 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Crutcher4/12/1999
e majority and would conclude that Crutcher had been arrested at the time his motorcycle was searched because any reasonable person in Crutcher's position would have understood that he was not free to leave in light of the circumstances. That being the case, I am of the opinion that the warrantless search of Crutcher's motorcycle was valid as a search incident to the lawful warrantless arrest.
II.
RAWLINGS V. KENTUCKY
However, even assuming that Crutcher had not been arrested at the time this search occurred, I am of the opinion that the warrantless search was constitutionally valid under the reasoning of Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2564, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that a search may precede a formal arrest if the officer has probable cause to arrest at the time of the search and the fruits of the search were not necessary to support probable cause to arrest. See Warden v. State, 214 Tenn. 314, 320, 379 S.W.2d 788, 791 (1964) (search which precedes arrest will be upheld if the two may be regarded as part of one and the same transaction).
In this case, there is no question that Officer Moniz had probable cause to arrest Crutcher at the scene of the accident for reckless endangerment and evading arrest. Moreover, none of the items discovered during the search of Crutcher's motorcycle were necessary or relevant to establish probable cause to arrest for those two offenses. Clearly, therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest Crutcher at the scene of the accident. Moreover, the record establishes that Crutcher was released that same evening from the hospital to the custody of the Drug Task Force and remained in police custody until the next day when he was returned to the hospital.
Though there is no bright-line rule, I would conclude that the search and arrest in this case were part of one and the same transacton because the delay between the two was caused solely by the defendant's need for medical treatment. Accordingly, even assuming Crutcher was not arrested at the scene, as the majority concludes, I would hold the search valid as incident to a lawful arrest under the reasoning of Rawlings.
CONCLUSION
Because I am of the opinion that the warrantless search of the defendant's motorcycle was valid as a search incident to a lawful arrest, I respectfully dissent from the majority decision. I would reverse the decisions of the lower courts which ordered suppression of the evidence and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
I am authorized to state that Justice Holder concurs in this Dissenting Opinion.
FRANK F. DROWOTA III, JUSTICE
Concur:
Holder, J.,
I disagree with the majority's decision to overrule State v. Moore, 949 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997), a decision in which the intermediate appellate court upheld a search under circumstances similar to those present in this case.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|