State v. Graham

No. 95-005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1995

STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LAURAMAVIS GRAHAM,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula,
The Honorable John W. Larson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Marcia M. Jacobson, Attorney at Law, Missoula
County Public Defenders Officer, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General,
Kathy Seeley, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Robert L. "Dustyl' Deschamps III, Missoula
County Attorney, Karen M. Townsend, Deputy
County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 1995
Decided: June 21, 1995
Filed:
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant Laura Mavis Graham appeals from an order of the

Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denying her motion

to suppress evidence gathered without a search warrant.

We reverse.

The dispositive issue on appeal is:

Did the District Court err in denying appellant's motion to

suppress evidence seized from her purse following her arrest?
Appellant was a passenger in a car which was stopped by Deputy

Estill in a Safeway parking lot in Missoula. Upon discovering that
the driver had a suspended driver's license, Estill arrested the

driver and called for backup. It was also discovered that there

were outstanding warrants against appellant. Deputy Hintz
responded to Estill's call for backup and arrested appellant on the

outstanding warrants. A neighbor was contacted to retrieve the

car. Deputy Tillman agreed to stay with the car until the neighbor

arrived.

Appellant asked that her purse be left in the car because it

contained food stamps that her children would need. Tillman went

back to the car and retrieved appellant's purse which he gave to

Hints to take to the station. Narcotics were discovered in

appellant's purse when it was searched at the jail without a

warrant. Appellant was charged with criminal possession of

dangerous drugs under § 45-g-102, MCA.

2
 Appellant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as

a result of the warrantless search of her purse. The District

Court denied appellant's motion. Appellant reserved her right to

appeal the suppression issue and entered a guilty plea to criminal

possession of dangerous drugs under § 45-g-102, MCA. Appellant was

found guilty of the charged offense and received a deferred

sentence. It is from the District Court's judgment that appellant

appeals.
Did the District Court err in denying appellant's motion to

suppress evidence seized from her purse following her arrest?

We review a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress to

determine whether there is substantial credible evidence to support

the court's findings of fact, and whether the court correctly

applied the findings as a matter of law. State v. Stubbs (Mont.

1995), 892 P.2d 547, 550, 52 St. Rep. 232, 233. In addition, we

determine whether the district court's interpretation and

application of the law is correct. Stubbs, 892 P.2d at 550.

Warrantless searches are considered unreasonable per se under

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stubbs,

892 P.2d at 550 (citing State v. McCarthy (1993), 258 Mont. 51, 55,

852 P.2d 111, 113; citing Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S.

347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576). However, certain exceptions

to the warrant requirement are recognized under federal and Montana

law. Stubbs, 892 P.2d at 550; McCarthy, 852 P.2d at 113 (citing

California v. Acevedo (1991), 500 U.S. 565, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114

3
L. Ed. 2d 619). One of the recognized exceptions to the warrant
requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Chime1 v.
California (1969), 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685;
Section 46-5-102, MCA. In Montana, a police officer may reasonably

search a person lawfully arrested and the area within the person's
immediate presence for the purpose of (1) protecting the police

officer, (2) preventing the person from escaping, (3) discovering

and seizing the fruits of the crime, or (4) discovering and seizing

any person or things which may have been used in the commission of

the offense. Section 45-5-102, MCA.

The District Court concluded that the warrantless search of

appellant's purse fell within the search incident to a lawful

arrest exception, and therefore, was a valid search. The State

argues that appellant's purse, an item of personal property

immediately associated with her person, was properly searched at

the jail as an incident to her lawful arrest pursuant to New York

v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768.

We disagree.
Appellant was arrested on outstanding city warrants for acts

unrelated to the stop of the motor vehicle and the arrest of the

driver. None of the four purposes set forth in § 46-5-102, MCA,

which permit a warrantless search of the area within the arrestee's

immediate presence is applicable. Searching appellant's purse

would not have protected the arresting officer; would not have

prevented appellant from escaping; would not have resulted in

4
discovering fruits of the crimes which resulted in the city

warrants; and would not have resulted in the discovery of anything

which may have been used in the commission of the offenses which

resulted in the city warrants. Consequently, evidence gathered as

a result of the warrantless search of appellant's purse should have

been suppressed.
We hold that the District Court erred in denying appellant's

motion to suppress evidence seized from her purse following her

arrest.
We reverse.

Justice

We concur: