UNITED STATES V. TURNER, 2024 WL 4964502 (4th Cir 2024)
Robert Turner’s brother reported Turner had stolen his handgun, a black and gray Ruger Model SR45. The brother told the investigating officer, Officer David Flores, that Turner was involved with the Folk Nation street gang, which was currently at war with another criminal gang. Officer Flores discovered Turner was a convicted felon and obtained a warrant for Turner’s arrest.
The next night, Officer Flores took a carjacking report from someone who said Turner had pointed a black and gray Ruger Model SR45 handgun at him and threatened to shoot him. A day later, Officer Flores and other officers responded to a shots-fired call at a local convenience store. Officer Flores had previously responded to shots-fired calls and reports of gambling and gang activity near the same location.
During the call, Officer Flores spotted Turner sitting in the driver’s seat of a black Buick parked near the store. Flores confirmed Turner’s identity, told the man to exit the vehicle, then handcuffed and arrested him. Flores asked Turner if there was anything on his person or in the vehicle the officers should know about, and Turner replied there was not. Officer Flores frisked Turner and placed him in the back of a patrol car.
In the meantime, Corporal Peterson began searching the Buick. Officer Flores joined the search. When Corporal Peterson found a gun in the glove compartment, Officer Flores confirmed it was the one stolen from Turner’s brother. Turner was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a stolen firearm.
Turner asked the trial court to suppress the handgun, arguing the officers’ warrantless search of the Buick violated the Fourth Amendment. The prosecution asserted both the search-incident-to-arrest exception and the automobile exception applied and each doctrine independently justified the vehicle search.
The trial judge denied Turner’s motion to suppress, ruling the search of the car was a lawful search incident to arrest under Arizona v. Gant (556 U.S. 332 (2009)). In that case, the Supreme Court said the basis for the search-incident-to-arrest exception “derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations.” The Gant Court held officers may search a vehicle incident to an arrest only if the arrestee is unrestrained and “within reaching distance of the passenger compartment” at the time of the search or “it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence” of the crime for which the person is being arrested. The trial judge found it was reasonable to believe the Buick contained evidence of the crime for which Turner was arrested.
The appellate court agreed the search was justified under Gant. However, it is important for officers to understand the difference in how the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine (subject to the Gant rule) and the automobile exception (not subject to the Gant rule) differ in their application.
Under the Gant rule, the court had to consider whether it was reasonable to believe the Buick contained evidence proving Turner possessed a gun. The “reasonable to believe” standard is a less demanding standard than probable cause. Because Officer Flores investigated Turner’s brother’s original theft report, because Flores took the report of the carjacking in which Turner used the stolen gun the day before, and because he found Turner in the area just moments after a shots-fired call, it was reasonable for Officer Flores to believe Turner was armed while he was sitting in the Buick. Further, since Officer Flores’ frisk of Turner didn’t produce a gun, it was reasonable to believe the gun was in the Buick. Thus, applying the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine of the Gant rule supported a warrantless search of the Buick.
The automobile search doctrine, dating back to when the Ford Model T was still in production, allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence or contraband (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)). The officer may search anywhere a warrant could have authorized a search. Because the appellate court held the search incident to arrest doctrine applied to validate the search, it did not address the question of whether there was probable cause to search the Buick.
Read more Ken Wallentine case reviews here.
This article was featured in Lexipol’s Xiphos newsletter, a monthly legal-focused law enforcement newsletter authored by Ken Wallentine. Subscriptions are free for public safety officers, educators and public attorneys. Subscribe here!
