There is no hard and fast definition of “recent occupant” in Thornton

Defendant was arrested 50′ from his car, and he was close enough in time and space under Thornton for a search incident. Rainey v. Commonwealth, 197 S.W.3d 89 (Ky. May 18, 2006, released for publication August 24, 2006):

Although no evidence was offered in this case concerning Appellant’s temporal relationship to his vehicle, and although officer testimony revealed that the officers did not fear for their safety and conceded that Appellant was so far from his vehicle that it was unlikely he could have accessed it, we are not persuaded that the search was unlawful. The officers here observed Appellant as he drove past them at an excessive rate of speed for the circumstances. The officers observed him exit the vehicle and walk as far as fifty feet from the vehicle before they were able to reach him to initiate contact. While there is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes “recent” both in time and distance, on the facts of this case, Appellant was a “recent occupant” and was sufficiently close to the vehicle, in both time and space, for the concerns of Belton and Thornton to be applicable. We see no reason to distinguish Thornton on the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals in finding that the suppression of the evidence was erroneous.

Defendant abandoned his bag in the home of another, and the homeowner could consent to a search. Holden v. State, 205 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App. – Beaumont August 30, 2006).*