NAPO Press Release  

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: JODY COUSER
January 12, 1999
(202) 842-3560

January 12, 1999

WASHINGTON, DC - On November 9, 1999, the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO) submitted a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of law enforcement officers in the case of State of Wyoming v. Houghton, No. 98-184, which the court is scheduled to hear today. The amicus curiae, or "friend of the court", brief was filed to reverse a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming, which established a novel precedent favoring defendants in vehicular search cases. NAPO represents more than 4,000 police unions and associations and 250,000 sworn law enforcement officers from across the nation.

Summary of the Case

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that a search of a passenger’s purse, found in the back seat of a car stopped for a traffic violation, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Wyoming court held that the officer had probable cause only to search generally for drugs belonging to the driver and could not search the property of others.

"The Wyoming court created a loophole big enough to drive a car through. We are concerned that law enforcement officers be able to conduct thorough searches whenever they have probable cause to search for evidence of criminal activity, free of unreasonable, confusing, and unworkable restrictions on what may be searched. Also, this case could impact on the safety of officers, because stopping a vehicle constitutes one of the least predictable and potentially most dangerous duties of an officer, and weapons can easily be concealed in purses," said Robert T. Scully, NAPO’s executive director.

Facts of the Case

Early on a July 1994 morning, Wyoming Highway Patrol Officer Dale Baldwin stopped an automobile for speeding and a faulty brake light on an interstate highway. The car contained three occupants, the driver, David Young, and two passengers in the front seat, including the Respondent, Sandra Houghton. While asking for Young’s driver’s license, the officer noticed a hypodermic syringe in Young’s shirt pocket. The officer then ordered the driver out of his car and had him turn over the syringe. Young admitted that he had used it to take drugs. The two passengers were ordered out of the vehicle, asked to identify themselves, and patted-down for weapons (none were found). The Respondent gave a false name, "Sandra Jones".

The officer then searched the vehicle passenger compartment for drug-related contraband, based on Young’s admission, which constituted probable cause for the search. The officer found a large closed lady’s purse on the middle of the back seat. He removed a wallet from the purse and located the Respondent’s driver’s license, identifying her as Sandra Houghton. When asked about this, she replied, it was "in case things went bad". The Respondent stated that the purse was hers. The officer removed a bag from the purse, containing 60 cc’s of methamphetamine (tested on-site). He also found more drug paraphernalia inside the bag. Houghton denied ownership of these items. Looking at her arms, the officer found fresh needle track marks. The officer then arrested the Respondent. He then found a smaller bag containing more syringes and a vial of methamphetamine.

At trial, the court admitted the evidence against Houghton, and she was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, a felony. She appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court on the ground that the search violated her reasonable expectation of privacy in her personal belongings, absent specific probable cause to believe that drug contraband was in her purse.

In April 1998, the Wyoming Supreme Court overturned her conviction. It ruled that the officers knew or should have known that the purse did not belong to the driver, but to one of the passengers. Since there was no probable cause to search her personal effects, the search was determined to be unreasonable and thus in violation of the Constitution. (Houghton v. State of Wyoming, 956 P.2d 363 (Wyo. 1998).) The court adopted a "notice test", limiting the scope of a search, once an officer knows or should have known that a container in a vehicle belongs to a passenger.

Main Points in NAPO’s Amicus Brief

NAPO’s brief emphasized that the Wyoming Supreme Court’s complicated "notice of ownership" test is confusing and unworkable during lawful searches for contraband. This test does not provide clear guidelines. Instead, it requires law enforcement officers to make difficult, if not impossible, decisions as to which containers in a vehicle belong to which person. It will enable those who are committing criminal offenses to easily evade a reasonable search, curtailing effective law enforcement. There is much opportunity for drivers and passengers, either before or during a traffic stop, to transfer an item into a container, to transfer contraband from one container to another container without being detected, or to develop a story of who should claim ownership of a container. In fact, officers routinely uncover such efforts when conducting searches for illegal drugs and weapons.

The "notice" test thus creates a loophole and encourages these efforts. The brief observed that under past Supreme Court cases, law enforcement officers having probable cause to believe that contraband may be found in an automobile, are allowed to conduct a search of the entire passenger compartment and all containers located in it, which may contain the items being searched for, irrespective of ownership of the containers. Also, occupants of automobiles possess a diminished expectation of privacy in any container, including a woman’s purse, left behind by an owner exiting the vehicle. The Wyoming Supreme Court has created an exception to past Supreme Court precedents, applying an "ownership" test, rarely, if ever, applied in these cases.

In addition, our amicus brief justified the search of Respondent’s purse on another ground. Whenever a law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest a driver, which existed in this case, the officer may conduct a search in the vehicle of all containers for weapons (or evidence). The primary rationale is to find any weapon that could be used against the officer. The ownership of a container concealing a weapon or evidence is irrelevant in terms of officer safety.

Therefore, we urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Wyoming court.

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of police unions and associations from across the United States that serves in Washington, DC to advance the interests of America’s law enforcement officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents more than 4,000 police unions and associations, 250,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 3,000 retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.

 

[back]