dissents.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion.
I cannot accept the adoption of the Belton rule as the Court’s interpretation of Article I, § 17. The Court adopts a rule for our state constitution without any consideration of the manner in which this Court has previously interpreted Article I, § 17. As the Court said in a recent opinion in addressing the protection provided by the state constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures before addressing any protection provided by the Fourth Amendment:
The language of Art. I, § 17 of the Idaho Constitution closely parallels that of the Fourth Amendment. This similarity in language, however, does not require this Court to follow United States Supreme Court precedent in interpreting our own constitution.
*654The reason is that federal and state constitutions derive their power from independent sources. It is thus readily apparent that state courts are at liberty to find within the provisions of their own constitutions greater protection than is afforded under the federal constitutions as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. This is true even when the constitutional provisions implicated contain similar phraseology. Long gone are the days when state courts will blindly apply United States Supreme Court interpretation and methodology when in the process of interpreting then-own constitutions.
State v. Newman, 108 Idaho 5, 10, 696 P.2d 856, 861, n. 6 (1985) (citation omitted).
State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998).
The fundamental flaw in the Court’s sum- • mary adoption of the Belton rule as the measure of protection provided by Article I,
§ 17 is that it is contrary to long-standing precedent of this Court concerning the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest under our state constitution. In State v. Myers, 36 Idaho 396, 211 P. 440 (1922), the Court succinctly stated this scope:
[I]f the arrest was lawful, and if the papers in question were taken at the time of the arrest ... and were instrumentalities through which the crime charged against appellants were in part consummated, the seizure was not violative of the provisions of our Constitution, the search being justifiable as an incident to the lawful arrest.
Id. at 407, 211 P. at 443 (emphasis added). This statement makes it clear that whatever the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment, Myers limited the scope under Article I, § 17 to “instrumentalities through which the crime charged ... [was] in part consummated.”
In State v. Conner, 59 Idaho 695, 89 P.2d 197 (1939), the Court considered the protection provided by Article I, § 17 where there was an arrest for maintaining a nuisance in the form of a building where illegal alcoholic liquids were manufactured, sold, or kept. When the defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant, “the sheriff made a search of the budding and found 72 bottles containing whiskey, and 16 glasses.” Id. at 703, 89 P.2d at 201. In upholding the seizure of this evidence, the Court said:
When the bottles of whiskey and the glasses were offered in evidence their admission was objected to, by appellant, on the ground that they were procured in a search made without a search-warrant in violation of his constitutional rights. Search and seizure, made incidental to a lawful arrest, is not prohibited as being unreasonable within the meaning of our constitution, art. I, sec. 17, and evidence seized is not thereby rendered inadmissible.
Id. at 704, 89 P.2d at 201. It is clear that the bottles of whiskey and the glasses were “instrumentalities through which the crime charged ... [was] in part consummated,” as Myers referred to the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest.
In State v. Parker, 81 Idaho 51, 336 P.2d 318 (1959), a law enforcement officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Two officers then searched the defendant’s car and seized two bottles of wine. Id. at 53-54, 336 P.2d at 319-20. Citing Myers, the Court upheld the admissibility of the bottles of wine on the ground that they had been seized incident to a lawful arrest. Clearly, the bottles of wine were “instrumentalities through which the crime charged ... [was] in part consummated,” as Myers indicated.
In State v. Loyd, 92 Idaho 20, 435 P.2d 797 (1967), law enforcement officers arrested the defendants for burglary and seized from the vehicle in which the defendants were occupants before they were arrested a cash box taken from the burglarized premises. Citing Myers, the Court upheld the admissibility of the cash box as having been seized incident to a lawful arrest. Id. at 23, 435 P.2d at 800.
In State v. Gonzales, 92 Idaho 152, 438 P.2d 897 (1968), the Court considered the seizure of a .22 caliber cartridge incident to an arrest warrant on a charge of disturbing the peace. Apparently the basis for the charge was an altercation that had occurred *655two days before in which the defendant was involved and in which a man was killed when he was struck in the head by a .22 caliber bullet. The Court described the arrest, as follows:
The arrest occurred in defendant’s apartment in Blackfoot. The arresting officer testified that after warning defendant of his “Miranda” rights, he asked defendant for permission to look around the apartment. Permission was given and in the course of the search a spent .22 caliber cartridge was discovered and seized by the officer.
Id. at 154, 438 P.2d at 899. In discussing the defendant’s challenge to the admission of the cartridge at the trial for first degree murder, the Court noted that the defendant cited the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 13 and § 17 of the Idaho Constitution. Id. at 157, 438 P.2d at 902. In upholding the admissibility of the cartridge, the Court reasoned, as follows:
The cartridge case was discovered in a search of defendant’s apartment made in connection with, and incident to, a lawful arrest. Defendant contends that his consent to the search was involuntary, but, whether or not consent was voluntarily given, the exhibit was discovered as the result of a lawful search incident to the arrest, and was properly admitted. See United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950); Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947); State v. Poison, 81 Idaho 147, 339 P.2d 510 (1959); State v. Parker, 81 Idaho 51, 336 P.2d 318 (1959); State v. Hart, 66 Idaho 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945); State v. Conner, 59 Idaho 695, 89 P.2d 197 (1939). It matters not whether the property seized be an instrumentality of the crime or “mere evidence.” Warden Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967).
Id.
This refinement in Gonzales indicates that under Article I, § 17 the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest now extends to “instrumentalities through which the crime charged ... [was] in part consummated,” as the Court said in Myers and applied in Conner, Parker, and Loyd, and to “mere evidence” of the crime for which the defendant was arrested, as the Court said in Gonzales.
In State v. Cowen, 104 Idaho 649, 662 P.2d 230 (1983), the Court considered the scope of protection under Article I, § 17 where the defendant was searched following arrest. The Court noted that “a warrantless search of a suspect’s person incident to a lawful arrest is not an unreasonable search violative of the Constitution and that an officer who reasonably believes a suspect to be armed and dangerous may conduct a carefully limited pat down search of the suspect’s outer clothing.” Id. at 652, 662 P.2d at 233. This same standard is applicable to the search of a vehicle which a defendant was operating at the time of arrest. Only if the officer-reasonably believes the vehicle contains weapons which the defendant might use may the officer conduct a search of the vehicle for weapons.
Applying Article I, § 17 as interpreted by this Court to the facts of the present case, I would suppress the use of the evidence seized from Charpentier’s vehicle after her arrest for driving without privileges. There were no instrumentalities of the crime for which Charpentier was arrested, nor was any further evidence necessary. Also, there is no showing that the officer arresting Charpentier had any belief that the vehicle contained weapons which Charpentier might have used. Therefore, Article I, § 17 prohibited a search of Charpentier’s vehicle incident to her arrest.
TROUT, C.J., concurs in dissent.