Warrant Needed to Search Bags in Car Trunks, Justices Rule

Police need warrants before they can search briefcases or tote bags found in the trunks of cars of suspected felons, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The 5-2 decision came in the case of David Wendell Ruggles, a suspect in a string of armed robberies and police shoot-outs in Southern California in the late 1970s. However, apparently it will only affect the admissibility of evidence seized in searches before June, 1982, when the voters adopted the Victims’ Bill of Rights initiative, which changed the rules regarding police searches.

“Each day millions of Californians drive in automobiles, often taking with them inside briefcases or other similar luggage items of a highly personal or confidential nature,” Justice Joseph Grodin wrote for the majority. “Permitting such containers to be searched on the basis of probable cause alone deprives the owner of the added protections of a warrant.”

The ruling comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is giving police greater authority to conduct warrantless searches, specifically of containers found in car trunks of suspected felons.

It also is one of the first significant search rulings since the state court decided earlier this year that under the 1982 Victims’ Bill of Rights initiative, California must follow broader federal standards when deciding search questions and not state standards that for years required greater caution on the part of police.

Noting that the search in question Friday occurred before the passage of Proposition 8, the court relied on the state Constitution to find that police should have obtained a search warrant from a judge before looking inside the briefcase.

Although evidence from such a search today probably would be allowed in a criminal trial, Friday’s ruling still will have an effect. The search would be illegal under California law. Thus, officers who conducted the search could be open for a civil suit.

Ruggles was stopped and arrested while en route to Santa Barbara. Police believed he was going to hold up a jewelry store there. After spotting drug paraphernalia on the back seat of his car, police opened his car trunk, where they found a briefcase and an unzipped tote bag.

Inside were tools used in robberies--Halloween masks, gloves, a flashlight, two guns and ammunition. If he is retried, that evidence will be excluded from the trial.

Kaus’ Dissent

Justice Otto Kaus said in dissent that evidence found in the search should have been allowed, noting that officers had cause to suspect Ruggles had contraband in the trunk.

He said the majority’s statement that its ruling would protect millions of Californians was a “gross exaggeration,” noting that “relatively few” drive cars “which the police have probable cause to search.”

Kaus was joined in dissent by Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard J. Beacom, sitting on temporary assignment to the court. The case was heard before the seating of Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who did not participate in the decision. (People vs. Ruggles, crim. 22994)