Opinion
No. 04-0615.
March 16, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, J.G. Johnson, District Associate Judge.
Stacie Martin challenges the denial of her motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James G. Tomka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, W. Wayne Saur, County Attorney, and J.D. Villont, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
The issue here is whether the district court acted appropriately in declining to suppress drug-related evidence found in a passenger's purse following the stop of a vehicle and the arrest of the driver.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
A Fayette County deputy sheriff stopped the vehicle in which Stacie Martin was a passenger, after determining that the driver was driving while barred. The driver was removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest. Martin remained in the passenger seat. The deputy recognized her and asked if she had insurance on the vehicle. Martin responded that she did not. The deputy then advised her that the vehicle would be towed and she needed to get out. Due to weather conditions, she was directed to the front seat of the squad car. The deputy asked her if she wanted anything from the vehicle before it was inventoried. Martin indicated she wanted her purse, which was still in the passenger compartment. As the deputy retrieved it, Martin got out of the squad car. Before the deputy handed her the purse, he asked whether there were weapons inside. Martin responded that there was a knife, and said she would get it. She reached into the purse while it was still in the deputy's hand. When the deputy would not release the purse, she became agitated, put her hands on the deputy, and pushed him away. A small pocket knife fell to the ground. Martin was arrested for interference with official acts and was re-situated in the squad car. The deputy cursorily searched the purse and discovered drug paraphernalia. Later, on completing a full inventory of the purse, he discovered marijuana and methamphetamine.
Martin was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. Iowa Code § 124.401(5) (2003). Her trial attorney moved to suppress the drug evidence, contending it was obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional search of the purse. The district court denied the motion and, following trial, found Martin guilty as charged.
On appeal, Martin reiterates that the search violated the United States Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and alleges for the first time that the search also violated the Iowa Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. I, § 8. The State responds that the warrantless search of Martin's purse (1) was proper pursuant to the "search incident to arrest" exception to the warrant requirement, (2) was a valid search for weapons following an investigatory stop, (3) was subject to the inevitable discovery rule, and (4) was not invalid under the Iowa constitution, assuming this question is subject to review as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. On our de novo review of the record, we find the State's first response dispositive.
II. Search Incident to Arrest
The United States Supreme Court has articulated several Fourth Amendment principles pertinent to our analysis of this exception. First, "[a] lawful custodial arrest creates a situation which justifies the contemporaneous search without a warrant of the person arrested and of the immediately surrounding area." New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2862, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768, 773 (1981). Second, the "immediately surrounding area" extends to "the passenger compartment of that automobile." Id. at 460, 101 S. Ct. at 2864, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 775; see also Thornton v. United States, 514 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127, 2132, 158 L. Ed. 2d 905, 914 (2004) ("Once an officer determines that there is probable cause to make an arrest, it is reasonable to allow officers to ensure their safety and to preserve evidence by searching the entire passenger compartment."). Third, police may "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." Belton, 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S. Ct. at 2864, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 775. Fourth,
"Container" here denotes any object capable of holding another object. It thus includes closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and the like.
Id. n. 4. Fifth, these containers may be searched whether open or closed, "since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have." Id. at 461, 101 S. Ct. at 2864, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 775.
Searches of purses within cars have also been upheld under the probable cause exception to the warrant requirement. Cf.Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 307, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 1304, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408, 419 (1999) ("We hold that police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search."); State v. Eubanks, 355 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Iowa 1984) (upholding search of purse based on probable cause to search vehicle for contraband).
Applying these principles, we conclude the officer's search of Martin's purse was a lawful search incident to his arrest of the driver. Id. at460, 101 S. Ct. at 2864, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 775. We also agree with the district court that the search was a lawful search incident to the arrest of Martin for interference with official acts. See State v. Dawdy, 533 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Iowa 1995). Although Martin was not under arrest at the moment the officer retrieved her purse from the car, her actions immediately thereafter gave the officer grounds for arrest. The officer's initial search of the purse was contemporaneous with this arrest. It is true that the portion of the purse search which uncovered the drugs was performed later and at a different locale. However, our court has cited authority upholding searches under these circumstances. See State v. Derifield, 467 N.W.2d 297, 300 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991) (finding it unnecessary to decide whether the cited out-of-state authority should be adopted in this jurisdiction).
III. Remaining Responses of the State
In light of our conclusion that the search was lawful under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement, we need not address the State's second and third arguments. As for the State's final argument, we agree Martin did not preserve error on her assertion that the search was unlawful under the Iowa Constitution. Statev. Griffin, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2005). Examining this issue under an ineffective assistance of counsel rubric, we note that the Iowa Supreme Court has not charted a different course under the Iowa Constitution and has not signaled an intent to do so. Therefore, we conclude there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel raised the same argument under the Iowa Constitution.
IV. Disposition
We affirm the District Court's denial of Martin's motion to suppress as well as her judgment and sentence.