. 2-584 / 01-1654
Filed November 15, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, JAMES M. DREW (suppression and sentencing) and JOHN S. MACKEY (trial), Judges.
Jennifer Boggess appeals her conviction and sentence for possession of methamphetamine, arguing the district court wrongfully denied her suppression request. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, and Paul L. Martin, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, P.J., and VOGEL and MAHAN, JJ.
Jennifer Boggess appeals her conviction and sentence for possession of methamphetamine. Boggess argues the district court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of her vehicle. Upon our de novo review, State v. Tolsdorf, 574 N.W.2d 290, 291 (Iowa 1998), we affirm.
An off-duty police officer witnessed Boggess driving a Chevy Cavalier. Knowing there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest, he reported the sighting, and determined through dispatch that the vehicle was registered in Boggess's name. Although the officer lost visual contact with the vehicle, when an on-duty officer located Boggess in an alley a short time later, she was "about three feet" from the open driver-side door of her car. She was apprehended twenty to twenty-five feet from her car after she "darted" away from police and attempted to hide beside a dumpster. Once Boggess was arrested, handcuffed and secured in the back of a patrol car, another officer retrieved her purse from the open vehicle. Before handing the purse to Boggess, the officer checked it for contraband or weapons. He discovered drug paraphernalia and what was later confirmed to be methamphetamine.
The warrantless search of a vehicle's passenger compartment is valid so long as it is a "contemporaneous incident" to the lawful arrest of a vehicle "occupant." New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, 775 (1981). This rule applies not only to the search of the compartment, but any containers therein, such as Boggess's purse. Id. Boggess contends the search was not valid, given Belton's reliance on Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, 694 (1969), and Chimel's requirement that the area searched be under the arrestee's immediate control. She asserts that, because she was arrested twenty to twenty-five feet from her vehicle and then secured in the back of the patrol car, the passenger compartment of her vehicle was not within her immediate control.
In determining whether the search in this case was lawful under Belton, we note Iowa does not appear to require strict compliance with the occupancy requirement. See Tolsdorf, 574 N.W.2d at 292 (validating search incident to arrest, even though defendant was arrested before reaching his truck, where police allowed him to enter and secure vehicle). The key seems to be whether the arrest and search occurred sufficiently close in time and proximity to the arrestee's occupancy of the vehicle, such that the exigencies underlying Chimel are satisfied. See State v. Edgington, 487 N.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Iowa 1992) (upholding search incident to arrest occurring after defendant was handcuffed and placed in patrol car). Although Boggess was not in her vehicle when arrested, the sighting by the off-duty officer, and the fact she was mere feet from her open car door when located by the second officer, provides compelling evidence she was a vehicle occupant within the parameters of Belton.
Under the facts of this case, "the search was close enough in time and location to the actual arrest that the Belton rule applies." Tolsdorf, 574 N.W.2d at 292. The district court did not err in denying Boggess's suppression request. AFFIRMED.