Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Introduction

The case of State v. Nelson, decided by the Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, on December 16, 1997, addresses a crucial Fourth Amendment issue under Washington law: whether a search incident to arrest extends to a purse left in a vehicle when a passenger—not the driver—is arrested. Understanding this case is essential for attorneys navigating constitutional search boundaries in Washington.

Background of the Case

On August 18, 1996, Officer Randy Maynard stopped Lisa Marie Nelson’s truck after observing a white light on a rear taillight. Nelson lacked a driver’s license but showed a valid Washington State ID. Her two male passengers were not wearing seatbelts. Identification checks revealed an outstanding warrant on one passenger, who was arrested. Officer Maynard then directed Ms. Nelson to exit the vehicle, telling her to leave her purse—which she had kept between her legs—in the truck. He subsequently searched both the vehicle and her purse, discovering suspected methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia, leading to Nelson’s arrest. Nelson moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court ultimately granted suppression following CrR 3.6 hearings. The State appealed. Justia Law+7FindLaw Case Law+7vLex+7vLex

1. Scope of Search Incident to Arrest

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches unless an exception applies. The search incident to a lawful arrest exception permits officers to search the area within an arrestee’s immediate control—including containers in the passenger compartment—based on precedent like Chimel v. California (1969) and New York v. Belton (1981) under both federal and Washington constitutional grounds. vLex

2. Does the Rule Apply to a Purse Left in the Vehicle?

The State argued that the search of Nelson’s purse was justified under this exception. However, the court analyzed State v. Seitz (1997), which held that a purse on a suspect’s person at the time of arrest could not be searched absent additional suspicion. Justia Law+6vLex+6CourtListener+6

Meanwhile, the court acknowledged State v. Parker (1997), where it deemed permissible to search a purse voluntarily left in the car after arrest because the person no longer maintained control over it. vLex The critical distinction here: control over property matters.

3. Application to State v. Nelson

In Nelson’s case, the trial court believed her purse remained under her control when she was told to leave it in the vehicle—it was still between her legs, and she was denied free control of it. Her testimony that she was directed to do so was credible, and finding facts in her favor was supported by substantial evidence. The court ruled the search exceeded the permissible scope under the constitutional exception and suppressed the evidence. CaseMineFindLaw Case Law+1

Affirmed Ruling

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The search of Nelson’s purse was not justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception because she retained control over it at the time it was searched.

Review Our Client Resources

Explore helpful guides, legal FAQs, and service details: Review our client resources here.

Contact Us Anytime

We’re available when you need urgent legal help. Call 253-720-9304 or email info@blanfordlaw.com.

About Blanford Law

At Blanford Law, we are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We’re great listeners—not fast talkers—because that’s who we are.

More than 20 years ago, attorney Ken Blanford began practicing law with a core belief: every person deserves the best legal representation available. He built this firm on that foundation, along with a deep respect for clients—no assumptions, no judgment.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime or injured due to another’s negligence, contact us today.

📞 253-720-9304
📧 info@blanfordlaw.com

Additional Resources