Overruling its own 2002 decision on the issue and determining “the time has come to correct a misperception of the constraints of the Fourth Amendment,” a 4-3 Supreme Court in People v. Lopez today holds police can no longer conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver fails to provide a license or other personal identification upon request. The majority opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger concludes its new rule is more in line with post-2002 “decisions from both the United States Supreme Court and our sister states,” particularly Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332. The overruled case, also a divided opinion, is In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60.
The SCOTUS Gant opinion is the catalyst for a change in California, the court says, because the issue is one of federal constitutional law and, “even when the high court’s decision does not directly address the continuing validity of the rule in question; the high court’s guidance may nonetheless erode the analytical foundations of the old rule or make clear that the rule is substantially out of step with the broader body of relevant federal law.”
The majority says it’s not deciding the validity of Arturo D.‘s holding regarding a search for registration documents, as opposed to personal identification documents. As to warrantless searches for the latter, however, the court says California was until today “a minority of one” among state court decisions.
Justice Ming Chin dissents, for himself and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Carol Corrigan. He accuses the majority of “giving Arturo D. an unnecessarily expansive reading that makes the decision into an easy target” and of disregarding that “Gant is a case that addressed a different issue and that did not change the applicable constitutional standard in any way.” And, he says, if Arturo D. in fact puts California in conflict with other states’ case law, “then it is appropriate for the high court to grant a writ of certiorari and resolve the question.”
The majority gives props to Justice Joyce Kennard’s dissent in Arturo D. It also reverses the Third District Court of Appeal, which followed Arturo D.