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: