On December 30, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Wilder[i],which serves as an excellent review regarding search incident to arrest and inevitable discovery. The relevant facts of Wilder, taken directly from the case, are as follows:
These proceedings arise from Wilder’s arrest on March 9, 2022, at the Marco Polo Pizzeria in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. On that occasion, officers of the Myrtle Beach Police Department (the “MBPD”) —including Officer Mohammad Channani — detained and arrested Wilder and his female companion, Ireyhanna Sinkler. Five days earlier, on March 4, 2022, the MBPD had issued a “Be On the Lookout” alert (called a “BOLO”) for both Wilder and Sinkler. The BOLO explained, inter alia, that Sinkler was wanted by the Lumberton North Carolina Police Department, and the BOLO asserted — in red bold and italicized font — that “[b]oth subjects are convicted felons and should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.” The MBPD officers were further advised by the BOLO that Wilder and Sinkler had been involved in an armed robbery on March 9, the very day of their arrest.
After Wilder and Ms. Sinkler were spotted in the Pizzeria, several MBPD officers entered — with guns drawn — ordering Wilder and Sinkler to get on the floor. They each promptly complied with the directives of the police officers. After Wilder was restrained and handcuffed, Officer Channani confirmed Wilder’s identity and noticed a black, multi-pocketed so-called “cross-body bag” that was strapped to Wilder’s chest. Officer Channani then pointed to the cross-body bag and asked, “Is that drugs in there?” In response, Wilder replied, “No.”
Officer Channani also noticed a separate and smaller clear plastic bag protruding from the top of a pocket in Wilder’s cross-body bag. On the basis of his training and experience, Officer Channani suspected that the protruding plastic bag contained narcotics, because that type of bag was commonly used for such purposes. Officer Channani then asked another police officer to hold onto Wilder and stated loudly, “I see a bag that’s possibly holding narcotics in there.” Wilder promptly volunteered, “Ain’t nothing but a little weed, man.”
While Wilder was yet wearing the cross-body bag, Officer Channani unzipped a pocket thereof that held and concealed the rest of the smaller plastic bag, and he then saw that it contained the green substance referred to by Wilder as “weed” — that is, marijuana. Officer Channani then emptied the remaining contents of that pocket of the cross-body bag and proceeded to unzip other pockets of the cross-body bag. He found in another pocket a jar that contained a white substance consistent with crack cocaine. While searching the cross-body bag, Officer Channani also felt what he immediately believed to be a handgun. He then unbuckled the cross-body bag and removed it from Wilder.
Officer Channani then completed his examination of Wilder’s cross-body bag, from which he seized the firearm that he had already felt, that is, a loaded Bersa Thunder .380 handgun. He promptly unloaded the Bersa .380. Wilder was then arrested on state charges relating to the handgun, plus his possession of marijuana and crack cocaine. Two months later, on May 24, 2022, Wilder was indicted by the federal grand jury on a single charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1).[ii]
Wilder filed a motion to suppress the gun and ammunition that was seized from his bag. He argued that the search of the bag violated the Fourth Amendment. The government argued that the search of the cross-body bag was legal because it was seized and searched incident to Wilder’s arrest for possession of marijuana. The government also argued that the gun and ammunition in the bag would have been inevitably discovered during an inventory search of the cross-body bag.
The district court denied the motion to suppress. The court declined to rule on whether the search was a valid search incident to arrest. Rather, the court upheld the finding of the gun under the inevitable discovery doctrine because it would have been inevitably discovered during an inventory of the bag after Wilder was arrested for possession of marijuana.
The district court also ruled that the initial encounter with Wilder was a valid Terry stop and frisk based on the belief that they were involved in a nearby armed robbery and the BOLO that stated that Wilder and his companion (Sinkler) should be considered armed and dangerous.
The court stated
Officer Channani would have inevitably arrested Wilder for possession of marijuana. And that arrest would have occurred in any event, notwithstanding the opening of the cross-body bag and the Officer’s retrieval of marijuana, the firearm, and the ammunition. See 944 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2019); 828 Fed. App’x 894 (4th Cir. 2020). As the court explained:
Officer Channani’s common practice of arresting people for possession of marijuana and his credible testimony that (1) based on [Wilder]’s admission he knew the plastic bag contained weed and (2) once he knew there was marijuana [Wilder] was going to be placed under arrest.
See Suppression Denial, ECF No. 58 at 9. Thus, the court found “that an inventory search of [Wilder] following his arrest was inevitable and reasonable given the safety considerations raised if an arrestee is able to bring narcotics and/or firearms into police vehicles and/or the jail.”[iii]
It bears noting that the government did not argue, during the suppression hearing, that the gun was discovered pursuant to valid Terry frisk. Rather, the government focused on search incident to arrest and inevitable discovery.
Wilder also argued that the inventory search should not be valid because the Myrtle Beach Police Department did not have an inventory policy at the time of the search of Wilder’s cross-body bag. In support of this argument, he presented evidence of policy directive related to inventory searches of detainee’s property dated June 16, 2023, about a year after the search of Wilder’s bag. However, the government presented evidence of a policy regarding detainee inventories that was effective July 12, 2004 and was in effect at the time of Wilder’s arrest and inventory of his bag. Thus, the inventory search was valid.
Wilder subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges with the right to appeal. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress for the reasons discussed by the district court.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
_________________________________________________
Citations
[i] No. 24-4219 (4th Cir. December 30, 2024 Unpublished)
[ii] Id. at 2-4
[iii] Id. at 6-7
