Search incident was invalid because the things searched were not shown to be in immediate control, although in the same room

Officers entered a motel room and arrested the defendant near the door, who immediately put his hands up and he was arrested and put down to the floor for handcuffing. The clothing on the bed farthest from the door was not shown to be in his immediate control at the time of the search, so the search incident doctrine cannot be used to support it. United States v. James, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74466 (E.D. Mo. October 4, 2007):

The factual findings by the Magistrate Judge show that the officers were concerned that the Defendant might be arming himself, and therefore they broke the door to the hotel and entered with weapons drawn. However, when the officers entered the room, the Defendant was standing approximately six feet from them in the hallway entrance to the room, and immediately raised his hands in the air, at which time the officers took hold of the Defendant, forced him to the floor and handcuffed him, without any resistence from the Defendant. The Court finds significant the amount of time that had passed from Defendant being restrained, and the search. One officer had read the Defendant his Miranda rights and asked the Defendant if he understood those rights, before the search took place. The separation between the time of the arrest and the time of the search tends to negate the justification for a search incident to arrest, namely the protection of the officers, and the prevention of the destruction of evidence. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that the clothing in question was located on the bed farthest from the Defendant, approximately ten to twelve feet from where the Defendant was being held by the police officer. Notwithstanding the Eighth Circuit’s broad interpretation of the “immediate control” language, the Court does not believe that the jacket was within the Defendant’s immediate control, when his hands were restrained with handcuffs locked behind his back, when he was on the floor, under an officer, ten to twelve feet from where the jacket was located. Unlike the cases above, the Defendant was not in a close proximity to the area searched. The Court concludes, based on the facts of the case at bar, that the search of Defendant’s jacket was not a lawful search incident to arrest.

A qualified immunity analysis requires first that the court determine whether the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right and a case exactly in point is not required. Salazar v. City of Burbank, 249 Fed. Appx. 642 (9th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).*