¶1Concurring Opinion by
¶2In Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), the United States Supreme Court essentially held that a search incident to a lawful arrest includes a search of any vehicle in which the arrested person was a “recent occupant.” Id. at 623-24, 124 S.Ct. at 2132. In my view (and that of five members of the Court that decided Thornton), the reasoning supporting this departure from previously settled law with respect to automobile searches is seriously flawed. Nevertheless, Thorntonis on all fours with the facts of this case. As I stated in my concurrence in Penman v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 237 (Ky.2006), because (and only because) I consider it important for law enforcement purposes that consistency be maintained between Kentucky and federal law on Fourth Amendment issues, I reluctantly concur in the majority opinion.
¶3JOHNSTONE, J., joins this concurring opinion.