A woman, while driving, was stopped by a police officer because her inspection sticker had expired. While the officer was writing a civil citation for this offense, which carried a twenty-five dollar fine, he used the computer in his police car to run a check on the woman. Computer records showed a default warrant out for the woman’s arrest because she failed to respond to a speeding complaint six months earlier. The police officer ordered the woman out of the car and arrested her. The officer found a small packet of cocaine on her person. When he searched the car after he arrested her, he found marijuana cigarettes in the glove compartment and charged her with illegal possession of cocaine and marijuana. The default warrant which appeared on the police officer’s computer search occurred because the woman’s original speeding complaint was sent to the wrong address by the court. When properly notified to appear on the speeding complaint, the woman appeared in court, pleaded guilty, paid a fine and the arrest warrant was ordered to be expunged by the judge. The clerk who had the duty to carry out the order to expunge the warrant from the computer, negligently failed to do so, and the woman’s arrest by the police officer was invalid.
The woman brought a pre-trial motion to suppress the cocaine found on the woman’s person and the marijuana found in the woman’s car.
How should the judge rule on the motion?
A. Suppress the cocaine, but not the marijuana.
B. Suppress the marijuana, but not the cocaine.
C. Suppress both the marijuana and the cocaine.
D. Suppress neither the marijuana nor the cocaine.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
D.
But what about Arizona v. Gant? The facts in the question do not appear to be sufficient to determine whether Belton would control here, or whether Gant would. If Belton controls, then yes, the answer is D. But if Gant controls, then the officer cannot search the car incident to arrest and B is correct.
Answer D is correct. Answers A, B, and C are incorrect. This question is based upon Arizona v. Evans where the court found that a police officer who made an arrest based upon a computer record that was inaccurate due to a clerk’s mistake was entitled to search incident to that unlawful arrest because of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Once the police officer had the right to search the person, he also had the right to search the car pursuant to the automobile search laws and therefore neither the search of the person, nor the search of the car should be suppressed.
thanks Dina!
No problem, you’re welcome!
Sorry for the delay today!
where is June 10th’s question? Where is the explanation to June 9th’s question?
D. This was a search incident to lawful arrest. The administrative error does not make the search unlawful if the officer reasonably relied upon the error as truth. The officer has the right to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after lawfully arresting a person during a vehicle stop, which includes the glove compartment.
b
B