United States v. Goodwin-Bey
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23755, 584 F.3d 1117, 2009 WL 3448177 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a vehicle's passenger compartment is permissible under the Fourth Amendment as a search incident to arrest if objective facts create a reasonable concern for officer safety, such as the presence of unsecured occupants combined with a report of a firearm. Alternatively, such a search is permissible as a protective search if police possess a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the occupants are dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.
Facts:
- On April 3, 2007, Officer Daniel Rankey initiated a traffic stop of a white Mitsubishi Galant driven by Scott Goodwin-Bey for running a red light.
- The vehicle contained a total of four occupants.
- During the stop, Officer Rankey received a report of an earlier incident in which occupants of a white Mitsubishi Galant had displayed a firearm.
- Officer Rankey discovered an outstanding traffic warrant for the front passenger, Lawrence Freeman.
- Officers arrested and handcuffed Freeman.
- The other three occupants, including Goodwin-Bey, were subjected to protective pat-downs but were not arrested or otherwise secured.
- Over Goodwin-Bey's objection, Officer Rankey used Goodwin-Bey's keys to unlock and search the vehicle's glove box.
- Inside the glove box, Officer Rankey discovered and seized a Derringer handgun.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Goodwin-Bey on the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (trial court), Goodwin-Bey filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- A U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation proposing that the motion to suppress be denied.
- The district court adopted the recommendation and denied Goodwin-Bey's motion.
- Goodwin-Bey entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- The district court sentenced Goodwin-Bey to 70 months in prison.
- Goodwin-Bey (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 warrantless search of a vehicle's locked glove box violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted after the lawful arrest of a passenger, while other unsecured occupants remain at the scene, and police have received a report that occupants of a similar vehicle had recently displayed a firearm?
Opinions:
Majority - Gruender, Circuit Judge
No, the warrantless search of the vehicle's locked glove box does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The search was justified under two independent exceptions to the warrant requirement. First, the search was a valid search incident to the lawful arrest of Freeman. Under Arizona v. Gant, a search incident to arrest is permissible when officer safety is at risk. Here, the presence of three unsecured passengers, combined with the report of a recently displayed firearm in a similar vehicle, created a sufficient officer safety concern to justify the search. Second, the search was permissible as a protective search for weapons under Michigan v. Long. The report of the firearm provided an objective, reasonable suspicion that the unsecured occupants were dangerous and might access a weapon inside the car. Because the occupants were not arrested, they would have been free to re-enter the vehicle, posing a continuing threat to the officers.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Arizona v. Gant within the Eighth Circuit, emphasizing that the presence of unsecured occupants is a key factor in establishing the 'officer safety' justification for a vehicle search incident to arrest. By providing an alternative justification under the Michigan v. Long protective search doctrine, the court offers law enforcement two distinct legal rationales for searching a vehicle in similar circumstances. The ruling reinforces an objective standard for reasonable suspicion, meaning an officer's subjective beliefs are irrelevant if the objective facts support a finding of potential danger, thereby potentially broadening the scope of permissible warrantless vehicle searches post-Gant.
