MI: FTA arrest supported search incident, creating a conflict with MO

An arrest on a failure to appear warrant permitted a search incident. “It is not the reason for the arrest, but that an arrest must be made that creates risk of harm to the arresting officer.” The court notes it expressly disagrees with State v. Bradshaw, 99 S.W.3d 73 (Mo. App. 2003) [inviting SCOTUS review]. People v. Mungo, 277 Mich. App. 577, 747 N.W.2d 875 (2008):

It is not the reason for the arrest, but that an arrest must be made that creates risk of harm to the arresting officer. Upon discovering that at least one warrant was issued for Dixon’s arrest, Deputy Stuck was obligated by statute to arrest Dixon. MCL 764.9e; MCL 764.1b. We conclude that in carrying out his statutory duty, Deputy Stuck was not constitutionally precluded from searching the area Dixon occupied just prior to his arrest.

Belton and Thornton support the adoption and implementation of the bright line rule in this case. The rule of Belton was originally based on a concern for the safety of law enforcement officials and the need to preserve any evidence that may be in the car. Belton, supra. The rule has since been interpreted to permit a full search of the interior of an automobile even when the arrestee has been removed from the car, handcuffed, and placed in a secure area, thus alleviating concerns of officer safety and preservation of any evidence contained in the car. United States v Karlin, 852 F2d 968 (CA 7, 1988). This plain interpretation of Belton is warranted by the need for a bright line rule that allows police officers to make accurate and quick decisions in the field. Id. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence thus supports the constitutionality of the search at issue in this case.