Opinion
No. 3-851 / 03-0131.
Filed December 10, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for LouisaCounty, Cynthia Danielson, Judge.
Brad Monroe Walker appeals from his convictions for possession of marijuana, going armed with a loaded firearm within city limits, and driving while barred. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, and David Matthews, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Brad Monroe Walker appeals from his convictions for possession of marijuana, going armed with a loaded firearm within city limits, and driving while barred. He claims the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On October 4, 2002, Wapello police officer Chantz Bieri noticed a truck being driven with a partially broken taillight. After following the truck for a short time, Bieri observed that the right brake light on the truck was not working. Bieri ran a check on the license plate number on the truck and discovered it was registered to Edward Beaber. Bieri then activated his emergency lights and stopped the vehicle.
Bieri approached the truck and explained to the driver why he stopped him. He then asked the driver for identification and proof of insurance. The driver did not have any identification and Bieri requested the driver's name and date of birth. After identifying Walker as the driver of the vehicle, Bieri relayed Walker's name to dispatch and was informed that Walker was barred from driving and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Because two other officers were on their way to assist Bieri, he waited for them to arrive before arresting Walker.
When the other officers arrived they approached the truck. Walker exited the truck and met the officers at the rear of the truck. Bieri informed Walker he was being arrested because he was driving while barred and there was a warrant outstanding for his arrest. Bieri then arrested Walker, patted him down, placed him in handcuffs, and put him in his squad car.
After Bieri secured Walker, deputies Turner and Chaney of the Louisa County Sheriff's office, who had arrived at the scene to back up Bieri, attempted to conduct a search of the truck incident to Walker's arrest. However, they discovered that the doors to the truck were locked. Deputy Turner walked over to the squad car to obtain the keys from Walker. Walker told the officers that they did not need to search the vehicle. Turner obtained a key from the defendant's pants pocket.
A search of the passenger compartment of the truck revealed a marijuana leaf, a digital scale, cigarette rolling papers, and a rifle with a loaded magazine. After finding the above items in the passenger compartment, Deputy Chaney searched the bed of the truck. He discovered three bags of marijuana weighing approximately 220 grams, 190 grams, and 16 grams respectively at various locations in the truck bed.
On October 15, 2002, the State filed a trial information charging Walker with: (1) possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver while in the immediate possession or control of a firearm, (2) failure to pay excise tax on a controlled substance, (3) carrying weapons, and (4) driving while barred. Prior to trial, Walker filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence discovered as a result of the search of the truck he was driving. Following a hearing the district court denied Walker's motion to suppress.
The court ruled that in regards to the truck and this defendant the truck was "not a protected area under the Fourth Amendment." The court found that Walker did not have standing to raise the issue of an illegal search and seizure of the truck. The court also ruled that even if Walker had standing to object to the search of the truck, his motion to suppress would still fail because the search was conducted incident to his arrest. Finally, the court found that the State had probable cause to search the truck bed based upon finding a loaded gun and drug paraphernalia within the passenger compartment of the truck. The court noted that the fact that these items were in a moving vehicle also created exigent circumstances.
Following trial, the jury found Walker guilty under Count I of the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. Under Count II, the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance marijuana. Under Counts III and IV, the jury found the defendant guilty of carrying weapons and driving while barred as charged. Since the guilty verdicts under Count I and II were the same the court merged them into a single conviction at sentencing. On January 10, 2003, Walker was sentenced to six months for possession of a controlled substance, two years for carrying weapons, and two years for driving while barred. All terms were to run concurrent and all sentences were suspended. This appeal followed.
II. Motion to Suppress
Walker claims that the warrantless search of the truck he was driving was unreasonable and in violation of his constitutional rights. He argues that since the search was illegal, none of the evidence obtained from the traffic stop should have been admitted into evidence at his trial. Since the issues Walker raises implicate his constitutional rights, our review is de novo. State v. Merrill, 538 N.W.2d 300, 301 (Iowa 1995).
Walker does not contest the validity of the traffic stop. He also acknowledges that he was lawfully arrested pursuant to a valid outstanding warrant and for driving while barred. Walker contends the search of the truck was not a valid search incident to arrest because he did not have immediate control over the passenger compartment of the truck after he locked the doors and was placed in a patrol car. Walker argues that if the search of the passenger compartment of the truck was invalid then the search of the truck bed also was invalid, since it was "fruit of the poisonous tree", and any items found in either location should have been suppressed. He also claims that the search of the truck could not be justified based on probable cause and exigent circumstances because the officers had no probable cause to believe they would find evidence of criminal activity after stopping him. Finally, Walker asserts that the district court erroneously concluded that he did not have standing to challenge the search of the truck. He argues that the State made no showing that he did not have ownership or permissive right to use the vehicle, therefore, he did have standing to challenge the search.
Because we find the issue dispositive, we first address the defendant's claim that the search of the pickup truck cannot be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The search conducted on the truck Walker was driving occurred soon after Walker was lawfully arrested, handcuffed, and secured in the patrol car. A brief delay in the search occurred because Walker locked the doors to the truck just before he was arrested. Walker claims the search incident to arrest was unjustified because the truck's cab was beyond his immediate control after he locked the truck and was placed in a patrol car. At that point, he argues the officers were not in danger from any weapons in the truck and no evidence was likely to be destroyed.
It is well settled that when a police officer has made a lawful arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, 775 (1981). A vehicle search is permissible even though the defendant is handcuffed or otherwise secured, and away from the car. State v. Dawdy, 533 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Iowa 1995); State v. Derifield, 467 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). The basis for this well established exception is the need to disarm the person arrested as well as preservation of the evidence. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 116, 119 S.Ct. 484, 487, 142 L.Ed.2d 492, 498 (1998). However, the authority to conduct an automobile search does not depend on the presence of either concern. Knowles, 525 U.S. at 118, 119 S.Ct. at 488, 142 L. Ed.2d at 499.
We conclude that Walker's argument is inconsistent with the authorities just mentioned. Because we conclude the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies here, we affirm the district court's denial of Walker's motion to suppress.
Having concluded that the search of the truck was valid as a search incident to arrest, we need not address Walker's other appellate claims.