Thornton, Marcus v. U.S. (05/24/2004)

Questions presented: Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?

BY KAT DE MARIA, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Marcus Thornton parked and got out of his car before Officer Deion L. Nichols "got the chance" to pull him over. Nichols exited his unmarked car and approached Thornton "within moments." The uniformed officer told Thornton his license plates were not registered to the gold Lincoln Town Car he was driving.

Thornton was sweating in the heat of the Virginia day in late July 2001. He seemed nervous, according to Nichols. Thornton told the officer "someone had just given him the car."

Thornton agreed to a pat down after he told Nichols he had no weapons or drugs on him. Nichols felt a bulge in Thorntons left front pocket and again asked Thornton if he was carrying any drugs.

Thornton told Nichols he had a "bag of weed." Nichols asked for the bag and Thornton handed him two bags, one containing marijuana and one with cocaine.

Nichols arrested Thornton and put him in the patrol car. The officer searched the passenger area of the Town Car and found a loaded .9-millimeter handgun under the drivers seat.

On Feb. 8, 2002, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia convicted Thornton of possession with intent to distribute a cocaine base, possession of a firearm after a previous felony conviction, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

Thornton moved for a new trial, claiming the judge should not have allowed the gun into evidence because the search that uncovered it was illegal. The District Court denied the motion and sentenced Thornton to 15 years in prison with eight years of supervised release.

Thornton raised his argument again before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. He said the law authorizing police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a car upon the arrest of its occupants did not apply to his case.

In New York v. Belton, the Supreme Court found in 1981 that concerns of officer safety and the preservation of evidence necessitate that police officers search the passenger area of a car without a warrant when they arrest its occupants.

Thornton argued the search in his case did not fit this exception because he was no longer an occupant of the Town Car when Nichols initiated contact with him.

On April 3, 2003, a 4th Circuit panel unanimously affirmed, finding that the 1981 decision applied to Thorntons case because the Town Car was still within Thorntons immediate control when Nichols approached him. Judge Diana Motz, in the court's opinion, said officer safety and the preservation of evidence were still concerns regardless of when Nichols initiated contact with Thornton.

Both the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have found that once an individual has gotten out of his or her car, the arrest-related car search exception no longer applies because the individual can no longer reasonably destroy evidence or harm an officer with a weapon from the car.

The 7th, 8th and 10th circuits, however, have held that the arrest of a suspect detained near a car requires the same kind of caution as the arrest of an occupant still in a car when an officer initiates contact with him or her.

Frank Dunham, Thorntons appeals attorney, argues that relying on the vague notion of proximity to a car at the time of arrest blurs the bright line the Supreme Court attempted to provide officers in 1981. Dunham says the Court must limit the warrantless car search exception to arrests of suspects stopped while still in their cars in order to keep the ruling clear and the arrestees rights protected.

"The proximity approach comes dangerously close to allowing automatic searches in all instances of custodial arrests made anywhere near a car, thus turning the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement on its head," wrote Dunham in his brief to the Supreme Court.

But the government contends that the standard supported by the 4th Circuit limits itself.

"Whether a suspect exits his vehicle voluntarily or on police direction, there does come a point at which the suspect can no longer be reasonably regarded as a 'recent occupant' of the vehicle i.e. because of the time that has elapsed or distance that he has covered since he exited the car," wrote U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in his brief to the Supreme Court.

On Nov. 3, 2003, the Supreme Court accepted review in the case and allowed Thornton to proceed free of cost.