Louis C. Davis v. Mike Robbs, 462, Tonyia Johnston and Mike Seay
794 F.2d 1129, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26976 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless seizure of a weapon from an area within an arrestee's immediate control is a lawful search incident to arrest, even if the seizure occurs moments after the arrestee has been secured and removed from the immediate area.
Facts:
- Police officers Robbs, Johnston, and Seay were dispatched to Louis C. Davis's residence after a taxi driver reported Davis was intoxicated and refused to pay his fare.
- When Officer Robbs knocked on the door, Davis threatened to kill him and was observed inside holding a rifle.
- Davis stepped outside, repeated his threat to kill the officers, and then went back inside his residence.
- While inside, Davis placed the rifle against a telephone table and announced his intention to surrender.
- Before opening the door to surrender, Davis took out a pocketknife, exposed the blade, and returned it to his pocket.
- When Davis opened the door, officers entered, confiscated the knife from his pocket, handcuffed him, and placed him under arrest.
- After Davis was secured and placed inside a police squad car, Officer Robbs re-entered the residence and seized the rifle, which remained in plain view against the telephone table.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis C. Davis filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police officers Robbs, Johnston, and Seay in federal district court.
- Davis alleged false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, and false imprisonment.
- The defendants filed answers and subsequently moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits attesting to their version of events.
- Davis filed a cross-motion for summary judgment without providing supporting evidence beyond his own conclusory statements.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant officers.
- Davis, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment permit police officers, as part of a search incident to a lawful arrest, to seize a weapon from an area that was within the arrestee's immediate control at the time of arrest, after the arrestee has been handcuffed and removed from the scene?
Opinions:
Majority - Krupansky, Circuit Judge
Yes. The seizure of the rifle constituted a lawful search incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment. The governmental interest in officer safety justifies a limited search of the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control—the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon. Applying the standard from Chimel v. California, the court found that at the time of his arrest, Davis was in immediate proximity to the loaded rifle, which was in clear view and easily accessible to him. Because the rifle was within his area of immediate control at the moment of arrest, the police were lawfully entitled to seize it as part of the search incident to that arrest, even though the physical seizure occurred moments after Davis had been secured in the squad car.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Wellford, Circuit Judge
No. The post-arrest seizure of the rifle was not a valid search incident to arrest and violated the Fourth Amendment. The rationale for the search-incident-to-arrest exception is the existence of an exigency, such as danger to officers or the potential for evidence destruction, at the time of the search, not the arrest. At the time the police seized the rifle, Davis was handcuffed and in the squad car; he no longer had access to the gun, and the danger had passed. Since no exigency existed at the time of the seizure, the officers should have obtained a warrant before re-entering the home to retrieve the rifle, especially given the heightened Fourth Amendment protection afforded to a person's home.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the temporal scope of the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine established in Chimel v. California. The majority's holding suggests that the permissible area of a search is defined by the arrestee's immediate control at the moment of arrest, not necessarily at the moment of the search. This allows for a search to occur shortly after the arrestee has been secured, potentially expanding the exception beyond its underlying rationale of preventing immediate harm or evidence destruction, as highlighted by the dissent. The ruling provides officers with more flexibility but creates tension with the core exigency requirement of warrantless searches.
