State v. Lloyd
129 Nev. 739, 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 79, 312 P.3d 467 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not require a separate showing of exigent circumstances beyond a vehicle's inherent mobility; probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband is sufficient to justify a warrantless search of a readily mobile vehicle.
Facts:
- Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Richard T. Pickers observed respondent Jethro Lloyd make a right turn at a red light without coming to a complete stop.
- Pickers followed Lloyd into a shopping center parking lot to conduct a traffic stop.
- By the time the trooper activated his lights, Lloyd had already parked his car and gotten out to go into a Starbucks.
- While Pickers was processing the traffic violation, he summoned a K9 unit to the scene.
- The drug detection dog arrived before the traffic stop was concluded and alerted to the presence of drugs in Lloyd's car.
- Based on the dog's alert, Trooper Pickers conducted a warrantless search of Lloyd's vehicle.
- The search revealed psilocybin mushrooms and seven pounds of marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jethro Lloyd with trafficking, possession for sale, and possession of controlled substances in the state district court.
- Lloyd filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, arguing the warrantless search violated the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions.
- The district court granted Lloyd's motion to suppress.
- The district court found that while officers had probable cause from the dog sniff, the State failed to prove exigent circumstances beyond the car's mobility, which was required under then-existing Nevada precedent.
- The State, as the appellant, appealed the district court's suppression order to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
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 automobile exception to the warrant requirement under Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution require a showing of exigent circumstances separate from the inherent mobility of the vehicle when police have probable cause to conduct a search?
Opinions:
Majority - Pickering, C.J.
No. The automobile exception under the Nevada Constitution does not require a separate showing of exigent circumstances beyond a vehicle's inherent mobility when police have probable cause for a search. The court overruled its prior precedent in State v. Harnisch, which had interpreted the Nevada Constitution to require both probable cause and a separate showing of exigency. The court determined that the Harnisch rule created confusion for courts and law enforcement and was a departure from the federal standard established in Carroll v. United States and its progeny. By aligning with the federal standard, the court holds that the exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search is conclusively presumed when a vehicle is readily mobile and located in a public place, provided officers have probable cause. Here, the drug dog's alert supplied the necessary probable cause, and the vehicle was readily mobile, making the warrantless search constitutionally permissible.
Dissenting - Cherry, J.
Yes. A warrantless search of an automobile under the Nevada Constitution should require a showing of exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause. The dissent argues that the majority wrongly abandons the court's own precedent, which provided greater protection against unreasonable searches for Nevada citizens. It contends that modern technology, specifically the availability of telephonic search warrants, makes it feasible for officers to obtain a warrant without undue delay, thus negating the justification for bypassing the warrant requirement in situations like this one. The dissent asserts that the state should afford its citizens more protection than the minimum required by the U.S. Constitution and would have affirmed the suppression of the evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters Nevada's search and seizure jurisprudence by explicitly overruling the Harnisch line of cases, which had established a state-specific, heightened standard for the automobile exception. By conforming Nevada's constitutional interpretation to the prevailing federal standard, the court simplifies the rule for law enforcement and lower courts. This ruling lowers the burden on the State in suppression hearings, as prosecutors no longer need to prove case-specific exigent circumstances for a warrantless vehicle search, and will likely lead to more such searches being upheld as constitutional.
