Featured Case - Artis - Automobile Searches

Antonio Artis v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals, 2010-CA-00437-MR

Andrew Self, Judge, Christian County

To be Published Opinion, Affirming

Before: Moore, Stumbo, and Wine, Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wine

If the search in this case been conducted after Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), it would have been unlawful.  Under Gant, an automobile search incident to a recent occupant's arrest is constitutional (1) if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle during the search, or (2) if the police have reason to believe that the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. 

But under the more recent Davis v. United States, __U.S.__, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2428 (2011) for any search –like this one-- conducted prior to Gant, the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police officers have conducted a search in “objectively reasonable reliance” on appellate precedent that was binding at the time of the search. Id. at 2434. 

Acknowledging Davis, Artis asked the Court to find the search was unconstitutional on state law grounds.  But the COA held that while the Kentucky Constitution has been held to offer greater protection of the right of privacy than provided by the federal constitution, Kentucky courts have never extended this greater privacy protection to searches and seizures.  The Kentucky Supreme Court has stated that “Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution provides no greater protection than does the federal Fourth Amendment.” LaFollette v. Commonwealth, 915 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Ky. 1996).

Contributed by Susan Balliet

Featured Case - Ward - Traffic Stop and Automobile Search

Ward v. Commonwealth, 10-CA-000732, Court of Appeals 

TO BE PUBLISHED

In Ward, an officer testified that he stopped a car after he witnessed it make a right turn without stopping at a stop sign.  The officer claimed that the two men inside appeared nervous and he recognized them as persons with “known drug violations.”  When the officer requested identification, the other occupant (Garner) gave his driver’s license.  Ward only gave the officer his Social Security number.  It took the officer five to ten minutes to run an identification check due to, according to the officer, Ward only giving his Social Security number.  After learning that no warrants were outstanding, the officer returned to the car.  Eight to ten minutes had transpired to this point and the officer had yet to write the traffic citation.  The officer asked Ward for permission to search the car.  Ward refused.  The officer had a canine unit in his car and conducted a canine search.  Methamphetamines were discovered in the car. 

On appeal, Ward argued that the duration of the traffic stop was unreasonably extended by the canine search.  The Court disagreed.  The Court determined that the eight to ten minutes between the stop of the vehicle and the canine search beginning and the total of twenty to twenty-five minutes from the time of the initial stop to the dog’s alerting on the vehicle was not unreasonable and, therefore, not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Contributed by Brandon Pigg