Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Robert Carl Sennings appeals the district court's refusal to suppress evidence obtained from Sennings' vehicle at the time of his arrest. We affirm.

"When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile." New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981). Defendant asks that we make an exception to this bright line rule and prohibit a warrantless search when the occupant has been placed in the patrol car and is no longer within reach of the vehicle. Even if we were inclined to make such a rule, we are barred from doing so by prior circuit law. In United States v. Lorenzo, 867 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1989), we expressly rejected the view that a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to arrest is permissible only if it is both contemporaneous with the arrest and within the arrestee's "grabbable" area. See United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 1987) (distinguishing established law upholding searches where arrestee was not within reach of vehicle). Other circuits have also refused to create an exception to Belton's bright line rule. See United States v. White, 871 F.2d 41, 44 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Karlin, 852 F.2d 968, 971 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1142 (1989); United States v. McCrady, 774 F.2d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Cotton, 751 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Newsome, 821 F.2d 1550, 1554 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 967 (1987) (without discussion). As the defendant does not dispute that the search was contemporaneous to a valid arrest, the district court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized from defendant's vehicle.

AFFIRMED.