Case Summary - Darrell Jay Keehn v. State

The CCA held that police were able to enter a van parked in a driveway based on the automobile exception in this, Keehn’s possession of anhydrous ammonia with intent to make meth, case. [Or PAAWIMM for those of you who want an acronym.] Here, an officer was investigating a theft near Keehn’s house. When he arrived, a male and a female ran to the back of the house and a few minutes later, a minivan left. Keehn and his girlfriend lived at the house.

The officer kept coming around the house to look for the minivan. One day when the saw it parked in the driveway, he decided to ask the residents about the theft. On his way to the front door, he saw a propane tank through the windows of the van. The “cutting of the tank” had a bluish-green discoloration that indicated to the officer that the tank contained the dreaded anhydrous ammonia. He knocked on the door feverishly and heard some rustling around inside. When no one came to the door at his earnest knocking, he took his bloody, swollen, and ultimately ineffectual knuckles back to his car to request assistance.

More officers arrived with their knuckles including some knuckles from the Drug Task Force. This time, Keehn answered the door, presumably he succumbed to the massive influx of digits (or he was listening to Men at Work and Rockwell and he couldn’t take it anymore). He let the police in and they asked about the theft.

An officer with the Drug Task Force went out to look in the windows of the van after talking with Keehn. He also saw the tank, and the discoloration. In his opinion the tank contained anhydrous ammonia, so he went in the van, got it out and tested it for ammonia. Sure enough, ammonia.

Keehn first stated that the van didn’t belong to him, but his friend had tried to sell it to him. The trial court denied Keehn’s motion to suppress and held that the police were justified in seizing the tank because they had seen it in plain view. The court of appeals affirmed because it was immediately apparent that the tank constituted evidence of a crime based on the narcotic’s officer’s training and experience. Alternatively, the court of appeals held that the search was justified under the automobile exception. [Here’s a link to the court of appeals case information.]

The CCA affirmed the court of appeals, but not for the reasons they were expecting. The CCA held that the court of appeals correctly affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, but erred in basing that upholding upon the plain view doctrine. According to the Court, the officer did not have a right to access the tank inside the van, therefore the plain view doctrine did not authorize entry. [The implication here is that the tank was plainly viewed and immediately apparent as evidence of a crime, though the Court doesn’t explicitly say that. The later finding of probable cause, however, supports that implication.]

However, under the automobile exception, the narcotics officer could enter the van because it was readily mobile, subject to regulation, and the officer had probable cause to believe the tank contained anhydrous ammonia. The Court rejected Keehn’s narrow reading of the Supreme Court case, Carney v. California, which upheld a search of a mobile home. [Oops, I mean California v. Carney, or Balifornia v. Barney, if SCOTUS were gang members.] There, SCOTUS found significant the fact that the mobile home hadn’t been parked at a place “regularly used for residential purposes.”

The CCA distinguished Carney by essentially noting that we care about where a mobile home is parked because that might indicate that the vehicle is being used as a residence rather than a vehicle. In this case, the minivan raised no such concern even though it was parked at a place “regularly used for residential purposes”. Judge Holcomb concurred without an opinion. You can read the CCA case info here.

[Nothing much to add. Judge Keasler is still The Man.]