‘A search of the automobile could reveal nothing useful in establishing the offense for which the defendant was arrested — failure to signal for a left turn — and there was no reason to suspect that he would attempt to flee with the aid of something that might be found in the trunk of his car.’
How later courts described this case
- ‘A search of the automobile could reveal nothing useful in establishing the offense for which the defendant was arrested — failure to signal for a left turn — and there was no reason to suspect that he would attempt to flee with the aid of something that might be found in the trunk of his car.’
- reversing conviction for illegal possession of gambling devices, and suppressing evidence obtained in auto search incident to pretextual arrest for failure to give turn signal
- “An arrest may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence.” (citing United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 52 S. Ct. 420, 76 L. Ed. 877 (1932); Taglavore v. United States, 291 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1961))
- failure to signal for left turn; search produced gambling equipment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated in part, on other grounds by State v. Ringer, 100 Wash. 2d 686 (1983)
374 P.2d 989, 992 (Wash. 1962) (en banc) (“An arrest may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence.”), abrogated in part on other grounds by Ringer, 674 P.2d at 1248
The opinion
Hill, J.
(dissenting) — I would affirm for the reason stated in the dissent, i.e.,
“No constitutional right of the appellant was invaded by the alleged illegal search of the property of another.”
Weaver, J.
(dissenting) — I concur in the first two reasons set forth in Judge Ott’s dissent.