IA: Arrest five weeks after defendant’s driving offense was not pretextual to cause a productive search incident

Defendant’s arrest five weeks after he was seen driving while barred under state law and the search incident that it occasioned was not shown to be pretextual. It was constitutional. State v. Christopher, 757 N.W.2d 247 (Iowa Sup. 2008):

Christopher argues officers should not be allowed to “save up an arrest” in order to “conduct an otherwise illegal search under the guise of search incident to arrest.” There is nothing in the record to suggest Butler arrested Christopher under pretext–i.e., there is no suggestion Butler had ulterior motives for making the arrest when he did. In any event, whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred does not turn on the officer’s actual state of mind or subjective motives. See State v. Kubit, 627 N.W.2d 914, 918-19 (Iowa 2001) (citing Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470, 105 S. Ct. 2778, 2783, 86 L. Ed. 2d 370, 378 (1985)). Moreover, pretext is more appropriately addressed under due process. “[I]f the government delays filing charges to intentionally ‘gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused,’ the defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment are implicated.” State v. Edwards, 571 N.W.2d 497, 501 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (quoting State v. Trompeter, 555 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1996)). Christopher does not contend the government acted intentionally to gain such tactical advantage.

Tenant’s voluntarily bringing weapons outside the house for inspection by BATF was not a violation of an expectation of privacy. United States v. Noe, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69112 (E.D. Pa. September 12, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.