 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ducker3/25/1999
pellant adopts her argument previously relied upon for suppression of the blood sample: that the search was the product of illegally obtained statements. Again, this claim is without merit as we have determined the appellant's statement to be voluntarily given. The appellant also asserts that the search was unlawful because the search was conducted without a warrant and no warrant exception was presented by the State to justify the search.
The record before this court reveals that, after obtaining the appellant's statement, probable cause existed for Agent Gwyn to search the vehicle for "property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense." See Tenn.R.Crim.P. 41(b)(1). At that time, the appellant's vehicle was parked outside the emergency room entrance to the hospital. The vehicle was unlocked and the windows were rolled down. Agent Gwyn instructed officers to secure the vehicle with crime scene tape. However, because a crowd of people were gathering around the vehicle and because the vehicle was blocking the emergency entrance, he later made arrangements for the vehicle to be moved to the McMinnville Police Department impound lot. The actual search of the vehicle was conducted one or two days later without a warrant, revealing a one-third full 750 milliliter bottle of whiskey. At the Conclusion of the appellant's motion to reconsider the search of the vehicle, the trial court concluded that "the exigencies did, based upon the proof I heard, permit [the vehicle] to be searched in the fashion and way it was."
As previously stated, the analysis of any warrantless search and seizure begins with the proposition that such searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, unless it falls within a specifically delineated exception. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 219, 93 S.Ct. at 2043 (citations omitted). Our supreme court has recognized that a warrantless search of a vehicle in a public place, in the aftermath of a crime, and when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains items that are subject to seizure, is entitled to a conclusive presumption of exigency, permitting the warrantless search, even absent actual likelihood of risk of delay in obtaining a warrant. State v. Leveye, 796 S.W.2d 948, 952 (Tenn. 1990) (adopting the rule of California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S.Ct. 2066 (1985)). If a warrantless search at the scene is permissible, then the police may seize the vehicle and later conduct the search at the station. See Florida v. Myers, 466 U.S. 380, 182, 104 S.Ct. 1852, 1853 (1984); Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261, 102 S.Ct. 3079, 3080 (1982). In the present case, Agent Gwyn was aware that the appellant had brought her two children to the emergency room in her vehicle. After interviewing the appellant, he determined that the vehicle was the scene of the crime and probable cause existed to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of that crime. Thus, a warrantless search of the vehicle was permissible. Moreover, due to the location of the vehicle and the crowd of people gathering around it, Agent Gwyn was justified in securing and transporting the vehicle to the impound lot.
The appellant additionally argues that the delay in conducting the search of the vehicle is per se unreasonable. We disagree. There is no requirement that the warrantless search of the vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure. United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 484, 105 S.Ct. 881, 885 (1985) (citing Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 68, 96 S.Ct. 304, 305 (1975) (per curium); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1981 (1970)). The "justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized." Tho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|