Legal Updates

State v. Reyna
Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 1, 6/26/03

A highway patrol officer stopped a truck for equipment violations. After making the stop, the officer determined that Reyna, the driver, did not have a valid license and the officer arrested him. The officer could also smell the odor of marijuana coming from a support column on the truck and noticed a compartment area that had been welded onto the truck to which there was no access. Truck was driven to a police station and a welder removed the compartment revealing 237.5 pounds of marijuana.

On appeal, Reyna argued that because the officer removed the truck to a police station, there was no exigency and the officer should have obtained a search warrant before searching the vehicle. The court didn’t buy Reyna’s argument.

The court cited Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925) (the Carroll Doctrine stating that because motor vehicles are mobile it is impractical to require a warrant before search) and California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S. Ct. 2066, 85 L. Ed.2d 406 (1985) (ruling that there is a less rigorous warrant requirements because the expectation of privacy with respect to one’s automobile is less than that relating to one’s home or office) for the basic premise that warrants are not normally required for a search of motor vehicle.

The court also cited United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 105 S. Ct. 881, 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985) in which officers arrested suspects on a remote Arizona airstrip and seized several vehicles loaded with packages. The vehicles were removed to a DEA office where they were searched three days later, revealing marijuana. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the search was legal and that there was no rule that the search of the vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure.

All of these cases are from the U.S. Supreme Court. Reyna argued that Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution requires a more strict view. The court rejected that argument stating that Arizona Supreme Court has followed the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on vehicle searches since 1926.

The court reminded officers that this rule does not mean that officers can just wait indefinitely to search a vehicle. Waiting an inordinate amount of time to search a vehicle may cause the court will cause problems.

COMMENT: Officers should realize that as long as an officer has probable cause to search a vehicle that is in a place where the officer has a right to be, a search warrant will not be required in the vast majority of the cases.

Source: Chandler PD Legal Unit