Lafayette got into a fight with the manager of a theater, and was arrested for it. He had a "purse-type shoulder bag" with him. :)
At the station, Lafayette was ordered to empty his pockets (and purse) onto a table to be inventoried. The arresting officer searched the purse as part of the inventory, and found meth. Lafayette was charged with possession, but the state courts suppressed the evidence (holding that the search of his property wasn't valid either as a search incident to arrest, or as an inventory because Lafayette had a greater expectation of privacy in his purse than he would have in a car, and the purse could have just been secured without being searched). The US Supreme Court reversed this decision.
The court discussed the dwindling of a suspect's expectation of privacy during an arrest: At the time of an arrest, the police may search the suspect's person and the area under his immediate control. This authority doesn't rest on the likelihood that the suspect is armed or in possession of evidence, but on the lawfulness of the arrest. When an arrested person is subsequently taken to a police station (which is not always the case), the government's interests in searching the suspect may be even more compelling than the government's interests in searching at the time of the arrest. Searches that would be too invasive to reasonably perform at the place of the arrest may reasonably be conducted at the police station. The court also applied the reasoning of Opperman (vehicle inventories) to a prisoner's personal property, and held that inventories of a prisoner's property are a proper means for protecting that property while in police custody, protecting the police from allegations of theft, etc...
The court also held that it didn't matter whether or not less intrusive means were available to protect the government's interests. The relevant question is only whether or not the means actually employed by the police are reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment