State v. Crutcher
989 S.W.2d 295, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 228 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a suspect's property cannot be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest unless the suspect is, in fact, under custodial arrest at the time of the search. The mere existence of probable cause to arrest is insufficient to trigger this exception to the warrant requirement.
Facts:
- On October 19, 1995, Officer Frank Moniz observed Bobby Crutcher and two others speeding on motorcycles.
- When the officer activated his emergency lights, Crutcher fled, leading Officer Moniz on a high-speed chase that reached 100 miles per hour.
- Crutcher ultimately crashed his motorcycle into a storm drain, throwing him approximately twenty feet from the bike.
- Officer Moniz apprehended Crutcher as he was crawling from the brush and placed one arm behind his back, intending to arrest him.
- Upon Crutcher's complaints of injury, Officer Moniz ceased handcuffing him and instead called for an ambulance.
- While waiting for medical assistance, Crutcher gave his friend, Jeff Crook, permission to take the motorcycle.
- Before releasing the motorcycle to Crook, Officer Rich Evans conducted a search of a backpack and jacket on the bike, discovering a handgun and cocaine.
- Crutcher was then transported to a hospital by ambulance for medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Crutcher filed a motion in the trial court to suppress the cocaine and handgun found on his motorcycle.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's suppression order.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, with Crutcher as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a warrantless police search of a suspect's motorcycle, conducted after the suspect has been apprehended but before he is formally placed under custodial arrest, a valid search incident to a lawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, J.
No. The warrantless police search is not a valid search incident to a lawful arrest because the suspect was not actually under arrest at the time the search was conducted. For a search to be justified as incident to an arrest, the seizure of the suspect must rise to the level of a custodial arrest. In Tennessee, an arrest requires an act indicating an intention to take a person into custody, subjecting them to the actual control and will of the officer. Here, although Officer Moniz had probable cause and initially intended to arrest Crutcher, he ceased his efforts to prioritize medical aid. The officers did not inform Crutcher he was under arrest; they only told him he was being taken to the hospital. The detention was for medical purposes, not custodial ones. To justify a search incident to arrest, law enforcement must take some action that would indicate to a reasonable person that they are under arrest, not just temporarily seized; probable cause alone is not enough.
Dissenting - Drowota, III, J.
Yes. The warrantless search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest. An arrest occurs if, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. After leading police on a high-speed chase, crashing, and being physically apprehended by an officer, no reasonable person in Crutcher's position would believe they were free to go. Therefore, he was effectively under arrest, regardless of the officer's compassionate decision to delay handcuffing for medical reasons. Even if a formal arrest occurred later, the search was substantially contemporaneous with the grounds for arrest under the reasoning of Rawlings v. Kentucky, as the delay was solely due to Crutcher's need for medical attention.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the crucial distinction between a seizure and a custodial arrest for the purposes of the search incident to arrest exception. It establishes a clear requirement in Tennessee that an arrest must be objectively manifested through words or actions before officers can conduct a search under this doctrine. The ruling prevents the exception from being used preemptively based merely on probable cause, thereby protecting citizens from searches justified by arrests that 'could have' happened but did not. It places the burden on law enforcement to formally effectuate an arrest, even in difficult circumstances like a medical emergency, if they wish to rely on this exception to the warrant requirement.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Crutcher