In the

SUPERIOR COURT

FOR THE COUNTY OF McGEORGE

State of Pacific

Plaintiff

Criminal Action No. 00-386 JDS

vs.

Judge ICKES

Steven Wolf

Defendant

RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

I. Introduction

The defendant was stopped and arrested for driving under the influence and officers

search his vehicle at the scene. He was later indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to

distribute, possession of methaqualone with intent to distribute, and driving under the influence

of alcohol. He has challenged the search of his vehicle and containers within it on Fourth

Amendment grounds.

II. Facts

[See page 39]

1
III. Applicable Law

Although the Fourth Amendment exhibits a warrant preference, vehicles may be searched

incident to a lawful arrest without a warrant if it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the

arrest might be found in the vehicle. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009). “If probable

cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the

vehicle and its content that may conceal the object of the search.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S.

798, 825 (1982) (emphasis added). With this in mind, the issue in this case is “whether it was

reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to [the defendant’s] crime of arrest . . . might be

found in the [vehicle.]” People v. Nottoli, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 884, 900-01 (Ct. App. 2011)

(original emphasis).

IV. Application

The defendant was pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence. Officers

stated he smelled of alcohol and was unable to successfully complete the basic tasks required

during a field sobriety test. The defendant does not appear to contest that it was reasonable for

the officers at the scene to believe he was intoxicated. As such, under People v. Nottoli the

officers had probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle and containers therein which might

hold evidence of the alleged crime. See id. at 902. Such evidence could include alcoholic

beverages, finished or unfinished, as well as illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia that contributed

to the defendant’s intoxicated state.

The search of the defendant’s backpack, tin, and pouch was also reasonable given the

circumstances. Common evidence of intoxication like drugs and alcohol can easily fit within

small containers. Although only a McGeorge police officer for three years, Officer Abel has

searched as many as fifty backpacks, which often contain valuable personal or dangerous items.

2
Illegal drugs that could have contributed to the defendant’s intoxication would not likely be

strewn willy-nilly around his vehicle, but instead qualify as valuable personal or dangerous items

that would be hidden in the backpack and containers seen in this case.

Quickly addressing the defendant’s reliance on People v. Nottoli, it is, in a word,

misplaced. “Giving credence” to the reasoning of a federal court is not the same as adopting that

court’s opinion outright. Furthermore, the court in Nottoli upheld the challenged search under the

automobile exception. See id. at 902-03.

V. Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied. Because

the challenged search in this case was constitutional under the automobile exception, the Court

does not reach the issue of the inventory search.

/s/ Peter Ickes

Judge, California Superior Court for McGeorge County