Watch a few episodes of “Cops” and there’s a pretty good chance that you’ll see an officer swing open a car door during a traffic stop, either to drag out a suspect or to get a better look at what’s going on inside the vehicle.
But does that officer need to get a warrant before pulling the handle? Well, it depends, according to a ruling of first impression from the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The court established earlier this month in Gregory McHam v. State that opening the door of an occupied vehicle during a traffic stop does, in fact, constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Donald W. Beatty wrote on behalf of the court that an open door “enables the officer to observe portions of the interior of the vehicle that would not otherwise be readily visible to those who are outside the vehicle.”
In this case, the open door gave a state trooper a view of a baggie of crack cocaine–justifying an arrest and full search of McHam’s vehicle, which turned up more cocaine in a grocery bag under a seat. That evidence would have been inadmissible, sinking the prosecution’s case, if the court had sided with McHam and determined that the warrantless search was illegal.
But Beatty found that officers have the authority to open car doors during routine stops if they believe they’re in danger. The trooper who stopped McHam during a traffic safety checkpoint testified that he opened the door to watch McHam and his passenger as they rummaged around for registration and insurance papers in the dark because he wanted to make sure they weren’t going for a weapon.
While no weapons were found inside the car, the court justified the search based on the “general principle that officer safety can justify the opening of a door to an occupied vehicle under reasonable circumstances.”
The Attorney General’s Office said through a spokesman that it was “pleased with the ruling,” but declined further comment because McHam, who is serving 25 years in prison, could still petition for a rehearing.
McHam’s appellate defender Kathrine H. Hudgins had argued that under the law the trooper had only the authority to ask McHam and his passenger to step out of the vehicle. She said she found the decision “troubling in that I hope law enforcement doesn’t read it too broadly,” but added that the ruling was “based on the very limited facts of this case.”
Considering that traffic stops are inherently dangerous, it would seem that police could argue for justification in opening a car’s doors in almost any situation. Even so, criminal defense lawyer James R. Snell Jr. of Lexington, who reviewed the ruling but was not involved in the case, also believed the opinion has a relatively narrow application.
Police might not need a warrant to pop the latches, Snell said, but they still must have probable cause to start rifling through the vehicle. And he noted that police already had the power to order people to exit a car, effectively opening the doors, however briefly, allowing for a better glimpse inside.
“Some departments might try to start opening doors now as a matter of course, especially when they pull over their regular clientele,” he added. “For the average motorist, I guess the solution is to ride around with your doors locked.”
Another criminal defense lawyer, Joseph M. McCulloch Jr. of Columbia, called the decision “disappointing.” Based on the facts reported in the opinion, he expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the trooper’s safety concerns.
“The officer, at a roadblock checkpoint surrounded by other officers and perhaps the only policeman in the country without a flashlight, opened the car door ‘for his safety,’ ” he wrote in an email.
McCulloch added that the decision stands in contrast to a S.C. Court of Appeals ruling issued on the same day, July 17, in State v. Moore. In that case, the court found that a search during a traffic stop had been unreasonable and stated that it shared the “Fourth Circuit’s concerns regarding the State’s inclination toward using whatever facts are present, no matter how innocent, as indicia of suspicious activity.”
Common argument rejected
Although McHam failed to convince the Supreme Court that the drug evidence used against him was inadmissible, the fact that he was even able to argue the Fourth Amendment issue on appeal was a significant win, according to Hudgins.
The Attorney General’s Office had asserted that McHam was precluded from arguing about the legality of the search because the Court of Appeals had already considered the merits of that issue when it dismissed his direct appeal.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the Court of Appeals had never reviewed the issue as it had not been preserved. McHam’s trial counsel had made a pre-trial motion to suppress the drug evidence, but failed to renew his Fourth Amendment objection during the trial.
“Since the Fourth Amendment issue was not considered on direct appeal because it was unpreserved, an examination of the issue is appropriate in analyzing the prejudice prong in McHam’s [post-conviction relief] claim,” the court found.
According to Hudgins, this is the first case law directly addressing whether the Court of Appeals considers preserved and unpreserved issues when reviewing a direct appeal. And the ruling that it only reviews preserved and not unpreserved issues rejects what had been a common contention among prosecutors.
“They’ve been arguing this for a long time,” she said, “so I’m very glad the courts have clarified this issue.”
The 13-page decision is McHam v. State, Lawyers Weekly No. 010-091-13. The full text of the ruling can be found at sclawyersweekly.com.
OPINION BRIEF
Case name: McHam v. State
Court: S.C. Supreme Court
Judge: Donald W. Beatty, with Jean H. Toal, John W. Kittredge and Kaye G. Hearn concurring, and Costa M. Pleicones concurring in result only.
Attorney for petitioner: Kathrine H. Hudgins (Columbia)
Attorney for respondent: Assistant Attorney General Suzanne H. White (Columbia)
Issue: When an officer opens the door of an occupied vehicle during a traffic stop, does it constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Holding: Yes, but in this case a warrant was not required because the officer acted based on concerns for his safety.
Importance: This is the first time that the court has addressed whether opening a vehicle’s door during a traffic stop constitutes a search. The opinion also is noteworthy in that it allows police to open the door without a warrant in certain situations.