Hospital security officers were not “state actors”

Hospital security officers were at the emergency room assisting with a gunshot victim brought to the hospital in a car. One asked about whether there was a gun in the car, and the driver said there was. He asked the driver to get out of and step away from the car. He searched the car and located a gun. This search was not state action. State v. Buford, 2008 Ohio 2231, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1918 (2d Dist. May 9, 2008).*

When drugs were found during an inventory of defendant’s car, a further search of the car was justified under the automobile exception. There is no “special exigency” or “separate exigency” requirement for the automobile exception. State v. Allensworth, 748 N.W.2d 789 n.4 (Iowa 2008):

We use the term “special exigency” to refer to some circumstance beyond the inherent mobility of the vehicle that makes it impossible or impractical for the police to obtain a search warrant prior to the vehicle being moved away. United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting the Supreme Court “has emphasized that no special exigency is required to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile when the car is mobile and the searching officer has probable cause to believe that fruits of a crime may be present in the automobile”). The Supreme Court has alternatively used the phrase “separate exigency” to refer to the same concept. See Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 2014, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442, 445 (1999) (“[T]he ‘automobile exception’ has no separate exigency requirement.”).

Ten minute traffic stop was not unreasonable while questions about travel were asked. Defendant validly consented. United States v. Carvajal-Mora, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37455 (N.D. Okla. May 7, 2008):

An officer conducting a traffic stop may request a driver’s license, vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation. … An officer may also “ask questions about the motorist’s travel plans and authority to operate the vehicle” in addition to obtaining the relevant documentation. … According to Turner, the traffic stop lasted approximately ten minutes from the time of the stop to defendant’s arrest and Crivello’s testimony suggests it may have been shorter. Crivello asked defendant to produce his license and the vehicle’s registration and return with Crivello to his patrol car. He also asked defendant questions about his travel plans and criminal history. Defendant consented to a search of the vehicle and, even if the search exceeded the scope of the initial traffic stop, defendant’s consent permitted them to extend the length of the detention without violating the Fourth Amendment.