No. 21295-5-IIIThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. Panel Seven.
Filed: June 12, 2003 DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County Docket No: 02-1-00760-1 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 07/17/2002
Counsel for Appellant(s), Susan Marie Gasch, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 30339, Spokane, WA 99223-3005.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Frank Alan Grigaliunas, Spokane County Prose Atty Ofc, 1100 W Mallon Ave, Spokane, WA 99260-0270.
Kevin Michael Korsmo, SPOKANE COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, Address not Available.
KATO, A.C.J.
Lori Ellen Snook was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of stolen property. Claiming the court should have granted her motion to suppress, she appeals. We affirm.
On March 10, 2002, Spokane Police Officer Brenda Yates was dispatched to the Red Lion Apartments to conduct a health and welfare check. Dispatch told her it had received a 911 call that a female was retching, vomiting, and banging around in a bathroom.
Officer Yates went to a communal bathroom where she heard moaning and retching. She knocked on the door several times. After getting no response, she opened the unlocked door. She saw an unclothed woman moaning and groaning on the floor of the shower.
Officer Yates helped the woman get dressed and observed track marks on her. The officer saw a plastic bag, a plate, a syringe, and a spoon with brown tarry residue on a small table next to the toilet.
The officer identified the woman as Lori Snook. A warrant check discovered an outstanding warrant so Ms. Snook was placed under arrest. Officer Yates collected the drug paraphernalia and Ms. Snook’s belongings. She placed Ms. Snook in the patrol car before searching her belongings. In the purse, Officer Yates discovered several credit card and access devices not in Ms. Snook’s name.
At the jail, Officer Yates learned that one of the cards Ms. Snook had was reported stolen. She then arrested Ms. Snook for possessing stolen property.
The State charged Ms. Snook with possession of a controlled substance and possession of stolen property. She moved to suppress all the items discovered in the bathroom. Concluding the officer’s actions were justified under the community caretaking exception, the court denied the motion. For the first time on appeal, Ms. Snook argues the court should have suppressed the credit cards and access devices that were found because the search of her purse was not a lawful search incident to arrest. Generally, arguments not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 31, 846 P.2d 1365
(1993). RAP 2.5(a) does permit a party to raise an error for the first time on appeal, if it is a `manifest error affecting a constitutional right.’ Because the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against warantless searches and seizures are at issue, we will consider the argument.
The search incident to arrest exception is based on concern for officer safety and the need to prevent destruction of evidence. State v. Johnson, 128 Wn.2d 431, 447, 909 P.2d 293 (1996). A search incident to arrest is valid if the object searched was within the arrestee’s control when he or she was arrested, and the events occurring after the arrest, but before the search, did not render the search unreasonable. State v. Smith, 119 Wn.2d 675, 681-82, 835 P.2d 1025 (1992). An object is within the arrestee’s control if it was within his or her reach immediately prior to, or at the moment of, the arrest. Id.
Ms. Snook argues that because the officer could not have reasonably feared that she would destroy any evidence in her purse or that she could obtain a weapon from her purse, the search was unlawful. However, the search of a car incident to arrest is permissible even after the suspect is handcuffed and in the patrol car. State v. Bradley, 105 Wn. App. 30, 39, 18 P.3d 602, 27 P.3d 613 (2001). Similarly here, the fact that she was handcuffed and in the patrol car does not invalidate the search.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
SCHULTHEIS and KURTZ, JJ., concur.