1.     a.  See handouts - “Searches and Seizures at a Glance.”
See text - pages 5:1 - 5:2 (intro).


Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) – expanded Court decision in U.S. v. Whren (1996) which established that officers may arrest for any crime for which they have probable cause with having to show that the arrest was a pretext for a desire to investigate another crime.  In Sullivan, the officer actually arrested a subject on a minor traffic violation after he realized that the driver might be a suspect in another crime, with the intent to search the car incident to arrest in hopes of finding evidence of that other crime.


b.  There is no authority if there are no unusual circumstances and if you would normally give a summons in lieu of arrest.  Searches incident to arrest are only justified by legal custodial arrests. 
Also see text - page 5:3 (middle), the case Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) and the note below regarding the Missouri Attorney General’s opinion which clarifies this.


In Iowa v Knowles 119 S.Ct. 484 (1998) the Supreme Court ruled that Iowa Supreme Court expansion of Search Incident to Arrest justifications to include situations where the officer has probable cause to arrest, but issued a citation instead, was unconstitutional.   Court reaffirmed the purpose of SIA: 1) disarming of the arrested suspect for officer safety and 2) preservation of evidence.  The Court held that neither was an issue in a situation where the officer issues a summons in lieu of arrest.


The Attorney General states in January 1999 issue of FrontLine Report (Vol.6 No.1, pg. 5) that this does not affect RSMo Sec. 544.216, which allows certified peace officers to make a full custodial arrest for traffic offenses, including infractions.  AG states “officers have no reason to fear defense motions challenging the admission in court of evidence seized.”


Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) states that an officer may, at his/her discretion, make a custodial arrest of an individual for any criminal offense, even offenses that would only be punishable by a fine.  RSMo 544.216 already gives this power to Missouri officers, as well as allowing them to arrest for non-criminal infractions and ordinance violations.  This and Sullivan make Knowles somewhat moot, as all the officer has to do to make a search incident to arrest is actually make the custodial arrest for the offense for which the officer made the stop.


c.  See handouts - “Searches and Seizures at a Glance” - Scope for SIA of Person.


d.  Generally, the search incident to arrest justification extends through booking for the search of a person.


e.  See handouts - “Searches and Seizures at a Glance” - Scope for SIA of Premise


f.   The justification to search premises incident to arrest diminishes quickly after the suspect is removed.  Once the suspect has been removed from the premise, the SIA search is of questionable validity.  Certainly, once officers leave, there is no SIA authority to return.


g.  See handouts - “Searches and Seizures at a Glance” - Scope for SIA of Vehicle.


     See text 5:2 – 5:3 (A)  also see distinction made between SIS and Motor Vehicle Exception searches.


     In the case United States v. Doward , 41 F.3d 789, 794 (1st Cir. 1994) for a Search Incident to Arrest of a vehicle, the Court defined the passenger compartment of an automobile to include any area "generally reachable without exiting the vehicle, without regard to the likelihood in a particular case that such a reaching was possible."


     In U.S. v. Olguin-Rivera, 168 F.3d 1203, 1205 (10th Cir. 1999) the 10th Circuit Court held that a covered cargo area of an SUV was to be treated as a part of the interior, accessible to occupants, as opposed to “the functional equivalent of a trunk” as decided by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The court held that a driver will not be allowed to make an area normally available to officers to search “off-limits” by covering it.  If a passenger can reach into it, it is available to be searched incident to arrest.  The 8th Circuit Court stated their agreement with this case and similar cases in U.S. v. Barnes (8th Cir. 2004) stating that "the organizing principle of these cases, with which we agree, is that areas reachable by an occupant without exiting the automobile may be searched incident to arrest, but an area that is outside any occupant's reach or that could be reached only through an elaborate dismantling of the vehicle may not be searched."  In Barnes, the officers pulling back of a rubber seal and shining a flashlight into the inside of the driver’s door was found to be a legal search incident to arrest.


h.  See handouts - “Overview of Container Searches.”


2.     Plain view seizure is always possible, as long as the evidence or contraband was visible from within the leaping or lunging distance, or anywhere along the route for removal by the suspect.  Also see text - pages 5: 1 (intro) and 5:6 (B.).


3.     a. -  c.       See text - pages 5:7 - 5:8 ( D. - but correct text to read “reasonably suspecting” instead of “reasonably believing”).


a. See handouts - “Searches and Seizures at a Glance.”


b.  See handouts - “Searches and Seizures at a Glance.”


4.     a. - b.       See text - page 5:8 – 5:11 (E – F).


c.  You may take the evidence based on consent, on a court order, or a Grand Jury subpoena.  (also see text - pages 5:11 (G).  Note that this is, as the text says, a very limited exception to normal procedure.)


5.     This objective requires the application of information from the preceding objectives.  Preparation for this objective is accomplished in several arrest situation role-plays in which trainees play the arresting officers, an instructor plays the arrested party and the other trainees observe.  Class discussion follows each scenario.


6.     This is also an application objective.  See 67 above.