CA9: Entry into glove box to get registration unreasonable where it’s all on police computers already and VIN on dash

Police officer’s entry into defendant’s glove compartment for registration was unreasonable where the VIN is visible on the dashboard (see New York v. Class) and could be run on the patrol car’s computer to retrieve the same information. It may be theoretically possible if the VIN was obscured by the damage from an accident or otherwise. United States v. Painter, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13445 (9th Cir. July 25, 2017):

Considering the facts of this case, none of the “specific and articulable facts…justifiably warrant[ed] [this] intrusion.” Class, 475 U.S. at 116-17. First, while the ostensible purpose of invading Painter’s glove box was to retrieve his car’s registration information, such information would be readily available by looking at either the car’s license plate or publicly viewable VIN and running such information through the police computers. There is no evidence in the record that either the license plate or VIN were obscured or destroyed in the accident or that the police computers were offline or otherwise unable to process such information. Second, even assuming that such alternative methods for obtaining the registration information were not available to the police officers, the record does not establish (and the government does not argue) that there was any exigency that demanded such registration information be immediately identified before a warrant could be obtained. Finally, while there is some evidence in the record that Painter was dazed after getting out of his wrecked car, there is no indication he was unable to communicate with the police officers or that his dazed condition provided any other justification for the search. To the contrary, the record establishes that Painter was sufficiently aware and responsive to interact with the police officers and follow their instructions to climb over the center console of his vehicle and out of the passenger-side door. Taken together, these “specific and articulable facts” do not justify under the Fourth Amendment the police officer’s physical occupation and intentional search into a private container in Painter’s vehicle.