State Court Backs Police on Searches

Police in California may search cars if a driver fails to produce a license or registration regardless of whether the officer has a warrant, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court, in a 4-3 vote, sided in favor of law enforcement despite sharply worded dissents declaring that such searches violate the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the dissenters, suggested the ruling may have been motivated by security fears stemming from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“As this opinion is being written, our nation is undergoing a painful recovery from the devastating physical and psychological effects of that day,” Kennard wrote. She said the ruling “does nothing to enhance our security and does much to erode our 4th Amendment rights.”

California courts previously have allowed police making routine traffic stops to search for licenses and registrations in glove compartments and under visors. The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday approves for the first time searches under the seats of cars and elsewhere when there is no reason to believe a crime has been committed, lawyers in the case said.

Other courts have also given police more freedom in dealing with motorists. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month reaffirmed that police have extensive leeway in determining when to stop motorists and that they may rely on innocent-looking actions as grounds for their suspicions.

The state high court’s majority, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, reasoned that police can look for documents in a vehicle to determine the identity of the driver and the owner of the vehicle. The decision upheld two police searches in Orange and Solano counties in which drugs were found under car seats and the drivers were prosecuted for possession.

“Limited warrantless searches for required registration and identification documentation are permissible,” George wrote, when the officers look for documents “in an area where such documents reasonably may be be expected to be found.”

George contended that allowing such searches would be less intrusive than arresting a motorist for driving without a license. He also noted that it would not be permissible to search a car trunk unless the officer had reason to believe the documentation was in there.

Voting with George were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Justice Carlos R. Moreno, whom Gov. Gray Davis recently appointed to fill a vacancy left by the death of Justice Stanley Mosk in June. Mosk frequently sided with defendants in police search cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in a case involving the kind of circumstances before the California court, although some high courts in other states have upheld searches for vehicle registration.

The three dissenting justices sharply accused the majority of violating the U.S. Constitution by creating a “blanket” exception to warrant requirements.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the majority erred in saying that the space beneath a driver’s seat is a reasonable place to keep vehicle registration. She also noted that driver’s licenses are not usually kept under a car’s seat and contended the Constitution prohibits car searches for licenses.

“Nothing--not the Constitution, nor any statute nor the cases cited by the majority--authorizes police to conduct a warrantless vehicle search in an attempt to discover the license of a driver who asserts he or she does not have it in the car,” Werdegar wrote.

If a driver fails to produce a license, the officer can run the driver’s name on a computer, ask the driver to submit a thumbprint, accept another form of identification or arrest the driver, she said.

“By what logic,” she asked, “would a police officer believe that searching a vehicle for a person’s driver’s license would be fruitful when the driver has just informed the officer that he does not have a license in possession?”

Kennard, joined by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, discussed “the horrendous events of Sept. 11” and asked whether anyone would ever be able to forget them.

Part of the recovery has been to create more security for citizens but “an equally important part” should be a “rededication to the principles upon which our nation was founded,” Kennard wrote.

She predicted the ruling “may well result in limitless searches throughout a vehicle whenever a driver cannot produce the requisite documentation.”

The court reached its decision in a single ruling on two similar cases. One of them stemmed from a traffic stop of Randall Ray Hinger, 40, who was making unsafe lane changes, in Orange County in August 1997. Hinger told the officer that he did not have his driver’s license with him and had no car registration.

The officer asked Hinger whether he could search the car, and Hinger said no. The officer replied that he would search the car anyway to look for identification and registration. Hinger then mentioned that he might have a wallet in the car.

The officer lifted papers in the glove box and then walked around near the driver’s seat and looked under it. He then walked to the passenger’s seat and looked under it. He found a wallet, and inside it, a plastic bag containing methamphetamine.

Hinger pleaded guilty to possession after a trial court refused to throw out the evidence on the grounds the search was illegal. A Court of Appeal later upheld that decision.

In the second case, Arturo D., who was 16, was stopped in August 1998 in Solano County for speeding. Arturo gave the officer his name, date of birth and an address but admitted that he had no driver’s license. He also said the truck was not his and he had no registration for it.

The officer felt under the driver’s seat for documentation. When he couldn’t feel anything, he went behind the driver’s seat, bent down and peered under under it. He found a glass smoking pipe and a white vial that contained methamphetamine.

A trial judge approved the search, but a Court of Appeal in Orange County overturned the decision.

Amanda F. Doerrer, the lawyer who represented Hinger, said she was “in a little shock with the decision” and was strongly considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it.

“It significantly reduces a person’s expectation of privacy when they are in an automobile,” she said.

No appellate court has approved such searches for identification unless the officer suspected contraband was in the car or feared for his safety, she said. Neither officer in the two cases had such concerns.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Alana Butler said the ruling “will give officers more guidance about what they can and cannot do.”

“It really gives officers room to be able to look at the totality of the circumstances and to be able to use their good judgment,” she said. “At the same time, they can’t go on a pretext search and rummage in a place where these things might not reasonably be found.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Jeffrey M. Laurence said he does not believe the terrorist attacks directly shaped the court’s decision in People vs. Arturo D., S085213, and People vs. Hinger, S085218.

“Sept. 11 reflects the need for officers to confirm the identity of drivers, but I don’t think it impacted the outcome” of the cases, Laurence said.

*

Times staff writer Patrick McDonnell contributed to this report.