WA: Search incident of a locked box in a backpack unreasonable

Defendant was arrested on outstanding warrants. He had a backpack on him that was searched incident to arrest that had knives attached outside which were “weapons” under the city code because of blade length. A combination locked box was inside and defendant refused to consent to a search. Fearing a potential weapon [but apparently without shaking the box], the officer pried the lid with a screwdriver and found heroin. The seizure of the heroin exceeded their authority and was unreasonable. State v. Vanness, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 471 (March 2, 2015):

¶22 After Riley, a lawful arrest no longer provides categorical justification to search, without a warrant, all items found on an arrested person at the time of arrest. Instead, if the item to be searched falls within a category that implicates an arrestee’s significant privacy interests, the court must balance the government interests against those individual privacy interests. Only when government interests in officer safety and evidence preservation exceed an arrestee’s privacy interest in the category of item to be searched may it be searched incident to arrest without a warrant.

¶23 The Washington Supreme Court has stated that this balancing of interests is not appropriate under article I, section 7. However, in the context of a locked container, it has twice “considered the underlying rationale of the search incident to arrest exception—the danger that an individual may secure a weapon or conceal or destroy evidence of the crime of arrest.” In each case, “[t]he court held that locked containers did not raise either concern because ‘[t]he individual would have to spend time unlocking the container, during which time the officers have an opportunity to prevent the individual’s access to the contents of the container.’”

¶24 While State v. Stroud and State v. Valdez each involved a locked container found in an automobile, the court’s consideration of the Chimel concerns applies just as well to the facts of our case:

Where a container is locked and officers have the opportunity to prevent the individual’s access to the contents of that container so that officer safety or the preservation of evidence of the crime of arrest is not at risk, there is no justification under the search incident to arrest exception to permit a warrantless search of the locked container.

¶25 The State argues that Byrd and State v. MacDicken preclude an analogy to vehicle searches because search of a vehicle “encompasses a separate and analytically distinct concept permitting search of the area within the immediate control of the arrestee.” However, Riley’s rejection of the categorical rule announced in Robinson and its reliance upon an analysis of the Chimel concerns preclude the State’s reliance upon the analytical differences between searches of vehicles and of objects found on the arrestee’s person. We must consider, and the State does not address, the Washington Supreme Court’s determination that the justification for a search incident to arrest does not apply to locked containers separated from the arrestee’s person.

¶26 At the time of VanNess’s arrest, the arresting officers removed his backpack, which contained the locked box. Officer Edmonds then handcuffed VanNess and walked him and the backpack to the patrol car. Officer Edmonds put the backpack on the trunk of his patrol car while VanNess stood next to the right passenger side of the car with another officer present. VanNess no longer had access to the contents of his backpack. In addition, a combination lock separated VanNess from the locked box’s contents.

¶27 While Officer Edmonds found knives on and inside the backpack, in his affidavit of probable cause he did not rely on their presence near the locked box to justify his opening of the box. Officer Edmonds did not raise a concern for his own immediate safety as a reason to search the box. Instead, he referenced his previous experience opening a similar box when executing a warrant and finding a loaded handgun. The State does not explain why Officer Edmonds waited for a warrant then but could not have waited for a warrant here.

¶28 Since Officer Edmonds arrested VanNess on outstanding warrants, the State cannot show that Officer Edmonds reasonably believed evidence relevant to the crime of arrest would be found in the locked box.