State v. McConnelee

Another of today's Iowa Supreme Court opinions, this decision addresses the scope of a consent search under the Fourth Amendment.



FACTS

An Evandsale police officer noticed a small quantity of a leafy substance on top of the stereo of the car that was being driven by the defendant. The defendant indicated it was tobacco and started to sweep it away. The officer asked the defendant to get out of the vehicle and patted him down. Then, they had a brief conversation during which one of two things happened:



According to the officer, he asked the defendant whether the defendant had “anything he shouldn’t have.” The defendant interrupted him, gesturing toward the front of the car, and stating, "it’s nothing, check the whole car.”



According to the defendant, the officer asked him about “the leafy stuff,” and the defendant responded that “it was nothing, just tobacco and he could check it to see.” The defendant then gestured toward the front of the car with his left arm.



THE ISSUE

The leafy stuff was only tobacco. But after determining that, the officer continued to search the rest of the car and found a marijuana pipe in the console between the front seats, and baggies containing green, leafy plant material, baggies containing a white powdery substance, a baggy containing a white powder residue, a large digital scale, and other drug paraphernalia in a black back on the passenger seat.



THE RULING

According to a Court review of the videotape:

"While it is certainly possible that the recording did not pick up the entire conversation between the defendant and the officer, we are not persuaded that the officer’s recollection of what the defendant said is consistent with what can be confirmed by the videotape or with our understanding of human behavior.



It appears from the videotape that the defendant, in response to the officer’s reference to the “leafy substance,” said that it was nothing and then, gesturing toward the open car door, added that the officer could “check it.” Even when considered in combination with the defendant’s gesture toward the front of the car, McConnelee’s statement did not give the officer unrestricted permission to search the entire vehicle."

The Court found that the search was also not sustainable under the 'exigent circumstances' allowance for a search without a warrant:

"Law enforcement may dispense with the warrant requirement “when there is probable cause for the search, and exigent circumstances necessitate an immediate search.” . . . The record here shows the defendant was cooperative when stopped and questioned by the police officer and was not evasive in his answers. Moreover, there was no evidence that he acted nervous or appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant or drug. The only circumstances cited by the State to support its contention probable cause existed were the presence of the suspicious leafy substance on the car stereo and the defendant’s “evasive action” in trying to sweep it away. While these facts may have justified an examination of the substance on the stereo, they do not support an expansion of the officer’s search to the console between the front seats and beyond."

Obligatory Blog Commentary:

Why would anyone in response to being asked about some tobacco on the stereo reply with "Go ahead, search everything?" On the other hand, there are a gagillion cases where idiots say "go ahead, search my suitcase" knowing d*mn well there's a half kilo of cocaine inside. All in all, the Court got it right. I don't think you can presume this level of stupidity absent proof, particularly where the video seems to cut the other way.