Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Automobile exception to the warrant requirement; People v Bullock

The court held that probable cause to further inspect defendant’s vehicle for open alcohol containers “did not support a search of locations in the vehicle where a container could not be concealed.” Thus, it reversed the denial of his motion to suppress and remanded for entry of an order suppressing the cocaine at issue. It noted that he correctly did “not challenge the seizure of the open bottle of Patron, which the officers found in plain view as they looked from the outside of the vehicle into the interior with flashlights.” However, the officers who searched the “vehicle were looking for another bottle that contained an alcoholic beverage, yet their search extended to areas of the vehicle that could not conceal a bottle. Specifically, the officers thoroughly searched the entire passenger compartment, lifting up items and moving around shoes on the floorboard. Finally, [they] searched under a floormat and in the ‘floorboard/running board area,’ where [an officer] found a small, rock-like substance that formed the basis for the” possessing less than 25 grams of cocaine “charge against defendant. Because that vehicle search included places in which a bottle could not be located, the search exceeded the permissible scope of an automobile search, as defined by Bullock . . . . As a result, the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the small, rock-like substance found during that search[.]”