The People v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County; Gary Steven Simon
7 Cal. 3d 186, 496 P.2d 1205, 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 (1972)
Rule of Law:
A full-body search of a person is not permitted as an incident to an arrest for a routine traffic violation, even if the driver must be taken into custody for failure to provide identification, unless there are specific, articulable facts that would lead an officer to reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous.
Facts:
- At 7:30 p.m., Police Officer Erickson observed a car being driven by the defendant without its headlights or taillights on.
- Erickson initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.
- The defendant informed the officer that he did not have his driver's license or the car's registration.
- Based on the traffic violation and the lack of identification, Officer Erickson arrested the defendant under the authority of California Vehicle Code § 40302(a).
- Following the arrest, Officer Erickson conducted a search of the defendant's person.
- During the search, the officer found a soft plastic bag containing 7.6 grams of marijuana in the defendant's right front pants pocket.
- Officer Erickson testified that at no point did he fear for his life or believe the defendant had a weapon on him.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a California trial court with possession of marijuana.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress.
- The People (prosecution) sought review of the trial court's order by filing for a statutory writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court.
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 a warrantless search of a driver's person, conducted as an incident to an arrest for a routine traffic violation where custody is required due to the driver's failure to provide identification, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
Yes, the warrantless search of the driver's person violates the Fourth Amendment. A search incident to an arrest for a routine traffic violation is unreasonable in scope if it goes beyond a pat-down for weapons justified by specific circumstances. The court reasoned that the prosecution's post-hoc justification for the search—probable cause for auto theft—was invalid because the mere failure to produce a license and registration does not establish probable cause for such a serious crime. Furthermore, a search incident to a traffic arrest cannot be for 'instrumentalities' or 'fruits' of the crime, as none exist for a minor traffic violation. A pat-down for weapons is permissible only under the Terry v. Ohio standard, which requires specific facts creating a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous; an ordinary traffic stop does not provide such facts. Finally, the statutory requirement to take the defendant into custody under Vehicle Code § 40302 for failing to provide identification does not authorize a full booking search in the field, as the statute mandates immediate transport to a magistrate for release on bail, a process distinct from a traditional jail booking.
Concurring - Wright, C.J.
Yes, the search was unconstitutional. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion, this opinion clarifies two points. First, it would be permissible for an officer to conduct a limited pat-down search for weapons before transporting a traffic violator to a magistrate, as the act of transportation creates an increased danger to the officer if the person is armed. The governmental interest in officer safety during transport outweighs the minor intrusion of a pat-down. However, even if the initial pat-down here were valid, the officer's discovery of a 'soft lump' did not create probable cause to believe it was a weapon, rendering the subsequent full search into the pocket illegal. Second, if a person is lawfully detained for an extended period after being taken to a magistrate (e.g., because they cannot make bail), a full booking search would then become reasonable to ensure the safety and security of the detention facility.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the scope of searches incident to arrests for minor traffic offenses in California. It establishes that a traffic arrest does not automatically grant police the authority to conduct a full search of the driver's person, drawing a sharp distinction between traffic infractions and other criminal offenses. The ruling clarifies that even when custodial transport is required by statute, it does not convert the situation into a typical 'booking' scenario that would justify a full inventory search. This precedent reinforces the Fourth Amendment principle that the scope of a search must be strictly tied to its justification, protecting the privacy of motorists from intrusive searches based on minor violations.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: The People v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County; Gary Steven Simon (1972)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"