In October of this year, The Prof posted a holding by the court that there had to be a nexus between the driver and the vehicle to perform a search incident to arrest. In State v. Patton, the court held:
Though we agree Patton was under arrest while he stood next to his car, the search incident to arrest exception requires a nexus between the arrestee, the vehicle, and the crime of arrest, implicating safety concerns or concern for the destruction of evidence of the crime of arrest. Because no such nexus existed here, we reverse the Court of Appeals. We hold that an automobile search incident to arrest is not justified unless the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, and the search is necessary for officer safety or to secure evidence of the crime of arrest that could be concealed or destroyed.
Fast forward to now, and we have Buelna Valdez arrested and put in the back of a patrol car on an outstanding warrant secondary to a taillight. The officer noticed floorboards loose and called a drug dog for the search. One guess what they found. However, because of the failure to wait for a warrant, the evidence is out.
Its a shame too, the car wasn’t going anywhere.
