Search of a Motor Vehicle Incident to a Traffic Arrest: The Outlook after Robinson and Gustafson
Harry S. Gerla · The Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University) · 1975
In the companion cases of United States v. Robinson,, and Gustafson v. Florida, 2 the United States Supreme Court held that a full field search of the person of an arrestee may be made incident to an arrest for a traffic violation even if the arresting officer had no reason to believe that the arrestee was armed, or even if in fact the police officer believed that the offender was not armed.3 Left unanswered by the Court was the question whether a search without probable cause of the arrestee's vehicle could be justified as incident to an arrest for a minor traffic offense.Among the first state appellate courts to consider the question, after the decisions in Robinson and Gustafson were handed down, were the appellate court of Illinois, First District, the Supreme Court of Indiana, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.In People v. Cannon 4 and Frasier v. State' the first two courts held that a search of the vehicle was authorized by the decisions in Robinson and Gustafson.'In Wilson v. State, 7 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, over a vigorous dissent by Judge Douglas, held that Robinson and Gustafson did not justify a search of the vehicle of a traffic offender.8Unfortunately, none of the three courts saw fit to explain why it felt that Robinson and Gustafson did or did not extend to searches of the arrestee's vehicle.Both the Supreme Court of Indiana and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals limited themselves to mere declarations of the applicability of Robinson and Gustafson.9 While Cannon did suggest that an extension of the two cases to a search of the vehicle of the arrestee was made necessary by the need to protect the 1 414 U.S. 218 (1973). 2 414 U.S. 260 (1973).3 414 U.S. at 241 (Marshall, J., dissenting).18 Il1.App.3d 781, 310 N.E.2d 673 (1974).-Ind.., 312 N.E.2d 77 (1974).£ 18 IIl.App.3d at 784, 310 N.E.2d at 376; __ Ind. at _, 312 N.E.2d at 80.The Indiana decision drew a sharp dissent from Justice De Breuler.511 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1974).Id. at 533. "We do not decide whether there was probable cause for the police officer to search the vehicle for the reason we decide this issue pursuant to Gustafson v. Florida."-Ind.at.. 312 N.E.2d at 80. "We do not find the recent holding of the United States Supreme Court in Gustafson v. Florida. . . to be applicable to the facts in the instant case."511 S.W.2d at 533 n.l.