S.D.Ind.: Spending money is not an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search to recover the money

Defendant spending money is not an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search to recover the money. United States v. Jett, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13544 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 1, 2017):

The Government contends that because McKissick bought a car using cash on the morning of the traffic stop, his demonstration of an “inclination to spend” money necessitated the warrantless search. (Filing No. 120 at 10.) The Supreme Court has identified several circumstances as qualifying as “exigent” enough to justify a warrantless search: officers may enter a home to render emergency aid to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from immediate injury; officers may enter a home when in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect; and police may search a home to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865. The court declined to adopt a per se rule, however, allowing the warrantless collection of blood samples from subjects suspected of driving under the influence, despite the evanescent character of that evidence. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1563.

Here, the Government does not contend that the evidence was at risk of being destroyed. Rather, the Government contends that McKissick was likely to “spend” any money he might have been carrying—i.e., cause it to change hands. No destruction was threatened or imminent, and if law enforcement was concerned about McKissick’s spending habits, it could have placed him under surveillance (as it had been doing) for the short time it would have taken to secure a warrant. This fact, among others, differentiates this from a case in which officers fear the destruction of evidence. This Government has not established that its search was necessitated by exigent circumstances.