DISCUSSION BOARD QUESTION

LawfulnessofinventorysearchofmotorvehicleimpoundedbypolicePDFA.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >DISCUSSION BOARD QUESTION

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

48 A.L.R.3d 537 (Originally published in 1973)

American Law Reports | The ALR databases are made current by the weekly addition of relevant new cases. ALR3d Emile F. Short, LL.B., LL.M., Barrister–at–Law, Lincoln's Inn

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle impounded by police

TABLE OF CONTENTS Article Outline Index Table of Cases, Laws, and Rules Research References

ARTICLE OUTLINE

I Preliminary Matters § 1[a] Introduction—Scope § 1[b] Introduction—Related matters § 2[a] Background, summary, and comment—Generally § 2[b] Background, summary, and comment—Practice pointers II General rules § 3[a] Inventory search as "search"—Rule that inventory search constitutes "search" within meaning of

Fourth Amendment § 3[b] Inventory search as "search"—Rule that inventory search does not constitute "search" within

meaning of Fourth Amendment § 3[c] Inventory search as "search"—Rule under state constitutional provisions § 3.5 Validity of inventory search policy § 4 Validity as depending on purpose of search § 5[a] Validity as depending on lawful custody of vehicle—Rule that police must obtain lawful custody

of vehicle § 5[b] Validity as depending on lawful custody of vehicle—Rule that lawful custody of vehicle accords

police lawful custody of its contents § 5[c] Validity as depending on lawful custody of vehicle—Rule that lawful custody of vehicle does not

dispense with constitutional requirements of search § 6[a] Validity as based on lawful impoundment per se—Rule that lawful impoundment per se authorizes

inventory search § 6[b] Validity as based on lawful impoundment per se—Rule that lawful impoundment does not, per se,

authorize inventory search III Particular circumstances of search as factor A Search of vehicle following arrest of driver or occupant § 6.5 Validity as depending on existence of standardized criteria § 7[a] Vehicle and traffic violations—Held lawful § 7[b] Vehicle and traffic violations—Held not lawful § 8[a] Other offenses—Held lawful

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

§ 8[b] Other offenses—Held not lawful B Search of abandoned or unattended vehicle § 8.5 Forfeiture § 9[a] Generally—Held lawful § 9[b] Generally—Held not lawful § 10 Illegally parked vehicle § 10.5 Vehicle involved in accident where driver incapacitated C Search of vehicle before arrest of driver or occupant § 10.7 Search held valid IV Scope of search § 11[a] Objects in plain view—Held lawful § 11[b] Objects in plain view—Held not lawful § 12[a] Search of trunk—Held lawful § 12[b] Search of trunk—Held not lawful § 13[a] Search of glove compartment—Held lawful § 13[b] Search of glove compartment—Held not lawful § 14[a] Search of briefcase, suitcase, or the like—Held lawful § 14[b] Search of briefcase, suitcase, or the like—Held not lawful § 15[a] Search under or around seat—Held lawful § 15[b] Search under or around seat—Held not lawful § 16 Search under floormat § 17 Miscellaneous places § 18 Failure to secure and catalog every item in vehicle Research References

INDEX

Abandoned vehicle, search of §§ 9, 10, 14[b] Amount of bond required for release, police misinforming arrested driver as to § 5[a] Arrest of driver or occupant, search of vehicle following §§ 7, 8 Background § 2 Blocking highway after accident, inventory search of motor vehicle removed from highway by police because of § 6[b] Briefcase, search of § 14 Burden of explaining necessity of taking vehicle into police custody § 5[a] Burglar tools found in vehicle § 17 Burglary, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle, search of vehicle after arrest for § 7[b] Collision or other accident, search of vehicle involved in §§ 6, 8[a], 9 Comment § 2 Constitutional requirements of search, lawful custody of vehicle as not dispensing with § 5[c] Convertible type, inventory search as affected by fact that vehicle is of § 14[b] Demolished automobile, inventory search of §§ 6[a], 8[a] Drinking alcoholic beverages in motor vehicle, inventory search after driver arrested for § 7[a] Driver escaping shortly after arrest, impoundment and inventory search of vehicle left locked and illegally parked

by § 10 Driver's license violation, inventory search of vehicle where operator arrested for § 7 Driver unable to post bond immediately on speeding charge, searching vehicle of § 5[a] Driving automobile without permit, inventory search after driver arrested for § 5[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Drugs found in vehicle §§ 11[a], 12[b], 14, 15[b] Drunken driving, search of vehicle after driver arrested for § 7[a] Fishing tackle box tied with wire, search of § 14[a] Flight by driver and attempted flight by occupants of vehicle stopped for speeding, search after § 7[a] Floormat of vehicle, search under § 16 Forgery, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Fugitive from justice, search of vehicle after arrest as § 8[a] Gambling paraphernalia found in vehicle § 12[a] General rules §§ 3- 6 Glove compartment, search of § 13 Good faith purpose of making inventory as essential to validity of inventory search § 4 Gun found in vehicle §§ 11[a], 12[a], 13[a], 14[a], 15 Illegally parked vehicle, search of § 10 "Impounded," meaning of term herein § 1[a] Intoxication, inventory search after owner, found standing beside stalled vehicle in highway intersection, arrested for

§ 6[a] Introduction § 1 Invasion of privacy of owner of vehicle, routine police inventory of contents of automobile as involving § 3[a] Larceny, search of vehicle after arrest for §§ 6[a], 8[a] Lawful custody of vehicle, validity of inventory search as depending on § 5 Lawful impoundment of vehicle, validity of inventory search as based on § 6 Lights of motor vehicle, inventory search after driver arrested for violating requirement as to § 7[a] Loitering, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[b] Lottery tickets found in vehicle § 16 Model Code of Pre–Arraignment Procedure, definition of "search" in draft of § 3[b] Money found in vehicle § 11[a] Money which arrested driver told police was in vehicle, inventory search for § 14[a] "Motor vehicle," scope of term herein § 1[a] Narcotics paraphernalia found in vehicle §§ 11[b], 16 Negligent driving, inventory search after driver arrested for § 7[a] Objects in plain view, search extending to § 11 Parole violation, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Particular circumstances of search as factor §§ 7- 10 Per se effect of lawful impoundment, rules as to § 6 Police having lawful custody of vehicle as having lawful custody of its contents § 5[b] Possession of forged money orders, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Practice pointers § 2[b] Preliminary matters §§ 1, 2 Pretext for warrantless search for incriminating evidence, rule against using inventory search as § 4 Private citizen acting on own behalf in making inventory search of vehicle impounded by police § 2[a] Proof of ownership of vehicle, vehicle impounded because arrested driver lacked § 7[a] Protecting contents of vehicle from undue risk during storage as reason for inventory search §§ 2[a], 4, 6[a], 7- 17 Protecting police or custodian of vehicle from false claims of loss or theft as reason for inventory search §§ 2[a], 4,

6[a], 7- 17 Purpose of search, validity as depending on § 4 Rationale of positions taken, generally § 2[a] Reasonableness as test of validity of search of motor vehicle § 2[a] Reckless driving, search of vehicle after arrest for §§ 5[a], 7 Red light violation, inventory search after driver arrested for §§ 5[a], 7[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Related matters § 1[b] Remedies, practice pointers as to § 2[b] Running red light, search of vehicle after driver arrested for §§ 5[a], 7[a] Scope of annotation § 1[a] Scope of search made §§ 11- 17 "Search" within meaning of Fourth Amendment, inventory search as § 3 Seat of vehicle, search under or around § 15 Selective basis of removing only certain items from vehicle during inventory search § 4 Serial number and description of motor vehicle, arresting officer examining car door post to obtain, for entry on "tow

slip," § 7[a] Shaving satchel, search of § 14[b] Shooting into occupied dwelling, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Sidewalk, car left standing illegally on, by motorist escaping from police after arrest § 6[a] Speeding, searching vehicle after driver stopped or arrested for §§ 5[a], 6[a], 7[a] Stated purpose of routine police inventory as not necessarily controlling § 3[a] Stolen credit card, search of vehicle after arrest for forgery in using § 8[a] Stolen property found in vehicle §§ 11[a], 12[a], 15[a] Suitcase, search of § 14 Summary § 2 Suppression of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, practice pointers as to § 2[b] Suspicion of burglary, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Suspicion of offense, search of vehicle after arrest on § 8 Tampering with motor vehicle, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[a] Theories advanced as justifying making of inventory searches, generally § 2[a] Time of conducting search as factor § 4 Towing service operator finding gun in automobile while checking it for personal belongings needing protection § 7[a] Traffic violation, search of vehicle following arrest for § 7 Trunk of vehicle, search of § 12 Unattended vehicle, search of §§ 9, 10, 14[b] Uninspected vehicle, inventory search after driver arrested for operating § 7[a] Unlawful possession of pistol, search of vehicle after arrest for §§ 5[b], 8[a] Unregistered vehicle, inventory search after arrest for operating § 7[a] Vagrancy, search of vehicle after arrest for § 8[b] Vehicle law violation, search of vehicle following arrest for § 7 Vehicle not owned by driver or other occupant arrested, inventory search of §§ 6[a], 8[a] Warrant, continuing search without obtaining, after finding some marijuana in vehicle § 15[b]

Table of Cases, Laws, and Rules

United States U.S. Const. Amend. 4. See 4, 5[b], 5[c], 6[a], 6.5, 8[a], 9[a], 12[a], 14[a], 17 U.S. Const. Amend. IV. See 3[a], 3[b], 3[c], 4, 5[a], 5[b], 6[a], 6[b], 6.5, 7[a], 7[b], 8[a], 8[b], 9[a], 9[b], 10.7, 12[a], 17 18 U.S.C.A. § 2423(a). See 8[a] 49 U.S.C.A. § 782. See 8[a]

Supreme Court Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790 (1925) — 2[a] Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1987) — 2[a], 3[b], 4, 7[a] Cooper v. State of Cal., 386 U.S. 58, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730 (1967) — 5[c]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

United States D'Antorio v. State, 926 P.2d 1158 (Alaska 1996) (applying US and Ohio law) — 17

Supreme Court Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990) — 5[c], 7[b], 12[b], 14[b] Gambino v. U.S., 275 U.S. 310, 48 S. Ct. 137, 72 L. Ed. 293 (1927) — 2[a] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513, 84 A.L.R.2d 933 (1961) — 2[a] Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 102 S. Ct. 3079, 73 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1982) — 2[a], 5[b] Preston v. U.S., 376 U.S. 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964) — 2[a] South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1976) — 3[a], 3[b], 4, 7[a], 13[a] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) — 2[a]

First Circuit at (CA1 Me) 22 M.L.W. 1940, 15 R.I.L.W. 141 — 6.5 Boudreau v. Lussier, 901 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2018) — 7[a] Fagundes v. U.S., 340 F.2d 673 (1st Cir. 1965) — 3[b], 6[a], 7[a], 11[a] Jaynes v. Mitchell, 824 F.3d 187 (1st Cir. 2016) — 8[a] United States v. Gonzalez-Seda, 224 F. Supp. 3d 128 (D.P.R. 2016) — 8[a] U.S. v. Acosta-Colon, 741 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 2013) — 8[a] U.S. v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006) — 6[a], 9[a] U.S. v. Colon-Osorio, 877 F. Supp. 771 (D.P.R. 1994) — 6.5 U.S. v. Dall, 608 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1979) — 4, 7[a] U.S. v. Donnelly, 885 F. Supp. 300 (D. Mass. 1995) — 6.5 U.S. v. Exume, 953 F. Supp. 2d 319 (D. Mass. 2013) — 6.5 U.S. v. Fernandez Santana, 975 F. Supp. 135 (D.P.R. 1997) — 6.5 U.S. v. Garcia-Robledo, 488 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.P.R. 2007) — 17 U.S. v. Gomez-Vega, 519 F. Supp. 2d 241 (D.P.R. 2007) — 8[a] U.S. v. Gordon, 23 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Me. 1998) — 6.5, 10 U.S. v. Jeffreys, 111 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D. Mass. 2015) — 8[a] U.S. v. Kimball, 813 F. Supp. 95 (D. Me. 1993) — 6.5 U.S. v. Matias-Maestres, 738 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.P.R. 2010) — 7[a] U.S. v. McCambridge, 551 F.2d 865 (1st Cir. 1977) — 7[a] U.S. v. McCoy, 977 F.2d 706 (1st Cir. 1992) — 8[a] U.S. v. Mensah, 796 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Mass. 2011) — 6.5, 9[a] U.S. v. Pappas, 613 F.2d 324 (1st Cir. 1979) — 4, 5[a], 9[a], 12[a] U.S. v. Richardson, 515 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2008) — 16 U.S. v. Rivera, 465 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.P.R. 2006) — 6.5, 7[a]

Second Circuit Hodge v. Village of Southampton, 838 F. Supp. 2d 67 (E.D. N.Y. 2012) — 6[a] United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2017) — 3[b] United States v. White, 298 F. Supp. 3d 451 (E.D. N.Y. 2018) — 7[a] U.S. v. Banks, 150 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. N.Y. 2001) — 17 U.S. v. Barnes, 443 F. Supp. 137, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 779 (S.D. N.Y. 1977) — 8[a], 12[a] U.S. v. Best, 415 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Conn. 2006) — 5[a], 6.5, 8[a] U.S. v. Bethea, 505 F. Supp. 698 (E.D. N.Y. 1980) — 5[a] U.S. v. Callabrass, 469 F. Supp. 323 (S.D. N.Y. 1978) — 9[a] U.S. v. Echevarria, 692 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D. N.Y. 2010) — 6[a] U.S. v. Flores, 122 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D. N.Y. 2000) — 3[a], 4 U.S. v. Foreman, 993 F. Supp. 186 (S.D. N.Y. 1998) — 6.5, 7[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Lake, 233 F. Supp. 2d 465, 124 A.L.R.5th 837 (E.D. N.Y. 2002) — 4 U.S. v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008) — 3[b], 4, 6.5, 18 U.S. v. Ochs, 461 F. Supp. 1, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1307 (S.D. N.Y. 1978) — 8[a] U.S. v. Palacios, 957 F. Supp. 50 (S.D. N.Y. 1997) — 6.5 U.S. v. Smith, 340 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Conn. 1972) — 6[a] U.S. v. Taft, 769 F. Supp. 1295 (D. Vt. 1991) — 8[a] U.S. v. Thompson, 29 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1994) — 6.5 U.S. v. Vidal, 637 F. Supp. 327 (S.D. N.Y. 1986) — 4

Third Circuit Price v. Phelps, 894 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D. Del. 2012) — 3[b], 5[b] United States v. McMillan, 227 F. Supp. 3d 432 (W.D. Pa. 2017) — 5[a] U.S. v. Abbott, 584 F. Supp. 442 (W.D. Pa. 1984) — 5[a] U.S. v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011) — 8.5 U.S. v. Bush, 647 F.2d 357 (3d Cir. 1981) — 6[a] U.S. v. Davenport, 134 Fed. Appx. 523 (3d Cir. 2005) — 11[a] U.S. v. Donahue, 764 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2014) — 14[a] U.S. v. Farrish, 297 Fed. Appx. 162 (3d Cir. 2008) — 8[a] U.S. v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992 (3d Cir. 1988) — 8[a] U.S. v. Lynch, 290 F. Supp. 2d 490 (M.D. Pa. 2003) — 5[a], 6.5, 8[a] U.S. v. Morris, 179 Fed. Appx. 825 (3d Cir. 2006) — 6[a], 6.5 U.S. v. Mundy, 621 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2010) — 6.5 U.S. v. Salmon, 944 F.2d 1106, 34 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 302 (3d Cir. 1991) — 6.5 U.S. v. Silveus, 50 V.I. 1101, 542 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 2008) — 3[b] U.S. v. Young, 369 F. Supp. 540 (D. Del. 1974) — 6[a], 7[a], 11[a] U. S. ex rel. Clark v. Mulligan, 347 F. Supp. 989 (D.N.J. 1972) — 11[a]

Fourth Circuit Cabbler v. Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, 528 F.2d 1142 (4th Cir. 1975) — 3[a], 4 United States v. Clarke, 842 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2016) — 6.5 United States v. White, 707 Fed. Appx. 766 (4th Cir. 2017) — 3.5, 14[a] United States v. Young, 260 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Va. 2017) — 3[b] U.S. v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2007) — 6.5 U.S. v. Battle, 370 Fed. Appx. 426 (4th Cir. 2010) — 7[a] U.S. v. Brown, 787 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986) — 5[a] U.S. v. Chambers, 59 Fed. Appx. 509 (4th Cir. 2003) — 6[a] U.S. v. Ford, 986 F.2d 57 (4th Cir. 1993) — 6.5 U.S. v. Fort, 313 Fed. Appx. 665 (4th Cir. 2009) — 5[a] U.S. v. Glover, 9 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2001) — 6.5 U.S. v. Hudson, 497 F. Supp. 2d 771 (W.D. Va. 2007) — 14[a] U.S. v. Johnson, 492 Fed. Appx. 437 (4th Cir. 2012) — 4, 7[a] U.S. v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2009) — 6.5, 12[a] U.S. v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009) — 6.5 U.S. v. Stanley, 4 Fed. Appx. 148 (4th Cir. 2001) — 6[a] U.S. v. Stitt, 382 Fed. Appx. 253 (4th Cir. 2010) — 6.5 Wilkins v. Whitaker, 714 F.2d 4 (4th Cir. 1983) — 6[a]

Fifth Circuit Goldman v. Williams, 101 F. Supp. 3d 620 (S.D. Tex. 2015) — 4 Jackson v. State of Ala., 534 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1976) — 7[a], 8[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969) — 2[a], 6[a], 9[a] U.S. v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328 (5th Cir. 1994) — 7[a] U.S. v. Boyd, 436 F.2d 1203 (5th Cir. 1971) — 6[a], 8[a] U.S. v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1980) — 7[a] U.S. v. Castro, 129 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 1997) — 4, 6.5, 7[b] U.S. v. Davis, 496 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1974) — 4, 11[a], 14[a] U.S. v. Ducker, 491 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1974) — 8[a] U.S. v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1978) — 16 U.S. v. Foots, 340 Fed. Appx. 969 (5th Cir. 2009) — 12[a] U.S. v. Gallo, 927 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1991) — 6[a], 7[a] U.S. v. Garner, 945 F. Supp. 990 (N.D. Tex. 1996) — 6.5 U.S. v. Gravitt, 484 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1973) — 6[a], 8[a], 12[a], 13[a], 15[a] U.S. v. Hahn, 922 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1991) — 6[b], 14[b] U.S. v. Hall, 565 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1978) — 6[a], 8[a] U.S. v. Hope, 102 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1996) — 6.5 U.S. v. Judge, 864 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1989) — 14[a] U.S. v. Kelehar, 470 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1972) — 7[a] U.S. v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 1999) — 6.5 U.S. v. Lipscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970) — 2[a], 6[a], 8[a] U.S. v. Logan, 744 F. Supp. 735 (N.D. Miss. 1990) — 6[a] U.S. v. Maldonado, 735 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1984) — 8[a] U.S. v. McKinnon, 681 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2012) — 6.5 U.S. v. Motton, 452 Fed. Appx. 502 (5th Cir. 2011) — 8[a] U.S. v. Mourning, 716 F. Supp. 279 (W.D. Tex. 1989) — 4, 8[a] U.S. v. Nelson, 511 F. Supp. 77 (W.D. Tex. 1980) — 5[a] U.S. v. Ochoa, 667 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2012) — 6.5 U.S. v. Pennington, 441 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1971) — 6[a], 7[a], 13[a] U.S. v. Piatt, 576 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1978) — 7[a] U.S. v. Ponce, 8 F.3d 989, 39 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1373 (5th Cir. 1993) — 5[b], 17 U.S. v. Rizk, 842 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1988) — 14[a] U.S. v. Rosenberg, 458 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1972) — 8[a] U.S. v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1993) — 6.5 U.S. v. Sink, 586 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1978) — 8[a] U.S. v. Skillern, 947 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1991) — 6[a], 7[b] U.S. v. Smith, 714 F. Supp. 1393 (N.D. Tex. 1989) — 8[a], 15[a] U.S. v. Staller, 616 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1980) — 8[a] U.S. v. Stocks, 594 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1979) — 6[a] U.S. v. Ullrich, 580 F.2d 765, 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 304 (5th Cir. 1978) — 8[a] U.S. v. Walker, 931 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1991) — 7[a], 12[a] U.S. v. Washington, 145 F. Supp. 3d 646 (E.D. La. 2015) — 13[a] U.S. v. Young, 825 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1987) — 8[a] Wade v. U.S., 564 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1977) — 7[a] Williams v. U.S., 412 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1969) — 2[a], 6[b], 8[b], 9[b], 12[b]

Sixth Circuit Cook v. Johnson, 459 F.2d 473 (6th Cir. 1972) — 4 Redmond v. Sanders, 858 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2012) — 10.7 Schilling v. Swick, 868 F. Supp. 904 (W.D. Mich. 1994) — 6.5 United States v. Dowl, 229 F. Supp. 3d 603 (E.D. Mich. 2017) — 7[a] United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016) — 3[a], 4, 5[c], 6.5, 7[b], 17

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Abrams, 494 F. Supp. 2d 657 (S.D. Ohio 2005) — 8[a] U.S. v. Bah, 794 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2015) — 3.5 U.S. v. Ballard, 432 Fed. Appx. 553 (6th Cir. 2011) — 7[a] U.S. v. Decker, 19 F.3d 287, 1994 FED App. 0090P (6th Cir. 1994) — 8[a] U.S. v. Duncan, 763 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1985) — 12[a] U.S. v. Duncan, 586 F. Supp. 1305 (W.D. Mich. 1984) — 12[a] U.S. v. Fleming, 201 F. Supp. 2d 760 (E.D. Mich. 2002) — 4, 6.5 U.S. v. Ford, 872 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir. 1989) — 4, 17 U.S. v. Gerlach, 350 F. Supp. 180 (E.D. Mich. 1972) — 4, 10, 12[a] U.S. v. Harvey, 16 F.3d 109, 1994 FED App. 0043P (6th Cir. 1994) — 7[a] U.S. v. Harvey, 788 F. Supp. 966 (E.D. Mich. 1992) — 7[a] U.S. v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013) — 4, 5[a], 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Hughes, 420 Fed. Appx. 533 (6th Cir. 2011) — 6.5 U.S. v. Jackson, 682 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2012) — 6[a], 15[a] U.S. v. Lewis, 73 Fed. Appx. 108 (6th Cir. 2003) — 6[a] U.S. v. Lilly, 438 Fed. Appx. 439 (6th Cir. 2011) — 10 U.S. v. McGhee, 672 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D. Ohio 2009) — 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Perotti, 226 Fed. Appx. 516 (6th Cir. 2007) — 7[a] U.S. v. Player, 201 Fed. Appx. 331, 2006 FED App. 0764N (6th Cir. 2006) — 6.5 U.S. v. Pryor, 174 Fed. Appx. 317, 2006 FED App. 0221N (6th Cir. 2006) — 7[a] U.S. v. Richards, 56 Fed. Appx. 667 (6th Cir. 2003) — 5[a] U.S. v. Richards, 147 F. Supp. 2d 786 (E.D. Mich. 2001) — 5[a] U.S. v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1188, 2004 FED App. 0415P (6th Cir. 2004) — 8[a] U.S. v. Spitalieri, 391 F. Supp. 167 (N.D. Ohio 1975) — 15[a] U.S. v. Tackett, 486 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2007) — 14[a] U.S. v. Woodruff, 830 F. Supp. 2d 390, 86 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1591 (W.D. Tenn. 2011) — 6.5 Wagner v. Higgins, 754 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1985) — 6[a] West v. Duncan, 76 Fed. Appx. 686 (6th Cir. 2003) — 7[a] West v. Duncan, 179 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ohio 2001) — 6[a], 8[a]

Seventh Circuit Bayless v. City of Frankfort, 981 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Ind. 1997) — 6[a] United States v. Reed, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (S.D. Ind. 2018) — 6.5 U.S. v. Balanow, 392 F. Supp. 200 (N.D. Ind. 1975) — 12[a] U.S. v. Banks, 628 F. Supp. 2d 811 (N.D. Ill. 2009) — 6.5 U.S. v. Barragan, 88 Fed. Appx. 107 (7th Cir. 2004) — 7[a] U.S. v. Bass, 325 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2003) — 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Belt, 854 F.2d 1054 (7th Cir. 1988) — 4, 6[a] U.S. v. Cartwright, 630 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010) — 5[a] U.S. v. Cherry, 436 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2006) — 5[a], 6.5 U.S. v. Clinton, 591 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2010) — 6[a] U.S. v. Davis, 185 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Ill. 2002) — 3[b] U.S. v. Dudley, 854 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. Ind. 1994) — 6.5 U.S. v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 2004) — 12[a] U.S. v. Kordosky, 909 F.2d 219 (7th Cir. 1990) — 12[a] U.S. v. Lozano, 171 F.3d 1129 (7th Cir. 1999) — 6.5 U.S. v. Martin, 360 Fed. Appx. 686 (7th Cir. 2010) — 8[a] U.S. v. Matthews, 32 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 1994) — 6.5 U.S. v. Osborne, 489 F. Supp. 2d 860 (C.D. Ill. 2007) — 5[a] U.S. v. Richardson, 121 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997) — 3[a], 6.5

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Sholola, 124 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 1997) — 3[a], 8[a] U.S. v. Velarde, 903 F.2d 1163 (7th Cir. 1990) — 4, 7[a], 12[a] U.S. v. Wilson, 938 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1991) — 12[a], 14[a] Wos v. Sheahan, 57 Fed. Appx. 694 (7th Cir. 2002) — 7[a]

Eighth Circuit Kaufman v. U.S., 323 F. Supp. 623 (E.D. Mo. 1971) — 2[a], 3[b], 7[a], 11[a] United States v. Everett, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (W.D. Mo. 2017) — 8[a] United States v. Perez-Trevino, 891 F.3d 359 (8th Cir. 2018) — 14[a] U.S. v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 1994) — 8[a] U.S. v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2013) — 3[a] U.S. v. Baldenegro-Valdez, 703 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2013) — 3.5, 6.5, 8[a] U.S. v. Ball, 804 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2015) — 4 U.S. v. Barraza-Maldonado, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Minn. 2012) — 3[b], 4, 6.5 U.S. v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950, 68 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1242 (8th Cir. 2005) — 5[b], 6[a], 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223 (8th Cir. 1998) — 6.5, 17 U.S. v. Betterton, 417 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005) — 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Bloomfield, 594 F.2d 1200 (8th Cir. 1979) — 14[b] U.S. v. Bridges, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (S.D. Iowa 2003) — 5[a], 8[b] U.S. v. Castaneda, 438 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2006) — 8[a] U.S. v. Ceruti, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (W.D. Mo. 2011) — 5[a], 6.5, 8[b] U.S. v. Davis, 882 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1989) — 4, 7[a] U.S. v. Engler, 521 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2008) — 7[a] U.S. v. Evans, 781 F.3d 433 (8th Cir. 2015) — 4 U.S. v. Frasher, 632 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2011) — 7[a] U.S. v. Garreau, 658 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2011) — 6.5 U.S. v. Gillon, 348 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2003) — 7[a] U.S. v. Hall, 497 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2007) — 9[a] U.S. v. Harris, 795 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2015) — 4 U.S. v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2001) — 4 U.S. v. Kanatzar, 370 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004) — 4 U.S. v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 2005) — 6[a], 6.5 U.S. v. Kimhong Thi Le, 474 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2007) — 6[a], 6.5, 9[a] U.S. v. LaFountain, 252 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D.N.D. 2003) — 5[b] U.S. v. Lara-Pantoja, 828 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Iowa 2011) — 7[a] U.S. v. Lawson, 355 F. Supp. 101 (D.S.D. 1973) — 3[a], 11[a], 12[b] U.S. v. Le, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D.N.D. 2005) — 3[a], 6.5, 14[a] U.S. v. Lewis, 3 F.3d 252 (8th Cir. 1993) — 4, 7[a], 17 U.S. v. Lyles, 946 F.2d 78 (8th Cir. 1991) — 6[a] U.S. v. Maier, 691 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1982) — 9[a], 10, 11[a] U.S. v. Marshall, 986 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. 1993) — 4, 6.5, 8[b] U.S. v. May, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minn. 2006) — 6[a], 6.5, 8[a] U.S. v. Mayfield, 161 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 1998) — 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. One 1976 Lincoln Continental Mark IV, V. I. N. 6Y89A852019, 584 F.2d 266 (8th Cir. 1978) — 8[a], 10 U.S. v. Pappas, 452 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2006) — 7[a] U.S. v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2004) — 6[a], 8[a] U.S. v. Porter, 859 F.2d 83 (8th Cir. 1988) — 14[a] U.S. v. Quiroz, 57 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Minn. 1999) — 6.5 U.S. v. Rankin, 261 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2001) — 3[a] U.S. v. Rehkop, 96 F.3d 301 (8th Cir. 1996) — 5[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Sanchez, 417 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2005) — 5[b] U.S. v. Stephens, 350 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2003) — 7[a] U.S. v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2011) — 4 U.S. v. Thompson, 925 F.2d 234 (8th Cir. 1991) — 8.5 U.S. v. Wallace, 102 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 1996) — 12[a] U.S. v. Wilson, 758 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1985) — 12[a]

Ninth Circuit Cardenas v. Pitchess, 506 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1974) — 4 Cotton v. U.S., 371 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1967) — 7[a] Rowell v. Palmer, 605 Fed. Appx. 620 (9th Cir. 2015) — 8[a] United States v. Johnson, 889 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2018) — 4 United States v. Moore, 655 Fed. Appx. 531 (9th Cir. 2016) — 4 United States v. Rogers, 156 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (E.D. Cal. 2016) — 5[a] United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) — 17 U.S. v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) — 6.5 U.S. v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2012) — 7[b] U.S. v. Cervantes, 678 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2012) — 6.5, 7[b] U.S. v. Davis, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Or. 2011) — 6.5 U.S. v. Dela Pena, 62 Fed. Appx. 754 (9th Cir. 2003) — 8[a] U.S. v. Franklin, 233 Fed. Appx. 741 (9th Cir. 2007) — 17 U.S. v. Hellman, 556 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4 U.S. v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000) — 5[b], 6[a] U.S. v. Howell, 261 Fed. Appx. 55 (9th Cir. 2007) — 10.5 U.S. v. Jamerson, 549 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1977) — 16 U.S. v. Kim, 803 F. Supp. 352 (D. Haw. 1992) — 6.5 U.S. v. Mancera-Londono, 912 F.2d 373 (9th Cir. 1990) — 4 U.S. v. Mitchell, 458 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1972) — 4, 14[a] U.S. v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2009) — 4 U.S. v. Noster, 573 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2009) — 8[a] U.S. v. Seymour, 933 F. Supp. 867 (D. Ariz. 1996) — 6.5 U.S. v. Starks, 17 Fed. Appx. 530 (9th Cir. 2001) — 8[a] U.S. v. Torres, 119 Fed. Appx. 874 (9th Cir. 2004) — 7[a] U.S. v. Unakalu, 455 Fed. Appx. 730 (9th Cir. 2011) — 6.5

Tenth Circuit Dodge v. Turner, 274 F. Supp. 285 (D. Utah 1967) — 6[b], 9[b] Kilgore v. City of Stroud, 158 Fed. Appx. 944 (10th Cir. 2005) — 5[a] United States v. Chavira, 157 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (D.N.M. 2015) — 5[a] United States v. Fykes, 678 Fed. Appx. 677 (10th Cir. 2017) — 8[a] United States v. Hernandez, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Colo. 2017) — 4 United States v. Sanchez, 720 Fed. Appx. 964 (10th Cir. 2018) — 3[a], 3.5, 6[a] U.S. v. Aguilar, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (D.N.M. 2004) — 3[b] U.S. v. Allen, 43 Fed. Appx. 363 (10th Cir. 2002) — 6[a] U.S. v. Andas-Gallardo, 3 Fed. Appx. 959 (10th Cir. 2001) — 6.5 U.S. v. Baskin, 120 Fed. Appx. 223 (10th Cir. 2004) — 8[a] U.S. v. Calvin, 543 Fed. Appx. 807 (10th Cir. 2013) — 10 U.S. v. Cazares, 192 Fed. Appx. 807 (10th Cir. 2006) — 6.5 U.S. v. Davis, 87 Fed. Appx. 94 (10th Cir. 2004) — 7[a] U.S. v. Donnes, 947 F.2d 1430 (10th Cir. 1991) — 14[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Donnes, 752 F. Supp. 411 (D. Wyo. 1990) — 5[a] U.S. v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2001) — 8[b] U.S. v. Edwards, 242 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2001) — 4, 8[b] U.S. v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998) — 8[a] U.S. v. Ibarra, 725 F. Supp. 1195 (D. Wyo. 1989) — 5[a], 7[b] U.S. v. Ivey, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D. Utah 2004) — 7[a] U.S. v. Jacquez, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D.N.M. 2005) — 3[b], 4, 6.5, 8[a] U.S. v. Johnston, 452 F. Supp. 160 (W.D. Okla. 1976) — 8[a] U.S. v. Kinzalow, 236 Fed. Appx. 414 (10th Cir. 2007) — 6[a] U.S. v. Kornegay, 885 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1989) — 14[a] U.S. v. Long, 705 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1983) — 6[a] U.S. v. Lugo, 978 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1992) — 6.5, 7[b] U.S. v. Martin, 566 F.2d 1143 (10th Cir. 1977) — 6[a], 8[a], 12[a] U.S. v. Mikulski, 139 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Utah 2001) — 8[a] U.S. v. Moraga, 76 Fed. Appx. 223 (10th Cir. 2003) — 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Pappas, 735 F.2d 1232 (10th Cir. 1984) — 8[b] U.S. v. Reyes-Vencomo, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D.N.M. 2012) — 3[b], 4, 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Roth, 944 F. Supp. 858 (D. Wyo. 1996) — 5[a] U.S. v. Sandos, 78 Fed. Appx. 706 (10th Cir. 2003) — 8[a] U.S. v. Speers, 429 F. Supp. 188 (W.D. Okla. 1977) — 6[a] U.S. v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2010) — 6.5, 7[a] U.S. v. Tueller, 349 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2003) — 12[a] U.S. v. Walker, 81 Fed. Appx. 294 (10th Cir. 2003) — 7[a], 7[b] U.S. v. Whitaker, 6 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2001) — 9[a] U.S. v. White, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Kan. 2004) — 8[a] U.S. v. Williams, 980 F. Supp. 1225 (D. Utah 1997) — 4, 6.5

Eleventh Circuit Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1992) — 6.5 United States v. Alexis, 169 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2016) — 4 U.S. v. Adams, 845 F. Supp. 1531 (M.D. Fla. 1994) — 8[b] U.S. v. Akinlade, 519 Fed. Appx. 529 (11th Cir. 2013) — 8[a] U.S. v. Bosby, 675 F.2d 1174, 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 691 (11th Cir. 1982) — 4, 6[a], 8[a], 14[a] U.S. v. Caudle, 430 Fed. Appx. 809 (11th Cir. 2011) — 8[a] U.S. v. Cruz, 837 F. Supp. 1228 (S.D. Fla. 1993) — 4 U.S. v. Foskey, 455 Fed. Appx. 884 (11th Cir. 2012) — 6.5 U.S. v. Grossman, 233 Fed. Appx. 963, 73 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 716 (11th Cir. 2007) — 8[a] U.S. v. Handy, 592 Fed. Appx. 893, 96 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 730 (11th Cir. 2015) — 5[a] U.S. v. Jefferson, 451 Fed. Appx. 833 (11th Cir. 2011) — 9[a] U.S. v. Kalu, 485 Fed. Appx. 366 (11th Cir. 2012) — 8[a] U.S. v. Laing, 708 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1983) — 12[a] U.S. v. Massey, 437 F. Supp. 843 (M.D. Fla. 1977) — 8[a] U.S. v. Roberson, 897 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 1990) — 7[a] U.S. v. Skinner, 957 F. Supp. 228 (M.D. Ga. 1997) — 6.5 U.S. v. Vladeff, 630 Fed. Appx. 998 (11th Cir. 2015) — 5[a]

District of Columbia Circuit Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 763 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2011) — 6.5 U. S. v. Fuller, 277 F. Supp. 97 (D. D.C. 1967) — 6[a], 7[a], 11[a] U.S. v. Hill, 458 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1978) — 6[a], 7[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Holly, 219 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2002) — 5[a] U.S. v. Proctor, 489 F.3d 1348 (D.C. Cir. 2007) — 6.5

Specialized Courts Boans v. Town of Cheektowaga, 5 F. Supp. 3d — 5[a] U.S. v. Lustig, 3 F. Supp. 3d — 3[b], 3.5, 5[a], 6.5 U.S. v. Phillips, 9 F. Supp. 3d — 4

Alabama Cannon v. State, 601 So. 2d 1112 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) — 6[a], 7[a] Ervin v. State, 630 So. 2d 115 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) — 11[a] Jackson v. State, 55 Ala. App. 334, 315 So. 2d 131 (Crim. App. 1975) — 4, 8[a] Jones v. State, 407 So. 2d 870 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981) — 6[a] Keith v. State, 231 So. 3d 363 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) — 3.5 Lippold v. State, 365 So. 2d 1015 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978) — 8[a] Ringer v. State, 489 So. 2d 646 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) — 6[a], 8[a] Stone v. State, 501 So. 2d 562 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) — 7[a], 12[a] Vaughn v. State, 473 So. 2d 661 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) — 12[a] Witcher v. State, 420 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) — 6[a]

Alaska Lupro v. State, 603 P.2d 468 (Alaska 1979) — 9[a] Rogers v. State, 355 P.3d 1248 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015) — 4 State v. Daniel, 589 P.2d 408 (Alaska 1979) — 7[b], 14[b]

Arizona In re One 1965 Econoline, I. D. No. 16JH702043, Ariz. License No. EC-7887, 17 Ariz. App. 64, 495 P.2d 504 (Div. 1 1972) — 3[a], 6[b], 9[b], 14[b] One 1965 Econoline, I. D. No. E16JH702043, Arizona License No. EC-7887, In re, 109 Ariz. 433, 511 P.2d 168 (1973) — 3[a], 4, 5[a], 14[a] State v. Bradford, 25 Ariz. App. 518, 544 P.2d 1119 (Div. 2 1976) — 7[a] State v. Dean, 206 Ariz. 158, 76 P.3d 429 (2003) — 9[b] State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358, 586 P.2d 203 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1978) — 11[a] State v. Gowans, 18 Ariz. App. 110, 500 P.2d 641 (Div. 2 1972) — 6[a] State v. Lynch, 120 Ariz. 584, 587 P.2d 770 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1978) — 6[a] State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 234 P.3d 611 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2010) — 7[a], 18 State v. Ruiz, 17 Ariz. App. 76, 495 P.2d 516 (Div. 2 1972) — 15[b] State v. Scarborough, 110 Ariz. 1, 514 P.2d 997 (1973) — 8[a], 12[a], 15[a] State v. Schutte, 117 Ariz. 482, 573 P.2d 882 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1977) — 9[a] State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 862 P.2d 192 (1993) — 6.5

Arkansas Asher v. State, 303 Ark. 202, 795 S.W.2d 350 (1990) — 6[a] Benson v. State, 342 Ark. 684, 30 S.W.3d 731 (2000) — 6.5 Blair v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 623, 447 S.W.3d 608 (2014) — 5[a] Boykin v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 274, 409 S.W.3d 321 (2012) — 6.5 Bratton v. State, 77 Ark. App. 174, 72 S.W.3d 522 (2002) — 3[a] Casey v. State, 97 Ark. App. 1, 242 S.W.3d 627 (2006) — 7[a] Folly v. State, 28 Ark. App. 98, 771 S.W.2d 306 (1989) — 8[a] Foster v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 630, 535 S.W.3d 291 (2017) — 7[a] Fricks v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 415, 501 S.W.3d 853 (2016) — 18

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Izell v. State, 75 Ark. App. 377, 58 S.W.3d 400 (2001) — 8[b] Kirk v. State, 38 Ark. App. 159, 832 S.W.2d 271 (1992) — 6.5 Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. 211, 521 S.W.3d 466 (2017) — 3[b] Lewis v. State, 258 Ark. 242, 523 S.W.2d 920 (1975) — 8[a] Lipovich v. State, 265 Ark. 55, 576 S.W.2d 720 (1979) — 9[a] McDonald v. State, 92 Ark. App. 1, 210 S.W.3d 915 (2005) — 6[a], 6.5 Mounts v. State, 48 Ark. App. 1, 888 S.W.2d 321 (1994) — 5[a] Reeves v. State, 20 Ark. App. 17, 722 S.W.2d 880 (1987) — 7[a] Snell v State (1986) 290 Ark 503, 721 SW2d 628 — 6[a], 8[a] State v. Kelley, 362 Ark. 636, 210 S.W.3d 93 (2005) — 4, 5[a], 6.5 Thompson v. State, 333 Ark. 92, 966 S.W.2d 901 (1998) — 6.5, 17 Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997) — 3[b], 4, 6.5, 17

California Arturo D., In re, 77 Cal. App. 4th 160, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 152 (1st Dist. 1999) — 4, 6.5 Bramlette v. Superior Court of Merced County, 273 Cal. App. 2d 799, 78 Cal. Rptr. 532 (5th Dist. 1969) — 6[b] Carpio v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. App. 3d 790, 97 Cal. Rptr. 186 (2d Dist. 1971) — 7[b] Martinez v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. App. 3d 569, 87 Cal. Rptr. 6 (2d Dist. 1970) — 6[b], 14[b] Mozzetti v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 3d 699, 94 Cal. Rptr. 412, 484 P.2d 84 (1971) — 2[a], 3[a], 5[c], 6[b], 9[b], 14[b] People v. Andrews, 6 Cal. App. 3d 428, 85 Cal. Rptr. 908 (1st Dist. 1970) — 6[b], 14[b] People v Benites (1992, 5th Dist) 9 Cal App 4th 309, 11 Cal Rptr 2d 512, 92 CDOS 7633, 92 Daily Journal DAR 12319 — 7[a] People v. Burch, 188 Cal. App. 3d 172, 232 Cal. Rptr. 502 (5th Dist. 1986) — 4, 7[a] People v. Burke, 61 Cal. 2d 575, 39 Cal. Rptr. 531, 394 P.2d 67 (1964) — 6[b], 8[b], 12[b] People v. Carter, 26 Cal. App. 3d 862, 103 Cal. Rptr. 327 (2d Dist. 1972) — 6[b] People v. Cook, 275 Cal. App. 2d 970, 80 Cal. Rptr. 528 (5th Dist. 1969) — 11[a] People v. Denman, 19 Cal. App. 3d 632, 97 Cal. Rptr. 23 (2d Dist. 1971) — 3[a], 6[b], 7[b], 14[b] People v. Duncan, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1014, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264 (4th Dist. 2008) — 7[a] People v. Evans, 200 Cal. App. 4th 735, 133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323 (2d Dist. 2011) — 6.5 People v. Garcia, 214 Cal. App. 2d 681, 29 Cal. Rptr. 609 (3d Dist. 1963) — 5[c], 6[b] People v. Gil, 248 Cal. App. 2d 189, 56 Cal. Rptr. 88 (2d Dist. 1967) — 2[a], 6[b] People v Green (1996, 2nd Dist) 46 Cal App 4th 367, 54 Cal Rptr 2d 12, 96 CDOS 4228, 96 Daily Journal DAR 6753 — 6.5 People v. Harris, 256 Cal. App. 2d 455, 63 Cal. Rptr. 849 (1st Dist. 1967) — 6[b] People v. Havenstein, 4 Cal. App. 3d 710, 84 Cal. Rptr. 528 (5th Dist. 1970) — 6[b], 14[b] People v. Henry, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 85 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2010) — 6.5 People v. Heredia, 20 Cal. App. 3d 194, 97 Cal. Rptr. 488 (2d Dist. 1971) — 3[a], 6[b], 7[b], 12[b] People v. Hunter, 1 Cal. App. 3d 461, 81 Cal. Rptr. 750 (1st Dist. 1969) — 6[b], 14[b] People v. Jackson, 254 Cal. App. 2d 655, 62 Cal. Rptr. 208 (5th Dist. 1967) — 6[b], 8[b] People v. Landa, 30 Cal. App. 3d 487, 106 Cal. Rptr. 329 (2d Dist. 1973) — 7[b] People v. Laursen, 264 Cal. App. 2d 932, 71 Cal. Rptr. 71 (5th Dist. 1968) — 6[b] People v. Marchese, 275 Cal. App. 2d 1007, 80 Cal. Rptr. 525 (2d Dist. 1969) — 6[b], 14[b] People v. Myles, 189 Cal. App. 2d 42, 10 Cal. Rptr. 733 (4th Dist. 1961) — 5[c], 6[b], 14[b] People v. Nagel, 17 Cal. App. 3d 492, 95 Cal. Rptr. 129 (2d Dist. 1971) — 5[a], 12[b] People v. Nebbitt, 183 Cal. App. 2d 452, 7 Cal. Rptr. 8 (2d Dist. 1960) — 5[c], 6[b], 11[a] People v. Needham, 79 Cal. App. 4th 260, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899 (5th Dist. 2000) — 6.5, 14[a] People v. Norris, 262 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 897, 68 Cal. Rptr. 582 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1968) — 3[a], 6[b], 14[b] People v. Nottoli, 199 Cal. App. 4th 531, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 884 (6th Dist. 2011) — 6.5 People v. Ortiz, 147 Cal. App. 2d 248, 305 P.2d 145 (2d Dist. 1956) — 5[c], 6[b], 14[b] People v. Prochnau, 251 Cal. App. 2d 22, 59 Cal. Rptr. 265 (2d Dist. 1967) — 5[a], 8[a], 14[b] People v. Quick, 5 Cal. App. 5th 1006, 210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256 (2d Dist. 2016) — 10

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v. Redd, 48 Cal. 4th 691, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192, 229 P.3d 101 (2010) — 7[a] People v. Roth, 261 Cal. App. 2d 430, 68 Cal. Rptr. 49 (2d Dist. 1968) — 3[a], 5[c], 6[b], 14[b] People v Salcero (1992, Cal App 3rd Dist) 6 Cal App 4th 720, 8 Cal Rptr 2d 578, 92 Daily Journal DAR 7017 — 14[a] People v. Scigliano, 196 Cal. App. 3d 26, 241 Cal. Rptr. 546 (4th Dist. 1987) — 4, 7[a], 14[a] People v. Sesser, 269 Cal. App. 2d 707, 75 Cal. Rptr. 297 (2d Dist. 1969) — 6[b] People v. Shafrir, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1238, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721 (1st Dist. 2010) — 6[a], 6.5 People v. Simpson, 170 Cal. App. 2d 524, 339 P.2d 156 (4th Dist. 1959) — 3[a], 6[b], 14[b] People v. Steeley, 210 Cal. App. 3d 887, 258 Cal. Rptr. 699 (5th Dist. 1989) — 7[a], 13[a] People v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. 3d 304, 82 Cal. Rptr. 766 (2d Dist. 1969) — 3[a] People v. Superior Court (Moraza), 210 Cal. App. 3d 592, 258 Cal. Rptr. 499 (6th Dist. 1989) — 8[a], 12[a] People v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 275 Cal. App. 2d 631, 80 Cal. Rptr. 209 (3d Dist. 1969) — 6[b], 14[b] People v. Torres, 188 Cal. App. 4th 775, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 (4th Dist. 2010) — 6.5, 7[b] People v. Upton, 257 Cal. App. 2d 677, 65 Cal. Rptr. 103 (1st Dist. 1968) — 6[b] People v. Wallace, 15 Cal. App. 5th 82, 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 795 (1st Dist. 2017) — 4 People v. Williams, 145 Cal. App. 4th 756, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 (2d Dist. 2006) — 5[a], 5[b], 6.5 People v. Williams, 20 Cal. 4th 119, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 275, 973 P.2d 52 (1999) — 6.5 People v. Williams, 67 Cal. 2d 226, 60 Cal. Rptr. 472, 430 P.2d 30 (1967) — 8[a], 12[a] People v. Zabala, 19 Cal. App. 5th 335, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 878 (6th Dist. 2018) — 17 People v. Zabala, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 904 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2017) — 17 U.S. v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California law) — 8[b] U.S. v. McCartney, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (applying California law) — 6[a] Virgil v. Superior Court, Placer County, 268 Cal. App. 2d 127, 73 Cal. Rptr. 793 (3d Dist. 1968) — 2[a], 5[a], 6[b], 7[b], 15[b]

Colorado People v. Brown, 2018 CO 27, 415 P.3d 815 (Colo. 2018) — 5[a] People v. Brown, 2016 COA 150, 417 P.3d 868 (Colo. App. 2016) — 5[a] People v. Contreras, 780 P.2d 552 (Colo. 1989) — 7[a], 12[a] People v. Counterman, 192 Colo. 152, 556 P.2d 481 (1976) — 11[b], 17 People v. Grana, 185 Colo. 126, 527 P.2d 543 (1974) — 14[b] People v. Greenwood, 174 Colo. 500, 484 P.2d 1217 (1971) — 5[a], 15[b] People v. Grenier, 200 P.3d 1062 (Colo. App. 2008) — 5[a] People v. Meeks, 194 Colo. 214, 570 P.2d 835 (1977) — 4, 8[a], 12[a] People v. Milligan, 77 P.3d 771 (Colo. App. 2003) — 6[a], 6.5 People v. Parks, 2015 COA 158, 370 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2015) — 17 People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249 (Colo. App. 2005) — 4, 6[a], 6.5, 7[a] People v. Quick, 2018 CO 28, 417 P.3d 811 (Colo. 2018) — 5[c] People v. Roddy, 188 Colo. 55, 532 P.2d 958 (1975) — 7[a] People v. Rutovic, 193 Colo. 397, 566 P.2d 705 (1977) — 4, 8[b] People v. Trusty, 183 Colo. 291, 516 P.2d 423 (1973) — 8[a], 12[a] People v. Vaughn, 2014 CO 71, 334 P.3d 226 (Colo. 2014) — 7[a] Pineda v. People, 230 P.3d 1181 (Colo. 2010) — 7[a]

Connecticut State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 512 A.2d 160 (1986) — 4 State v. Barlow, 70 Conn. App. 232, 797 A.2d 605 (2002) — 5[a] State v. Brito, 170 Conn. App. 269, 154 A.3d 535 (2017) — 4 State v. Hicks, 53 Conn. App. 470, 730 A.2d 649 (1999) — 9[a] State v. Nelson, 17 Conn. App. 556, 555 A.2d 426 (1989) — 8[a] State v. Whealton, 108 Conn. App. 172, 947 A.2d 965 (2008) — 6.5

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Delaware Lively v. State, 427 A.2d 882 (Del. 1981) — 6[a] State v. Gwinn, 301 A.2d 291 (Del. 1972) — 3[b], 4, 7[a], 12[b], 14[b] State v. Miller, 420 A.2d 181 (Del. Super. Ct. 1980) — 13[b] State v. Stallings, 60 A.3d 1119 (Del. Super. Ct. 2012) — 12[a]

District of Columbia Andrews v. U.S., 922 A.2d 449 (D.C. 2007) — 9[a] Arrington v. U. S., 382 A.2d 14 (D.C. 1978) — 7[b] Hill v. U.S., 512 A.2d 269 (D.C. 1986) — 7[a] Lewis v. U. S., 379 A.2d 1168 (D.C. 1977) — 8[a], 14[a] Madison v. U.S., 512 A.2d 279 (D.C. 1986) — 15[a] Mayfield v. U. S., 276 A.2d 123 (D.C. 1971) — 6[a], 7[b], 15[b] McMillan v. U.S., 527 A.2d 739 (D.C. 1987) — 7[a] Pigford v. U. S., 273 A.2d 837 (D.C. 1971) — 4, 12[b], 13[b] Punch v. U. S., 377 A.2d 1353 (D.C. 1977) — 7[a] Schwasta v. U. S., 392 A.2d 1071 (D.C. 1978) — 5[a] U.S. v. Pannell, 256 A.2d 925 (D.C. 1969) — 5[a], 6[a], 11[b], 16 Williams v. U.S., 170 A.2d 233 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1961) — 5[a], 15[b]

Florida Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) — 7[b] Beezley v. State, 863 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) — 3[c] Bond v. State, 431 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) — 7[a] Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988) — 5[a] Chuke v. State, 404 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) — 8[b] Chuze v. State, 330 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) — 3[a], 7[b] Diaz v. State, 555 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) — 5[c], 6[b] Everall v. State, 414 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) — 2[b] Fields v. State, 369 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) — 5[a], 7[a] Gagnon v. State, 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) — 3[a], 6[a], 7[a] G. B. v. State, 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) — 3[a], 5[a] Getty v. State, 362 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) — 8[a], 11[a] Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) — 6[a], 10 Gordon v. State, 368 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) — 7[a] Green v. State, 550 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) — 5[a] Gunn v. State, 336 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) — 8[b] Hicks v. State, 398 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) — 14[b] Hitchcock v. State, 746 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) — 10 Jackson v. State, 192 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) — 6[a], 7[a], 11[a] Jones v. State, 345 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) — 3[a], 7[b], 12[b] Kilburn v. State, 54 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) — 6.5 K. J. B. v. State, 420 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) — 5[a] Knight v. State, 398 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) — 14[a] Knight v. State, 212 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) — 6[a], 7[a], 15[a] Kokal v. State, 492 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1986) — 8[a] Kuhn v. State, 439 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) — 14[b] Leary v. State, 880 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) — 8[b] Long v. State, 422 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) — 5[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Lovett v. State, 403 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) — 9[b] McClendon v. State, 476 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) — 5[a], 7[b] McKnight v. State, 435 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) — 5[a] Meyers v. State, 432 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) — 8[b] Miller v. State, 137 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) — 6[a], 9[b], 16 Montalvo v. State, 520 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) — 5[a] Moore v. State, 417 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) — 5[a] Morris v. State, 958 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) — 5[a] Patty v. State, 768 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) — 6.5 Rivera v. State, 373 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) — 7[a] Roberson v. State, 566 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) — 17 Rodriguez v. State, 702 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) — 6.5 Ross v. State, 428 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) — 8[b] Roush v. State, 203 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) — 6[a], 7[a], 12[a], 14[a] Session v. State, 353 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) — 8[b], 12[b], 15[b] Shufty v. State, 419 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) — 5[a] Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) — 7[b] State v. Broomfield, 364 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) — 7[a], 15[a] State v. Burke, 531 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) — 7[a] State v. Cash, 275 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) — 4, 11[a] State v. Colson, 831 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) — 9[b] State v. Dearden, 347 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) — 6[a], 7[a] State v. Filter, 414 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) — 2[b] State v. Gardner, 72 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) — 6.5 State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) — 3[a], 4, 7[a] State v. Miller, 404 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) — 6[a] State v. Ruggles, 245 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) — 6[a], 7[a] State v. Townsend, 40 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) — 7[a] State v. Volk, 291 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) — 7[b] State v. Waller, 918 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) — 6.5 State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989) — 7[b] Stevens v. State, 412 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) — 5[a], 12[b] Tolbert v. State, 348 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) — 5[a] Tyler v. State, 185 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) — 5[a] Urquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) — 6[a], 7[a] Weed v. Wainwright, 325 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) — 8[b], 9[b] Williams v. State, 903 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) — 8[b]

Georgia Ahmad v. State, 312 Ga. App. 703, 719 S.E.2d 563 (2011) — 5[a] Armstrong v. State, 325 Ga. App. 690, 754 S.E.2d 652 (2014) — 4 Arnold v. State, 155 Ga. App. 581, 271 S.E.2d 714 (1980) — 8[a] Askew v. State, 326 Ga. App. 859, 755 S.E.2d 283 (2014) — 11[a] Bell v. State, 302 Ga. App. 519, 691 S.E.2d 573 (2010) — 3[b], 5[a] Bennett v. State, 160 Ga. App. 684, 288 S.E.2d 17 (1981) — 6[a] Biggers v. State, 162 Ga. App. 163, 290 S.E.2d 159 (1982) — 12[a] Canino v. State, 314 Ga. App. 633, 725 S.E.2d 782 (2012) — 7[b] Capellan v. State, 316 Ga. App. 467, 729 S.E.2d 602 (2012) — 6.5 Carlisle v. State, 278 Ga. App. 528, 629 S.E.2d 512 (2006) — 6[a] Carson v. State, 241 Ga. 622, 247 S.E.2d 68 (1978) — 7[a], 11[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Colzie v. State, 257 Ga. App. 691, 572 S.E.2d 43 (2002) — 17 Davis v. State, 331 Ga. App. 171, 769 S.E.2d 183 (2015) — 6.5 Denson v. State, 128 Ga. App. 456, 197 S.E.2d 156 (1973) — 8[a], 17 Devega v. State, 286 Ga. 448, 689 S.E.2d 293 (2010) — 8[a] Douglas v. State, 145 Ga. App. 42, 243 S.E.2d 298 (1978) — 11[a] Draper v. Reynolds, 278 Ga. App. 401, 629 S.E.2d 476 (2006) — 6[a], 7[a] Dunkum v. State, 138 Ga. App. 321, 226 S.E.2d 133 (1976) — 5[a] Fitzgerald v. State, 201 Ga. App. 361, 411 S.E.2d 102 (1991) — 8[a] Fortson v. State, 262 Ga. 3, 412 S.E.2d 833 (1992) — 5[a] Fortson v. State, 201 Ga. App. 272, 410 S.E.2d 774 (1991) — 6[a] Garner v. State, 154 Ga. App. 839, 269 S.E.2d 912 (1980) — 17 Gaston v. State, 257 Ga. App. 480, 571 S.E.2d 477 (2002) — 6[a] Gildea v. State, 184 Ga. App. 105, 360 S.E.2d 657 (1987) — 8[a] Gooden v. State, 196 Ga. App. 295, 395 S.E.2d 634 (1990) — 5[a] Grizzle v. State, 310 Ga. App. 577, 713 S.E.2d 701 (2011) — 6.5, 15[a] Hall v. State, 143 Ga. App. 706, 240 S.E.2d 125 (1977) — 9[a] Hansen v. State, 168 Ga. App. 304, 308 S.E.2d 643 (1983) — 6[a] Hartley v. State, 159 Ga. App. 157, 282 S.E.2d 684 (1981) — 6[a] Highland v. State, 144 Ga. App. 594, 241 S.E.2d 477 (1978) — 7[a], 12[a] Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 694 S.E.2d 316 (2010) — 8[a] Jolly v. State, 183 Ga. App. 370, 358 S.E.2d 912 (1987) — 9[a] Keating v. State, 141 Ga. App. 377, 233 S.E.2d 456 (1977) — 8[a] Kilgore v. State, 158 Ga. App. 55, 279 S.E.2d 239 (1981) — 7[a] Lopez v. State, 286 Ga. App. 873, 650 S.E.2d 430 (2007) — 12[a] Martasin v. State, 155 Ga. App. 396, 271 S.E.2d 2 (1980) — 7[a] Mitchell v. State, 178 Ga. App. 244, 342 S.E.2d 738 (1986) — 5[a] Moore v. State, 155 Ga. App. 299, 270 S.E.2d 713 (1980) — 5[a] Moulder v. State, 207 Ga. App. 335, 427 S.E.2d 793 (1993) — 8[a] Mulling v. State, 156 Ga. App. 404, 274 S.E.2d 770 (1980) — 5[a] Phillips v. State, 167 Ga. App. 260, 305 S.E.2d 918 (1983) — 5[a] Pierce v. State, 134 Ga. App. 14, 213 S.E.2d 162 (1975) — 12[a] Reed v. State, 195 Ga. App. 821, 395 S.E.2d 294 (1990) — 7[b] Robison v. State, 277 Ga. App. 133, 625 S.E.2d 533 (2006) — 6[a] Rohrig v. State, 148 Ga. App. 869, 253 S.E.2d 253 (1979) — 7[b] Sams v. State, 457 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. 1995) — 6[a] Sams v. State, 265 Ga. 534, 459 S.E.2d 551 (1995) — 5[a] Scott v. State, 316 Ga. App. 341, 729 S.E.2d 481 (2012) — 8[a] Scott v. State, 232 Ga. App. 337, 501 S.E.2d 255 (1998) — 7[a] Staley v. State, 224 Ga. App. 806, 482 S.E.2d 459 (1997) — 5[a], 6.5 Stanley v. State, 191 Ga. App. 603, 382 S.E.2d 686 (1989) — 7[a], 12[a] State v. Bell, 259 Ga. App. 328, 577 S.E.2d 39 (2003) — 5[a] State v. Carter, 305 Ga. App. 814, 701 S.E.2d 209 (2010) — 8[b] State v. Creel, 142 Ga. App. 158, 235 S.E.2d 628 (1977) — 4 State v. Darabaris, 159 Ga. App. 121, 282 S.E.2d 744 (1981) — 8[b] State v. Evans, 181 Ga. App. 422, 352 S.E.2d 599 (1986) — 9[a], 14[a] State v. Gilchrist, 174 Ga. App. 499, 330 S.E.2d 430 (1985) — 6[a] State v. Howard, 264 Ga. App. 691, 592 S.E.2d 88 (2003) — 7[a] State v. King, 237 Ga. App. 729, 516 S.E.2d 580 (1999) — 8[a] State v. Lowe, 224 Ga. App. 228, 480 S.E.2d 611 (1997) — 5[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Ludvicek, 147 Ga. App. 784, 250 S.E.2d 503 (1978) — 7[b] State v. McCloud, 344 Ga. App. 595, 810 S.E.2d 668 (2018) — 5[a], 7[a] State v. Padgett, 159 Ga. App. 204, 283 S.E.2d 36 (1981) — 8[a] State v. Shelton, 329 Ga. App. 582, 765 S.E.2d 732 (2014) — 6[a] State v. Sparks, 205 Ga. App. 438, 422 S.E.2d 293 (1992) — 8[a] State v. Thomason, 153 Ga. App. 345, 265 S.E.2d 312 (1980) — 5[a], 7[b] State v. Travitz, 140 Ga. App. 351, 231 S.E.2d 127 (1976) — 6[a] Stoker v. State, 153 Ga. App. 871, 267 S.E.2d 295 (1980) — 7[a] Stringer v. State, 285 Ga. App. 599, 647 S.E.2d 310 (2007) — 4 Strobhert v. State, 165 Ga. App. 515, 301 S.E.2d 681 (1983) — 5[a], 8[b] Stroud v. State, 344 Ga. App. 827, 812 S.E.2d 309 (2018) — 5[a] Thompson v. State, 155 Ga. App. 101, 270 S.E.2d 313 (1980) — 7[a] Tyre v. State, 323 Ga. App. 37, 747 S.E.2d 106 (2013) — 4, 6[a] Waggoner v. State, 228 Ga. App. 148, 491 S.E.2d 88 (1997) — 6[a] Wiley v. State, 274 Ga. App. 60, 616 S.E.2d 832 (2005) — 6[a] Wright v. State, 276 Ga. 454, 579 S.E.2d 214 (2003) — 5[a], 6[a], 8[a]

Idaho Idaho Dept. of Law Enforcement By and Through Richardson v. $34,000 U.S. Currency, 121 Idaho 211, 824 P.2d 142 (Ct. App. 1991) — 5[a] State v. Bray, 122 Idaho 375, 834 P.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1992) — 5[c], 9[a], 14[a] State v. Foster, 127 Idaho 723, 905 P.2d 1032 (Ct. App. 1995) — 6.5 State v. Smith, 120 Idaho 77, 813 P.2d 888 (1991) — 6[a] State v. Stewart, 152 Idaho 868, 276 P.3d 740 (Ct. App. 2012) — 5[a], 7[a]

Illinois Burmila, People ex rel. v. One 1987 Cadillac VIN 1G6CD118XH4317299, 206 Ill. App. 3d 407, 151 Ill. Dec. 433, 564 N.E.2d 888 (3d Dist. 1990) — 5[a] People v. Alewelt, 217 Ill. App. 3d 578, 160 Ill. Dec. 484, 577 N.E.2d 809 (3d Dist. 1991) — 7[b], 12[b] People v. Babic, 7 Ill. App. 3d 36, 287 N.E.2d 24 (2d Dist. 1972) — 8[a], 11[a] People v. Bradford, 239 Ill. App. 3d 796, 180 Ill. Dec. 556, 607 N.E.2d 625 (4th Dist. 1993) — 14[a] People v. Brown, 100 Ill. App. 3d 57, 55 Ill. Dec. 429, 426 N.E.2d 575 (2d Dist. 1981) — 5[a] People v. Clark, 394 Ill. App. 3d 344, 333 Ill. Dec. 315, 914 N.E.2d 734 (1st Dist. 2009) — 6.5, 7[b] People v. Clark, 65 Ill. 2d 169, 2 Ill. Dec. 578, 357 N.E.2d 798 (1976) — 7[a], 13[a] People v. Cregan, 356 Ill. Dec. 537, 961 N.E.2d 926 (App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2011) — 6.5 People v. Dennison, 61 Ill. App. 3d 473, 18 Ill. Dec. 756, 378 N.E.2d 220 (5th Dist. 1978) — 14[b] People v. Drescher, 51 Ill. App. 3d 904, 8 Ill. Dec. 578, 365 N.E.2d 964 (3d Dist. 1977) — 7[a] People v. Fellers, 413 Ill. Dec. 187, 77 N.E.3d 994 (App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2016) — 5[a] People v. Fox, 62 Ill. App. 3d 854, 20 Ill. Dec. 84, 379 N.E.2d 917 (4th Dist. 1978) — 8[b], 12[b] People v. Gaines, 220 Ill. App. 3d 310, 163 Ill. Dec. 263, 581 N.E.2d 214 (1st Dist. 1991) — 6[a] People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 272 Ill. Dec. 1, 786 N.E.2d 540 (2003) — 6[a], 6.5, 7[a] People v. Hamilton, 74 Ill. 2d 457, 24 Ill. Dec. 849, 386 N.E.2d 53 (1979) — 14[b] People v. Hundley, 156 Ill. 2d 135, 189 Ill. Dec. 43, 619 N.E.2d 744 (1993) — 5[a], 9[a], 17 People v. Hundley, 227 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 169 Ill. Dec. 399, 591 N.E.2d 903 (3d Dist. 1992) — 9[b] People v. Kinney, 189 Ill. App. 3d 952, 137 Ill. Dec. 484, 546 N.E.2d 238 (4th Dist. 1989) — 7[a], 13[a] People v. Krueger, 268 Ill. App. 3d 190, 205 Ill. Dec. 581, 643 N.E.2d 872 (4th Dist. 1994) — 6.5 People v. Lear, 217 Ill. App. 3d 712, 160 Ill. Dec. 501, 577 N.E.2d 826 (5th Dist. 1991) — 14[b] People v. Mason, 403 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 343 Ill. Dec. 490, 935 N.E.2d 130 (3d Dist. 2010) — 3[a], 7[a] People v. Nash, 409 Ill. App. 3d 342, 349 Ill. Dec. 713, 947 N.E.2d 350 (2d Dist. 2011) — 4, 6.5, 7[a] People v. Ocon, 221 Ill. App. 3d 311, 163 Ill. Dec. 738, 581 N.E.2d 892 (2d Dist. 1991) — 6[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v. Paarlberg, 243 Ill. App. 3d 731, 183 Ill. Dec. 849, 612 N.E.2d 106 (3d Dist. 1993) — 5[a], 7[b] People v. Radcliff, 305 Ill. App. 3d 493, 238 Ill. Dec. 702, 712 N.E.2d 424 (5th Dist. 1999) — 5[b] People v. Ruffolo, 64 Ill. App. 3d 151, 21 Ill. Dec. 28, 380 N.E.2d 1204 (3d Dist. 1978) — 6[a] People v. Schultz, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 49 Ill. Dec. 362, 418 N.E.2d 6 (1st Dist. 1981) — 5[a] People v. Spencer, 408 Ill. App. 3d 1, 350 Ill. Dec. 127, 948 N.E.2d 196 (1st Dist. 2011) — 4, 8[b] People v. Ursini, 245 Ill. App. 3d 480, 185 Ill. Dec. 428, 614 N.E.2d 869 (2d Dist. 1993) — 5[a] People v. Velleff, 94 Ill. App. 3d 820, 50 Ill. Dec. 222, 419 N.E.2d 89 (2d Dist. 1981) — 5[a], 7[b] People v. Von Hatten, 52 Ill. App. 3d 338, 10 Ill. Dec. 168, 367 N.E.2d 556 (4th Dist. 1977) — 5[a] People v. Walker, 228 Ill. App. 3d 76, 169 Ill. Dec. 514, 592 N.E.2d 1 (1st Dist. 1992) — 8[a] People v. Wells, 403 Ill. App. 3d 849, 343 Ill. Dec. 412, 934 N.E.2d 1015 (1st Dist. 2010) — 7[b] People v. Williamson, 241 Ill. App. 3d 574, 181 Ill. Dec. 692, 608 N.E.2d 943 (4th Dist. 1993) — 10, 14[b] People v. Young, 363 Ill. App. 3d 268, 300 Ill. Dec. 231, 843 N.E.2d 489 (3d Dist. 2006) — 3[b], 6.5 Thompson v. Village of Monee, 110 F. Supp. 3d 826 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (applying Illinois law) — 6[a] U.S. v. McGuire, 957 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying Ill Law) — 7[a]

Indiana Abran v. State, 825 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) — 7[a] Anderson v. State, 64 N.E.3d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) — 3[a], 17 Bartruff v. State, 706 N.E.2d 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) — 6.5, 10 Berry v. State, 967 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) — 5[a], 6.5, 7[b] Brown v. State, 442 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. 1982) — 6[a] Combs v. State, 878 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) — 14[b] Combs v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) — 6[a] Edwards v. State, 768 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) — 5[b] Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) — 5[a], 6.5, 9[a] Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. 1993) — 9[b] Faust v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) — 8[a] Foulks v. State, 582 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. 1991) — 6[a] Freeman v. State, 541 N.E.2d 533 (Ind. 1989) — 8[a], 17 Friend v. State, 858 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) — 6[b], 6.5, 17 George v. State, 901 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) — 6.5 Gonser v. State, 843 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) — 5[a] Griffin v. State, 175 Ind. App. 469, 372 N.E.2d 497 (1978) — 7[a], 11[a], 12[a] Howard v. State, 818 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) — 7[a] Isom v. State, 589 N.E.2d 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) — 8[a] Jackson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) — 6.5, 7[a] J.K. v. State, 8 N.E.3d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) — 9[b] Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) — 3[a] Jones v. State, 856 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) — 3[b], 5[a], 7[a], 9[a] Lewis v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) — 5[c] Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) — 12[a] M.O. v. State, 54 N.E.3d 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) — 6[a] Moore v. State, 637 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) — 6[a], 6.5, 7[a] Paschall v. State, 523 N.E.2d 1359 (Ind. 1988) — 4 Peete v. State, 678 N.E.2d 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) — 6.5 Pollard v. State, 270 Ind. 599, 388 N.E.2d 496 (1979) — 9[a] Rabadi v. State, 541 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 1989) — 8[b] Ratliff v. State, 770 N.E.2d 807 (Ind. 2002) — 6[a] Sams v. State, 71 N.E.3d 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) — 17 Sansbury v. State, 96 N.E.3d 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) — 4

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Lucas, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) — 5[a], 5[c], 6[b], 6.5, 14[b] Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) — 6.5 Stevens v. State, 701 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) — 3[c], 6.5 Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006) — 3[b], 4, 5[a], 7[b], 9[a], 10 Taylor v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) — 6[a] Thurman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) — 8[a] Vehorn v. State, 717 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 1999) — 5[c], 8[a] Weathers v. State, 61 N.E.3d 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) — 5[a] Whitley v. State, 47 N.E.3d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) — 5[a] Widduck v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) — 3[a], 6[a] Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371 (Ind. 2016) — 6[a] Wilford v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) — 4 Woodford v. State, 752 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. 2001) — 3[a], 4

Iowa State v. Aderholdt, 545 N.W.2d 559 (Iowa 1996) — 6.5 State v. Allensworth, 748 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2008) — 4, 6.5, 17 State v. Baldwin, 396 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 1986) — 5[a] State v. Casteel, 392 N.W.2d 168 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) — 5[a], 17 State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 2018) — 14[b] State v. Kuster, 353 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1984) — 3[a], 4, 5[a] State v. Roth, 305 N.W.2d 501 (Iowa 1981) — 7[a]

Kansas State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 932 P.2d 964 (1997) — 5[a] State v. Boster, 217 Kan. 618, 539 P.2d 294 (1975) — 3[a], 5[a], 8[b], 11[a] State v. Branstetter, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1167, 199 P.3d 1272 (2009) — 5[a] State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 964 P.2d 681, 82 A.L.R.5th 675 (1998) — 3[a] State v. Oram, 46 Kan. App. 2d 899, 266 P.3d 1227 (2011) — 6.5, 7[b] State v. Potter, 8 Kan. App. 2d 52, 648 P.2d 1162 (1982) — 11[b] State v. Shelton, 278 Kan. 287, 93 P.3d 1200 (2004) — 17 State v. Teeter, 249 Kan. 548, 819 P.2d 651 (1991) — 5[a] State v. Undorf, 210 Kan. 1, 499 P.2d 1105 (1972) — 8[a], 14[a] State v. Urban, 3 Kan. App. 2d 367, 595 P.2d 352 (1979) — 5[a], 9[b] State v. Vandevelde, 36 Kan. App. 2d 262, 138 P.3d 771 (2006) — 6[a], 8[b] State v. Warren, 38 Kan. App. 2d 697, 171 P.3d 656 (2007) — 17

Kentucky Cardwell v. Com., 639 S.W.2d 549 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) — 4, 12[a] Clark v. Com., 868 S.W.2d 101 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993) — 7[b], 13[b], 17 Cobb v. Commonwealth, 509 S.W.3d 705 (Ky. 2017) — 5[a] Danville, City of v. Dawson, 528 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. 1975) — 5[a], 7[b] Gray v. Com., 28 S.W.3d 316 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000) — 6.5 Hedgepath v. Com., 441 S.W.3d 119 (Ky. 2014) — 6.5 Helm v. Com., 813 S.W.2d 816 (Ky. 1991) — 4, 8[a] Hinchey v. Com., 432 S.W.3d 710 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014) — 8[a] Wagner v. Com., 581 S.W.2d 352 (Ky. 1979) — 6[b]

Louisiana State v. Borning, 477 So. 2d 134 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985) — 11[a] State v. Carey, 499 So. 2d 283 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986) — 6[b], 7[b], 12[b]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Chatman, 981 So. 2d 260 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008) — 8[a] State v. Cohen, 549 So. 2d 884 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989) — 3[b] State v. Cousin, 700 So. 2d 1016 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997) — 4 State v. Crosby, 403 So. 2d 1217 (La. 1981) — 7[b] State v. Daniels, 614 So. 2d 97 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993) — 7[a] State v. Dorociak, 493 So. 2d 173 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986) — 4 State v. Escoto, 41 So. 3d 1160 (La. 2010) — 4, 11[a] State v. Fortune, 72 So. 3d 1000 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011) — 4 State v. Gaut, 357 So. 2d 513 (La. 1978) — 7[b] State v. Green, 482 So. 2d 930 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986) — 5[c], 7[a], 7[b], 15[b] State v. Griffin, 984 So. 2d 97 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008) — 8[b] State v. Hardy, 384 So. 2d 432 (La. 1980) — 8[b] State v. Hatfield, 364 So. 2d 578 (La. 1978) — 7[b], 12[b] State v. Jackson, 517 So. 2d 366 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987) — 8[a] State v. Jewell, 338 So. 2d 633 (La. 1976) — 4, 7[b], 17 State v. Joyner, 445 So. 2d 179 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984) — 7[a], 15[a] State v. Knippers, 535 So. 2d 403 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988) — 7[b] State v. Labuzan, 501 So. 2d 1088 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987) — 8[a] State v. LaRue, 368 So. 2d 1048 (La. 1979) — 7[b] State v. McCabe, 383 So. 2d 380 (La. 1980) — 8[a] State v. Merchant, 713 So. 2d 577 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998) — 11[b] State v. Moak, 427 So. 2d 1233 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983) — 8[a] State v. Nixon, 572 So. 2d 1172 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990) — 8[a] State v. Osbon, 426 So. 2d 323 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983) — 7[b] State v. Perkins, 716 So. 2d 120 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998) — 9[a] State v. Rack, 585 So. 2d 1215 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991) — 4 State v. Robinson, 743 So. 2d 814 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999) — 4 State v. Rome, 354 So. 2d 504 (La. 1978) — 7[b], 15[b] State v. Schmidt, 359 So. 2d 133 (La. 1978) — 7[b] State v. Short, 588 So. 2d 151 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991) — 7[a], 11[a] State v. Sims, 426 So. 2d 148 (La. 1983) — 13[a] State v. Stott, 395 So. 2d 714 (La. 1981) — 8[a] State v. Washington, 540 So. 2d 502 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989) — 8[a] U.S. v. Smith, 249 Fed. Appx. 336 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying Louisiana law) — 10.7

Maine State v. Cress, 344 A.2d 57 (Me. 1975) — 3[a], 8[a] State v. Fox, 2017 ME 52, 157 A.3d 778 (Me. 2017) — 4 State v. Hudson, 390 A.2d 509 (Me. 1978) — 6[b], 7[b] State v. White, 387 A.2d 230 (Me. 1978) — 4, 7[a]

Maryland Briscoe v. State, 422 Md. 384, 30 A.3d 870 (2011) — 6.5, 13[b] Ciriago v. State, 57 Md. App. 563, 471 A.2d 320 (1984) — 8[a], 17 Cleckley v. State, 42 Md. App. 80, 399 A.2d 903 (1979) — 8[b] Dixon v. State, 23 Md. App. 19, 327 A.2d 516 (1974) — 5[a] Duncan v. State, 281 Md. 247, 378 A.2d 1108 (1977) — 8[a], 9[a], 12[a] Mackall v. State, 7 Md. App. 246, 255 A.2d 98 (1969) — 3[b], 6[a], 8[a], 12[a], 14[a] Plitko v. State, 11 Md. App. 35, 272 A.2d 669 (1971) — 3[b], 6[a], 7[a], 10, 12[a] Preston v. State, 141 Md. App. 54, 784 A.2d 601 (2001) — 8[b]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Sellman v. State, 152 Md. App. 1, 828 A.2d 803 (2003) — 17 Smith v. State, 48 Md. App. 425, 427 A.2d 1064 (1981) — 4, 14[b] State v. Paynter, 234 Md. App. 252, 170 A.3d 891 (2017) — 3[b], 5[a], 18 St. Clair v. State, 1 Md. App. 605, 232 A.2d 565 (1967) — 3[b], 6[a], 8[a]

Massachusetts Com. v. Alvarado, 420 Mass. 542, 651 N.E.2d 824 (1995) — 6.5 Com. v. Baptiste, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 511, 841 N.E.2d 734 (2006) — 6.5 Com. v. Bienvenu, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 828 N.E.2d 543 (2005) — 7[a] Com. v. Bishop, 402 Mass. 449, 523 N.E.2d 779 (1988) — 14[b] Com. v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609, 800 N.E.2d 1032 (2003) — 6[a] Com. v. Campbell, 475 Mass. 611, 59 N.E.3d 394 (2016) — 6[a] Com. v. Crowley-Chester, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 21 N.E.3d 988 (2015) — 4 Com. v. Daley, 423 Mass. 747, 672 N.E.2d 101 (1996) — 5[a] Com. v. Delong, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 528, 803 N.E.2d 1274 (2004) — 8[a] Com. v. Delong, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 122, 799 N.E.2d 1267 (2003) — 8[a] Com. v. Difalco, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 401, 897 N.E.2d 1287 (2008) — 17 Com. v. Dunn, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 702, 615 N.E.2d 597 (1993) — 7[a] Com. v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102, 944 N.E.2d 153 (2011) — 7[a] Com. v. Eddington, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 173, 920 N.E.2d 883 (2010) — 7[a] Com. v. Figueroa, 412 Mass. 745, 592 N.E.2d 1309 (1992) — 17 Com. v. Garcia, 409 Mass. 675, 569 N.E.2d 385 (1991) — 12[a] Com. v. Horton, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 571, 827 N.E.2d 1257 (2005) — 7[a] Com. v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 436 N.E.2d 400 (1982) — 8[a] Com. v. Muckle, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 678, 814 N.E.2d 7 (2004) — 4, 7[b] Com. v. Murphy, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 11, 822 N.E.2d 320 (2005) — 10 Com. v. Nicholson, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 792 N.E.2d 124 (2003) — 7[a] Com. v. Nicoleau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 518, 61 N.E.3d 470 (2016) — 14[b] Com. v. Oliveira, 474 Mass. 10, 47 N.E.3d 395 (2016) (applying Massachusetts law) — 5[a] Com. v. Ortiz, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 573, 39 N.E.3d 458 (2015) — 4 Com. v. Peters, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 717 N.E.2d 266 (1999) — 6.5 Com. v. Seminara, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 789, 483 N.E.2d 92 (1985) — 8[a] Com. v. Tisserand, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 363 N.E.2d 530 (1977) — 4, 8[a] Com. v. Woodman, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 965, 417 N.E.2d 469 (1981) — 4 Commonwealth v. Crowley-Chester, 476 Mass. 1030, 71 N.E.3d 453 (2017) — 4 Commonwealth v. Ehiabhi, 478 Mass. 154, 84 N.E.3d 13 (2017) — 6[b], 10.7 Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 6, 96 N.E.3d 719 (2018) — 7[a] Commonwealth v. Oreto, 396 Mass. 1103, 485 N.E.2d 188 (1985) — 13[a]

Michigan People v. Boutell, 80 Mich. App. 216, 263 N.W.2d 36 (1977) — 7[a], 15[a] People v. Castle, 126 Mich. App. 203, 337 N.W.2d 48 (1983) — 8[a] People v. Erskin, 92 Mich. App. 630, 285 N.W.2d 396 (1979) — 9[a] People v. Godwin, 94 Mich. App. 286, 288 N.W.2d 354 (1979) — 13[a] People v. Green, 260 Mich. App. 392, 677 N.W.2d 363 (2004) — 12[a] People v. Krezen, 427 Mich. 681, 397 N.W.2d 803 (1986) — 4, 14[a] People v. Mersino, 419 Mich. 899, 352 N.W.2d 272 (1984) — 5[a] People v. Poole, 199 Mich. App. 261, 501 N.W.2d 265 (1993) — 6.5 People v. Rocha, 110 Mich. App. 1, 312 N.W.2d 657 (1981) — 12[a] People v. Russell, 174 Mich. App. 357, 435 N.W.2d 487 (1989) — 9[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v. Siegel, 95 Mich. App. 594, 291 N.W.2d 134 (1980) — 7[b] People v. Toohey, 183 Mich. App. 348, 454 N.W.2d 209 (1990) — 5[a] People v. Tucker, 181 Mich. App. 246, 448 N.W.2d 811 (1989) — 8[a] People v. Wade, 157 Mich. App. 481, 403 N.W.2d 578 (1987) — 8[a], 12[a]

Minnesota State v. Eichers, 840 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013) — 3.5 State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008) — 6.5, 7[b] State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. 1977) — 5[a], 7[b] State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1997) — 4, 13[b] State v. Hoven, 269 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 1978) — 5[a], 7[b] State v. Marshall, 411 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) — 7[a] State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 2000) — 6.5 State v. Rohde, 852 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 2014) — 5[a] State v. Rohde, 839 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013) — 3[b], 5[a] State v. Smith, 652 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) — 7[a] State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2001) — 3[a] State v. Turner, 307 Minn. 284, 239 N.W.2d 468 (1976) — 7[a] State v. Volkman, 675 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) — 3[b], 5[b] State v. Waters, 276 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. 1979) — 7[a], 11[a] St. Paul, City of v. Myles, 298 Minn. 298, 218 N.W.2d 697 (1974) — 6[a]

Mississippi Black v. State, 418 So. 2d 819 (Miss. 1982) — 7[a] Cabello v. State, 471 So. 2d 332 (Miss. 1985) — 8[a] Garrison v. State, 918 So. 2d 846 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) — 6[a], 6.5, 9[a] Green v. State, 183 So. 3d 78 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) — 9[a] Jackson v. State, 440 So. 2d 307 (Miss. 1983) — 11[a] Jackson v. State, 261 So. 2d 126 (Miss. 1972) — 6[a] Logan v. State, 987 So. 2d 1027 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) — 8[a] Melton v. State, 118 So. 3d 605 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) — 7[a] O'Connell v. State, 933 So. 2d 306 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) — 6.5 O'Connell v. State, 914 So. 2d 785 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) — 6.5 Pinter v. State, 221 So. 3d 378 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) — 7[a] Ray v. State, 828 So. 2d 827 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) — 6[a] Ray v. State, 798 So. 2d 579 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) — 6.5, 8[a] Robinson v. State, 418 So. 2d 749 (Miss. 1982) — 7[a] Spicer v. State, 921 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 2006) — 6.5

Missouri State v. Achter, 512 S.W.2d 894 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974) — 9[a], 11[a] State v. Allen, 817 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1991) — 7[a] State v. Cone, 744 S.W.2d 860 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1988) — 8[a] State v. Gibeson, 614 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1981) — 7[a] State v. Hall, 745 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1987) — 6[a] State v. Holt, 695 S.W.2d 474 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1985) — 13[a] State v. Hoyt, 75 S.W.3d 879 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2002) — 7[a] State v. Jones, 865 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. 1993) — 3[b], 5[a], 6[a], 6.5, 7[a] State v. Joos, 966 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1998) — 6[a] State v. McDowell, 519 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2017) — 5[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Meza, 941 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997) — 6.5 State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. 1990) — 6[a] State v. Peterson, 583 S.W.2d 277 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1979) — 3[a], 5[a], 8[b] State v. Prince, 903 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1995) — 5[a] State v. Ramires, 152 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2004) — 3[a], 17 State v. Surgeon, 823 S.W.2d 63 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1991) — 4 State v. Taylor, 714 S.W.2d 767 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1986) — 11[a] State v. Valentine, 584 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. 1979) — 8[a] State v. Walker, 755 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1988) — 5[a] State v. Wells, 33 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2000) — 3[a], 6[b], 8[a] State v. Wells, 701 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1985) — 8[a] State v. Williams, 654 S.W.2d 238 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1983) — 3[a]

Montana State v. Armstrong, 149 Mont. 470, 428 P.2d 611 (1967) — 6[a], 8[a], 15[a] State v. Sawyer, 174 Mont. 512, 571 P.2d 1131 (1977) — 3[c], 7[b], 11[a], 15[b]

Nebraska State v. Flanagan, 4 Neb. App. 853, 553 N.W.2d 167 (1996) — 6.5 State v. Neely, 236 Neb. 527, 462 N.W.2d 105 (1990) — 8[b] State v. Nunez, 299 Neb. 340, 907 N.W.2d 913 (2018) — 6.5 State v. Ray, 9 Neb. App. 183, 609 N.W.2d 390 (2000) — 4, 6.5 State v. Scovill, 9 Neb. App. 118, 608 N.W.2d 623 (2000) — 6.5 State v. Stalder, 231 Neb. 896, 438 N.W.2d 498 (1989) — 8[a] State v. Wallen, 185 Neb. 44, 173 N.W.2d 372 (1970) — 3[b], 6[a], 7[a], 12[a]

Nevada Collins v. State, 113 Nev. 1177, 946 P.2d 1055 (1997) — 4, 17 Diomampo v. State, 124 Nev. 414, 185 P.3d 1031 (2008) — 7[a] Heffley v. State, 83 Nev. 100, 423 P.2d 666 (1967) — 5[b], 6[a], 8[a], 11[a] Obermeyer v. State, 97 Nev. 158, 625 P.2d 95 (1981) — 8[a], 14[b] Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 484 P.2d 563 (1971) — 11[a] State v. Greenwald, 109 Nev. 808, 858 P.2d 36 (1993) — 7[b], 14[b] Weintraub v. State, 110 Nev. 287, 871 P.2d 339 (1994) — 4 Yeoman v. State, 92 Nev. 368, 550 P.2d 1273 (1976) — 6[a]

New Hampshire State v. Denoncourt, 149 N.H. 308, 821 A.2d 997 (2003) — 6.5, 17 State v. Newcomb, 161 N.H. 666, 20 A.3d 881 (2011) — 6.5

New Jersey State v. Hummel, 232 N.J. 196, 179 A.3d 366 (2018) — 3[a], 5[a] State v. Jones, 122 N.J. Super. 585, 301 A.2d 185 (Dist. Ct. 1973) — 3[a], 6[a], 11[a] State v. Labianca, 156 N.J. Super. 382, 383 A.2d 1190 (Law Div. 1978) — 3[a] State v. Lark, 163 N.J. 294, 748 A.2d 1103 (2000) — 7[b] State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575, 414 A.2d 1312 (1980) — 7[b] State v. Mangold, 164 N.J. Super. 74, 395 A.2d 869 (App. Div. 1978) — 6[b] State v. McDaniel, 156 N.J. Super. 347, 383 A.2d 1174 (App. Div. 1978) — 5[a], 7[b], 15[b] State v. Minitee, 415 N.J. Super. 475, 2 A.3d 447 (App. Div. 2010) — 8[b] State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird, 349 N.J. Super. 352, 793 A.2d 792 (App. Div. 2002) — 5[c], 6.5, 12[a] State v. Oyenusi, 387 N.J. Super. 146, 903 A.2d 467 (App. Div. 2006) — 5[b]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Pace, 171 N.J. Super. 240, 408 A.2d 808 (App. Div. 1979) — 14[b] State v. Parker, 153 N.J. Super. 481, 380 A.2d 291 (App. Div. 1977) — 14[b] State v. Roberson, 156 N.J. Super. 551, 384 A.2d 195 (App. Div. 1978) — 7[a], 12[a] State v. Slockbower, 79 N.J. 1, 397 A.2d 1050 (1979) — 7[b] State v. Slockbower, 145 N.J. Super. 480, 368 A.2d 388 (App. Div. 1976) — 7[a], 13[a]

New Mexico State v. Luna, 1980-NMSC-009, 93 N.M. 773, 606 P.2d 183 (1980) — 4, 7[b], 11[b] State v. Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072, 94 N.M. 500, 612 P.2d 1311 (1980) — 3[a], 5[a], 6[a], 12[a] State v. Williams, 1982-NMSC-041, 97 N.M. 634, 642 P.2d 1093 (1982) — 6[a] State v. Arredondo, 123 N.M. 628, 1997-NMCA-081, 944 P.2d 276 (Ct. App. 1997) — 3[c] State v. Byrom, 2018-NMCA-016, 412 P.3d 1109 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) — 4 State v. Clark, 89 N.M. 695, 1976-NMCA-109, 556 P.2d 851 (Ct. App. 1976) — 5[a] State v. Davis, 2018-NMSC-001, 408 P.3d 576 (N.M. 2017) — 3[a] State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-127, 223 P.3d 361 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) — 7[a] State v. Nysus, 131 N.M. 338, 2001-NMCA-102, 35 P.3d 993, 159 Ed. Law Rep. 785 (Ct. App. 2001) — 6.5 State v. Ramzy, 116 N.M. 748, 1993-NMCA-140, 867 P.2d 418 (Ct. App. 1993) — 7[b] State v. Saiz, 2008-NMSC-048, 191 P.3d 521 (N.M. 2008) — 3[c] State v. Vigil, 86 N.M. 388, 1974-NMCA-065, 524 P.2d 1004 (Ct. App. 1974) — 6[a], 8[a], 12[a], 14[a]

New York People v. Abdur-Rashid, 64 A.D.3d 1087, 883 N.Y.S.2d 644 (3d Dep't 2009) — 6.5 People v. Allen, 146 Misc. 2d 701, 550 N.Y.S.2d 997 (County Ct. 1990) — 8[a] People v. Bacquie, 154 A.D.3d 648, 62 N.Y.S.3d 425 (2d Dep't 2017) — 6.5 People v. Ballard, 174 A.D.2d 1025, 572 N.Y.S.2d 190 (4th Dep't 1991) — 5[c] People v. Banton, 28 A.D.3d 571, 813 N.Y.S.2d 509 (2d Dep't 2006) — 6.5, 7[a] People v. Barton, 203 A.D.2d 911, 611 N.Y.S.2d 385 (4th Dep't 1994) — 6.5 People v. Blair, 45 A.D.3d 1443, 846 N.Y.S.2d 847 (4th Dep't 2007) — 18 People v. Blankymsee, 196 Misc. 2d 240, 764 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Sup 2003) — 8[a] People v. Boler, 106 A.D.3d 1119, 964 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dep't 2013) — 11[b] People v. Bonneau, 140 Misc. 2d 938, 531 N.Y.S.2d 1013 (County Ct. 1988) — 5[a] People v. Bradley, 17 A.D.3d 1050, 794 N.Y.S.2d 201 (4th Dep't 2005) — 7[a] People v. Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, 419 N.Y.S.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1979) — 6[a] People v. Brunson, 145 A.D.3d 1476, 44 N.Y.S.3d 643 (4th Dep't 2016) — 9[a] People v. Buckmon, 293 A.D.2d 623, 742 N.Y.S.2d 69 (2d Dep't 2002) — 7[a] People v. Burghart, 177 A.D.2d 866, 576 N.Y.S.2d 634 (3d Dep't 1991) — 7[a] People v. Bute, 172 A.D.2d 550, 567 N.Y.S.2d 877 (2d Dep't 1991) — 8[a] People v. Butler, 44 A.D.2d 423, 355 N.Y.S.2d 172 (2d Dep't 1974) — 6[a] People v. Castillo, 150 A.D.2d 957, 541 N.Y.S.2d 640 (3d Dep't 1989) — 6[a], 7[a], 17 People v. Colon, 202 A.D.2d 708, 608 N.Y.S.2d 351 (3d Dep't 1994) — 5[c], 7[b] People v. Davilla, 141 Misc. 2d 296, 532 N.Y.S.2d 1012 (County Ct. 1988) — 7[a] People v. Dixon, 130 A.D.2d 680, 516 N.Y.S.2d 16 (2d Dep't 1987) — 8[a] People v. Dolson, 213 A.D.2d 996, 625 N.Y.S.2d 110 (4th Dep't 1995) — 6.5 People v. Edwards, 163 A.D.3d 712, 79 N.Y.S.3d 293 (2d Dep't 2018) — 8[a] People v. Elpenord, 24 A.D.3d 465, 806 N.Y.S.2d 675 (2d Dep't 2005) — 6.5, 7[a] People v. Ewart, 130 A.D.3d 1062, 13 N.Y.S.3d 573 (2d Dep't 2015) — 5[a] People v. Figueroa, 6 A.D.3d 720, 776 N.Y.S.2d 574 (2d Dep't 2004) — 7[a] People v. Francis, 12 Misc. 3d 781, 819 N.Y.S.2d 393 (Sup 2006) — 5[a], 5[b], 6.5 People v. Gabriel, 155 A.D.3d 1438, 66 N.Y.S.3d 359 (3d Dep't 2017) — 10.7 People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 594 N.Y.S.2d 689, 610 N.E.2d 362 (1993) — 6.5

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v. Galak, 182 A.D.2d 702, 582 N.Y.S.2d 469 (2d Dep't 1992) — 5[a] People v. Gallego, 155 A.D.2d 687, 548 N.Y.S.2d 62 (2d Dep't 1989) — 8[a], 13[a] People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386, 477 N.Y.S.2d 103, 465 N.E.2d 823 (1984) — 7[a], 8[b], 17 People v. Gonzalez, 92 A.D.2d 512, 459 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1983) — 11[a] People v. Griffin, 116 Misc. 2d 751, 456 N.Y.S.2d 334 (Sup 1982) — 5[a] People v. Harrell, 160 A.D.2d 253, 553 N.Y.S.2d 361 (1st Dep't 1990) — 6[a] People v. Hassele, 53 A.D.2d 699, 385 N.Y.S.2d 113 (2d Dep't 1976) — 8[a], 15[a] People v. Henriquez, 162 A.D.2d 206, 556 N.Y.S.2d 581 (1st Dep't 1990) — 11[a], 14[a] People v. Huddleston, 160 A.D.3d 1359, 76 N.Y.S.3d 294 (4th Dep't 2018) — 4 People v. Hutson, 270 A.D.2d 45, 704 N.Y.S.2d 50 (1st Dep't 2000) — 8[a] People v. Irizarry, 282 A.D.2d 483, 730 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2d Dep't 2001) — 7[a] People v. Italia, 138 A.D.2d 743, 526 N.Y.S.2d 556 (2d Dep't 1988) — 6[a] People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385 (2003) — 7[b] People v. Johnson, 298 A.D.2d 281, 748 N.Y.S.2d 594 (1st Dep't 2002) — 13[a] People v. Kearney, 288 A.D.2d 398, 733 N.Y.S.2d 460 (2d Dep't 2001) — 6.5 People v. Keita, 162 A.D.3d 610, 79 N.Y.S.3d 157 (1st Dep't 2018) — 17 People v. Kern, 67 Misc. 2d 495, 324 N.Y.S.2d 442 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1971) — 8[a], 12[a] People v. Ladd, 16 A.D.3d 972, 792 N.Y.S.2d 246 (3d Dep't 2005) — 7[a] People v. Lee, 143 A.D.3d 626, 40 N.Y.S.3d 80 (1st Dep't 2016) — 6.5 People v. Leonard, 119 A.D.3d 1237, 991 N.Y.S.2d 159 (3d Dep't 2014) — 6.5 People v. Lesane, 284 A.D.2d 249, 727 N.Y.S.2d 418 (1st Dep't 2001) — 6.5 People v. Lloyd, 167 A.D.2d 856, 562 N.Y.S.2d 257 (4th Dep't 1990) — 4, 15[b] People v. Lowe, 91 A.D.2d 1100, 458 N.Y.S.2d 357 (3d Dep't 1983) — 6[a], 8[a] People v. Majors, 15 Misc. 3d 239, 828 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. City Ct. 2007) — 5[a] People v. Martin, 50 A.D.3d 1169, 854 N.Y.S.2d 789 (3d Dep't 2008) — 6.5 People v. Martin, 48 A.D.2d 213, 368 N.Y.S.2d 342 (4th Dep't 1975) — 4, 12[b] People v. Middleton, 50 A.D.2d 1040, 377 N.Y.S.2d 938 (3d Dep't 1975) — 6[a] People v. Morman, 145 A.D.3d 1435, 43 N.Y.S.3d 619 (4th Dep't 2016) — 5[b], 8[a], 15[a] People v. Murphy, 83 A.D.2d 647, 442 N.Y.S.2d 190 (3d Dep't 1981) — 6[a] People v. Nelson, 127 Misc. 2d 583, 486 N.Y.S.2d 979 (Sup 1985) — 7[a] People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414 (2013) — 6[a], 6.5, 15[a] People v. Padilla, 89 A.D.3d 505, 932 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1st Dep't 2011) — 4 People v. Peters, 49 A.D.3d 957, 853 N.Y.S.2d 405 (3d Dep't 2008) — 4 People v. Plunkett, 56 A.D.2d 878, 392 N.Y.S.2d 321 (2d Dep't 1977) — 8[a] People v. Prator, 93 Misc. 2d 303, 402 N.Y.S.2d 739 (Dist. Ct. 1978) — 8[a], 12[a], 15[a] People v. Price, 127 A.D.2d 935, 512 N.Y.S.2d 523 (3d Dep't 1987) — 9[a] People v. Ramirez, 103 A.D.3d 444, 959 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1st Dep't 2013) — 7[a], 17 People v. Revander, 254 A.D.2d 625, 679 N.Y.S.2d 183 (3d Dep't 1998) — 7[a] People v. Rhodes, 206 A.D.2d 710, 614 N.Y.S.2d 641 (3d Dep't 1994) — 6.5, 7[a] People v. Rivera, 60 A.D.3d 1390, 875 N.Y.S.2d 702 (4th Dep't 2009) — 6.5 People v. Rivera, 72 Misc. 2d 307, 339 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1972) — 4, 15[b] People v. Robinson, 69 A.D.3d 973, 891 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dep't 2010) — 15[a] People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 (2001) — 3[c] People v. Robinson, 36 A.D.2d 375, 320 N.Y.S.2d 665 (2d Dep't 1971) — 3[b], 6[a], 7[a] People v. Ross, 228 A.D.2d 718, 644 N.Y.S.2d 336 (3d Dep't 1996) — 6.5 People v. Salazar, 225 A.D.2d 804, 640 N.Y.S.2d 167 (2d Dep't 1996) — 6.5 People v. Scott, 210 A.D.2d 920, 621 N.Y.S.2d 260 (4th Dep't 1994) — 5[a], 7[a] People v. Solano, 148 A.D.2d 761, 539 N.Y.S.2d 494 (2d Dep't 1989) — 4, 8[b], 15[b], 17 People v. Stevens, 51 A.D.2d 899, 381 N.Y.S.2d 61 (1st Dep't 1976) — 13[b]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v. Sullivan, 29 N.Y.2d 69, 323 N.Y.S.2d 945, 272 N.E.2d 464, 48 A.L.R.3d 527 (1971) — 2[a], 3[b], 14[a] People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY 2d — 3[b], 6[a], 10 People v. Tardi, 28 N.Y.3d 1077, 44 N.Y.S.3d 366, 66 N.E.3d 1084 (2016) — 8[a] People v. Tardi, 122 A.D.3d 1337, 996 N.Y.S.2d 832 (4th Dep't 2014) — 6.5 People v. Taylor, 92 A.D.3d 961, 940 N.Y.S.2d 103 (2d Dep't 2012) — 6.5 People v. Thomas, 131 A.D.3d 712, 15 N.Y.S.3d 221 (2d Dep't 2015) — 14[b] People v. Thomas, 163 A.D.2d 438, 558 N.Y.S.2d 150 (2d Dep't 1990) — 4, 17 People v. Townsend, 152 A.D.2d 515, 544 N.Y.S.2d 349 (1st Dep't 1989) — 5[c], 14[b] People v. Turner, 91 A.D.2d 646, 456 N.Y.S.2d 831 (2d Dep't 1982) — 6[a] People v. Velasquez, 267 A.D.2d 64, 700 N.Y.S.2d 126 (1st Dep't 1999) — 6.5 People v. Walker, 20 N.Y.3d 122, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 (2012) — 6.5, 7[a] People v. Walker, 267 A.D.2d 994, 701 N.Y.S.2d 555 (4th Dep't 1999) — 6.5, 7[a] People v. Walker, 194 A.D.2d 92, 604 N.Y.S.2d 631 (3d Dep't 1993) — 7[a] People v. Washington, 50 A.D.3d 1539, 856 N.Y.S.2d 783 (4th Dep't 2008) — 7[a] People v. Washington, 233 A.D.2d 684, 650 N.Y.S.2d 334 (3d Dep't 1996) — 17 People v. Watson, 213 A.D.2d 996, 624 N.Y.S.2d 710 (4th Dep't 1995) — 17 People v. Watson, 177 A.D.2d 676, 576 N.Y.S.2d 370 (2d Dep't 1991) — 6[a] People v. White, 262 A.D.2d 122, 693 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1st Dep't 1999) — 6.5 People v. Wilcox, 295 A.D.2d 914, 744 N.Y.S.2d 272 (4th Dep't 2002) — 6.5 People v. Williamson, 81 A.D.2d 963, 439 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dep't 1981) — 4 People v. Wilson, 161 A.D.2d 742, 555 N.Y.S.2d 875 (2d Dep't 1990) — 5[b] People v. Zollo, 114 Misc. 2d 1032, 453 N.Y.S.2d 332 (County Ct. 1982) — 7[a]

North Carolina State v. Carr, 20 N.C. App. 619, 202 S.E.2d 289 (1974) — 6[a] State v. Peaten, 110 N.C. App. 749, 431 S.E.2d 237 (1993) — 5[a], 9[b], 12[b] State v. Phifer, 39 N.C. App. 278, 250 S.E.2d 309 (1979) — 4, 7[a] State v. Spruill, 33 N.C. App. 731, 236 S.E.2d 717 (1977) — 6[a]

North Dakota State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, 615 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2000) — 6.5 State v. Klodt, 298 N.W.2d 783 (N.D. 1980) — 9[a] State v. Kunkel, 455 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1990) — 4 State v. Muralt, 376 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1985) — 7[a], 11[a] State v. Pogue, 2015 ND 211, 868 N.W.2d 522 (N.D. 2015) — 4 State v. Ressler, 2005 ND 140, 701 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2005) — 5[b]

Ohio State v. Banks-Harvey, 2016-Ohio-2894, 64 N.E.3d 570 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Warren County 2016) — 3[a], 14[a] State v. Bradshaw, 41 Ohio App. 2d 48, 70 Ohio Op. 2d 52, 322 N.E.2d 311 (6th Dist. Wood County 1974) — 7[b], 12[b] State v. Bronaugh, 16 Ohio App. 3d 237, 475 N.E.2d 171 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1984) — 12[a] State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. Wood County 2018) — 5[a] State v. Cole, 93 Ohio App. 3d 712, 639 N.E.2d 859 (9th Dist. Summit County 1994) — 5[a] State v. Collura, 72 Ohio App. 3d 364, 594 N.E.2d 975 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1991) — 5[a] State v. Cook, 143 Ohio App. 3d 386, 758 N.E.2d 213 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2001) — 5[a] State v. Crickon, 43 Ohio App. 3d 171, 540 N.E.2d 287 (6th Dist. Sandusky County 1988) — 7[a], 12[a] State v. Duncan, 77 Ohio Misc. 2d 7, 665 N.E.2d 767 (C.P. 1996) — 5[a] State v. Eason, 2016-Ohio-5516, 69 N.E.3d 1202 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2016) — 3[a], 6.5 State v. Foster, 2017-Ohio-4036, 90 N.E.3d 1282 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. Hamilton County 2017) — 5[a] State v. Foster, 2017-Ohio-2858, 91 N.E.3d 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2017) — 17

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Foxx, 2014-Ohio-235, 7 N.E.3d 615 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Greene County 2014) — 8[a] State v. Gordon, 95 Ohio App. 3d 334, 642 N.E.2d 440 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1994) — 6.5 State v. Howard, 146 Ohio App. 3d 335, 2001-Ohio-1379, 766 N.E.2d 179 (5th Dist. Muskingum County 2001) — 6.5, 14[b] State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St. 3d 165, 2016-Ohio-154, 47 N.E.3d 821 (2016) — 5[a] State v. Lewis, 2017-Ohio-4300, 92 N.E.3d 325 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2017) — 17 State v. Lumbus, 2016-Ohio-380, 59 N.E.3d 580 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2016) — 8[a] State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St. 3d 105, 1999-Ohio-253, 717 N.E.2d 329 (1999) — 6.5, 17 State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St. 3d 6, 2001-Ohio-1291, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001) — 17 State v. O'Neill, 2015-Ohio-815, 29 N.E.3d 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Allen County 2015) — 4 State v. Pierson, 128 Ohio App. 3d 255, 714 N.E.2d 461 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 1998) — 17 State v. Robinson, 58 Ohio St. 2d 478, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 394, 391 N.E.2d 317 (1979) — 12[a] State v. Rose, 118 Ohio App. 3d 864, 694 N.E.2d 156 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997) — 6[a], 17 State v. Semenchuk, 122 Ohio App. 3d 30, 701 N.E.2d 19 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997) — 6.5, 7[a] State v. Smith, 80 Ohio App. 3d 337, 609 N.E.2d 212 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1992) — 4, 8[b] State v. Taylor, 114 Ohio App. 3d 416, 683 N.E.2d 367 (2d Dist. Miami County 1996) — 6[a] State v. Weinstein, 69 Ohio Misc. 2d 33, 649 N.E.2d 936 (Mun. Ct. 1995) — 6.5 State v. Woods, 2012-Ohio-5509, 982 N.E.2d 1305 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2012) — 7[b] State v. Workman, 2015-Ohio-5049, 52 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Auglaize County 2015) — 6.5

Oklahoma Avriett v. State, 1985 OK CR 55, 699 P.2d 666 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) — 14[b] Bennett v. State, 1973 OK CR 136, 507 P.2d 1252 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) — 7[a] Bowen v. State, 1980 OK CR 2, 606 P.2d 589 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) — 8[a] Brantley v. State, 1976 OK CR 82, 548 P.2d 675 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976) — 7[a] Chambers v. State, 1982 OK CR 123, 649 P.2d 795 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982) — 7[a] Cooks v. State, 1977 OK CR 68, 560 P.2d 1019 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977) — 8[a] Crowder v. State, 1979 OK CR 12, 590 P.2d 683 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979) — 7[a] Fallon v. State, 1986 OK CR 129, 725 P.2d 603 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986) — 5[c], 7[a], 12[a] Fruit v. State, 1974 OK CR 192, 528 P.2d 331 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974) — 5[c] Gonzales v. State, 1973 OK CR 139, 507 P.2d 1277 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) — 4, 8[b] Hall v. State, 1988 OK CR 286, 766 P.2d 1002 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) — 6[a] Harmon v. State, 1988 OK CR 12, 748 P.2d 992 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) — 6[a] Hoover v. State, 1987 OK CR 119, 738 P.2d 943 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) — 8[a] Horn v. State, 1983 OK CR 152, 671 P.2d 1163 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983) — 6[a] Johnson v. State, 1988 OK CR 246, 764 P.2d 530 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) — 6[a], 12[a] Kelly v. State, 1980 OK CR 7, 607 P.2d 706 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) — 6[a], 7[b], 13[b] Lee v. State, 1981 OK CR 59, 628 P.2d 1172 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) — 6[a] McGaughey v. State, 2001 OK CR 33, 37 P.3d 130 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) — 5[a] Patrick v. State, 1976 OK CR 16, 545 P.2d 819 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976) — 6[a] Rudd v. State, 1982 OK CR 122, 649 P.2d 791 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982) — 4 Skelly v. State, 1994 OK CR 55, 880 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) — 5[a] Starks v. State, 1985 OK CR 31, 696 P.2d 1041 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) — 6[a], 7[a] Tomlin v. State, 1994 OK CR 14, 869 P.2d 334 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) — 5[a] Wilson v. State, 1994 OK CR 5, 871 P.2d 46 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) — 4

Oregon State v. Atkinson, 64 Or. App. 517, 669 P.2d 343 (1983) — 13[b] State v. Bernabo, 224 Or. App. 379, 197 P.3d 610 (2008) — 6.5, 7[b] State v. Boone, 327 Or. 307, 959 P.2d 76 (1998) — 6[a], 6.5, 7[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Bostwick, 226 Or. App. 57, 202 P.3d 259 (2009) — 13[a] State v. Brewton, 19 Or. App. 899, 529 P.2d 967 (1974) — 11[a] State v. Buchholz, 97 Or. App. 221, 775 P.2d 896 (1989) — 8[a] State v. Cherry, 262 Or. App. 612, 325 P.3d 813 (2014) — 4 State v. Connally, 339 Or. 583, 125 P.3d 1254 (2005) — 5[a], 14[a] State v. Cook, 136 Or. App. 525, 901 P.2d 911 (1995) — 6.5 State v. Cordova, 250 Or. App. 397, 280 P.3d 1036 (2012) — 3.5 State v. Corey, 123 Or. App. 207, 859 P.2d 560 (1993) — 5[a] State v. Custer, 126 Or. App. 431, 868 P.2d 1363 (1994) — 7[b] State v. Dillon, 182 Or. App. 308, 50 P.3d 1172 (2002) — 6[a] State v. Dimmick, 248 Or. App. 167, 273 P.3d 212 (2012) — 14[b] State v. Downes, 285 Or. 369, 591 P.2d 1352 (1979) — 11[b] State v. Fleming, 63 Or. App. 661, 665 P.2d 1235 (1983) — 7[b] State v. Gaunce, 114 Or. App. 190, 834 P.2d 512 (1992) — 4, 8[b] State v. Gilley, 188 Or. App. 450, 71 P.3d 582 (2003) — 14[b] State v. Hanna, 248 Or. App. 608, 273 P.3d 945 (2012) — 17 State v. Hite, 266 Or. App. 710, 338 P.3d 803 (2014) — 3.5 State v. Hockersmith, 264 Or. App. 560, 333 P.3d 1085 (2014) — 17 State v. Keady, 236 Or. App. 530, 237 P.3d 885 (2010) — 6.5, 14[b] State v. Keller, 265 Or. 622, 510 P.2d 568 (1973) — 4, 6[a], 11[a], 14[a], 14[b] State v. Keller, 9 Or. App. 613, 497 P.2d 868 (1972) — 6[a], 7[a], 14[a], 14[b] State v. Kruchek, 156 Or. App. 617, 969 P.2d 386 (1998) — 13[b], 17 State v. Martin, 124 Or. App. 459, 863 P.2d 1276 (1993) — 6.5, 7[b] State v. Mastin, 203 Or. App. 366, 124 P.3d 1275 (2005) — 7[a] State v. Nordloh, 208 Or. App. 309, 144 P.3d 1013 (2006) — 3[a] State v. Raiford, 7 Or. App. 302, 490 P.2d 1036 (1971) — 6[a], 8[a] State v. Sell, 9 Or. App. 299, 496 P.2d 44 (1972) — 6[a] State v. Steele, 290 Or. App. 675, 414 P.3d 458 (2018) — 3.5 State v. Stock, 209 Or. App. 7, 146 P.3d 393 (2006) — 15[a], 17 State v. Stone, 232 Or. App. 358, 222 P.3d 714 (2009) — 14[a] State v. Swanson, 187 Or. App. 477, 68 P.3d 265 (2003) — 14[b], 17 State v. Thirdgill, 46 Or. App. 595, 613 P.2d 44 (1980) — 8[b] State v. Tschantre, 182 Or. App. 313, 50 P.3d 1174 (2002) — 5[a], 6[a] State v. Walden, 15 Or. App. 259, 515 P.2d 407 (1973) — 11[b], 13[a], 15[a] State v. Weeks, 29 Or. App. 351, 563 P.2d 760 (1977) — 6[a], 7[a], 15[a] State v. Woodall, 181 Or. App. 213, 45 P.3d 484 (2002) — 6[b]

Pennsylvania Com. v. Anderl, 329 Pa. Super. 69, 477 A.2d 1356 (1984) — 8[b], 15[b] Com. v. Brandt, 244 Pa. Super. 154, 366 A.2d 1238 (1976) — 4, 5[a] Com. v. Casanova, 2000 PA Super 34, 748 A.2d 207 (2000) — 4, 9[b] Com. v. Chambers, 2007 PA Super 81, 920 A.2d 892 (2007) — 4, 5[a], 6.5, 9[a], 10 Com. v. Funds in Merrill Lynch Account Owned by Peart, 777 A.2d 519 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001) — 6[a] Com. v. Gatlos, 2013 PA Super 252, 76 A.3d 44 (2013) — 4 Com. v. Henley, 2006 PA Super 276, 909 A.2d 352 (2006) — 3[b], 4, 5[a], 6.5, 9[a] Com. v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) — 6.5, 8[b] Com. v. Hernandez, 404 Pa. Super. 151, 590 A.2d 325 (1991) — 5[b] Com. v. Lagenella, 623 Pa. 434, 83 A.3d 94 (2013) — 5[a] Com. v. Monosky, 360 Pa. Super. 481, 520 A.2d 1192 (1987) — 7[a] Com. v. Nineteen Hundred and Twenty Dollars U.S. Currency, 149 Pa. Commw. 132, 612 A.2d 614 (1992) — 7[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Com. v. Randle, 248 Pa. Super. 239, 375 A.2d 76 (1977) — 6[a] Com. v. Scott, 469 Pa. 258, 365 A.2d 140 (1976) — 11[a] Com. v. Smagala, 383 Pa. Super. 466, 557 A.2d 347 (1989) — 8[a], 15[a] Com. v. Thompson, 2010 PA Super 126, 999 A.2d 616 (2010) — 5[a], 7[a] Com. v. West, 2007 PA Super 349, 937 A.2d 516 (2007) — 6.5 Com. v. Woody, 451 Pa. Super. 324, 679 A.2d 817 (1996) — 7[a] Criswell v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 38 Pa. Commw. 444, 393 A.2d 1071 (1978) — 7[a]

Rhode Island State v. Bonin, 591 A.2d 38 (R.I. 1991) — 9[a], 14[a] State v. Halstead, 414 A.2d 1138 (R.I. 1980) — 8[a] State v. Louro, 589 A.2d 1197 (R.I. 1991) — 12[a]

South Carolina State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 473, 698 S.E.2d 811 (Ct. App. 2010) — 6.5 State v. Lemacks, 275 S.C. 181, 268 S.E.2d 285 (1980) — 9[a], 10, 12[a] State v. Miller, 423 S.C. 95, 814 S.E.2d 166 (2018) — 5[a] State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73, 602 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 2004) — 8[a]

South Dakota State v. Catlette, 88 S.D. 406, 221 N.W.2d 25 (1974) — 6[b], 8[b] State v. Flittie, 425 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 1988) — 11[a], 12[a] State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D. 1976) — 3[a], 3[c]

Tennessee Capps v. State, 505 S.W.2d 727 (Tenn. 1974) — 5[a], 8[a], 11[a], 12[a] Drinkard v. State, 584 S.W.2d 650 (Tenn. 1979) — 7[b] State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn. 1999) — 6[a] State v. Glenn, 649 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. 1983) — 12[a], 14[a] State v. Howard, 645 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. 1982) — 14[a] State v. Lunsford, 655 S.W.2d 921 (Tenn. 1983) — 5[a] State v. Roberge, 642 S.W.2d 716 (Tenn. 1982) — 12[a]

Texas Aitch v. State, 879 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1994) — 8[b] Alston v. State, 763 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1988) — 6[a], 7[a] Autran v. State, 887 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) — 14[a] Autran v. State, 830 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1992) — 7[a] Backer v. State, 656 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) — 7[a], 13[a] Barrett v. State, 718 S.W.2d 888 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1986) — 7[a] Bass v. State, 835 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1992) — 6[a], 8[a] Beasley v. State, 745 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1988) — 6[a] Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) — 5[a] Boughton v. State, 643 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1982) — 7[a] Campbell v. State, 775 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1989) — 8[a] Curren v. State, 656 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1983) — 8[a], 14[a] Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) — 6[a] Dansby v. State, 659 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1983) — 6[a] Dart v. State, 798 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1990) — 6[a] Diltz v. State, 172 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005) — 6.5, 17 Dotson v. State, 785 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1990) — 5[b], 12[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Evers v. State, 576 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) — 7[a] Fineron v. State, 201 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. El Paso 2006) — 5[b] Gandy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1992) — 8[a] Gary v. State, 647 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) — 8[a] Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004) — 3[c], 4, 6[a], 6.5, 14[a], 17 Gill v. State, 625 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) — 12[b] Gordon v. State, 638 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1982) — 8[a] Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2010) — 3[b], 6.5, 8[a] Greer v. State, 436 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. Waco 2014) — 8[a] Hamilton v. State, 300 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2009) — 6[a] Harris v. State, 468 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2015) — 5[a] Heitman v. State, 776 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1989) — 14[a] Holt v. State, 724 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1987) — 8[a] Jackson v. State, 468 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2015) — 3[b], 5[a], 8[a] Johnson v. State, 684 S.W.2d 129 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1984) — 6[a] Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1998) — 6[a], 6.5 Jurdi v. State, 980 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998) — 12[a], 14[a], 17 Lagaite v. State, 995 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1999) — 6[a], 8[a] Manning v. State, 864 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. App. Waco 1993) — 6[a] Marcopoulos v. State, 548 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2018) — 3[b] Martinez v. State, 644 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1982) — 6[a], 8[a], 13[a] Mayberry v. State, 830 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992) — 8[a] Mayhood v. State, 669 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1984) — 14[a] Moskey v. State, 333 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2010) — 7[a] Nichols v. State, 886 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1994) — 6.5 Parks v. State, 858 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1993) — 6[a] Pearson v. State, 649 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1983) — 9[a] Perez v. State, 103 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003) — 7[a] Perry v. State, 933 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1996) — 4 Ray v. State, 148 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2004) — 7[a] Richards v. State, 150 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2004) — 12[a] Roberts v. State, 444 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2014) — 5[b] Robertson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) — 9[a], 13[a] Rodriquez v. State, 641 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1982) — 5[a] Rothenberg v. State, 176 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004) — 6.5 Smith v. State, 759 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1988) — 5[a] Starlling v. State, 743 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1988) — 8[a] State v. Cook, 389 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2012) — 3[b], 5[a], 6.5 State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 296 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. El Paso 2009) — 4, 5[a], 6.5, 7[a] State v. Garcia, 801 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1990) — 15[a] State v. Giles, 867 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. App. El Paso 1993) — 6.5 State v. Kibler, 874 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1994) — 7[a] State v. Lawson, 886 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1994) — 17 State v. Stauder, 264 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App. Eastland 2008) — 6.5, 8[b] St. Clair v. State, 338 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2011) — 8[a] Torres v. State, 818 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. App. Waco 1991) — 7[a] Turner v. State, 642 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1982) — 5[a] Uballe v. State, 439 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2014) — 7[a]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. v. Fossler, 597 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1979) (applying Tex law) — 7[a] U.S. v. Privett, 68 F.3d 101, 43 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 207 (5th Cir. 1995) (applying Tex law) — 6.5 Weller v. State, 764 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1989) — 7[a] Wooldridge v. State, 696 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1985) — 7[a], 14[a] Yaws v. State, 38 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001) — 7[a]

Utah State v. Criscola, 21 Utah 2d 272, 444 P.2d 517 (1968) — 6[a], 7[a] State v. Giron, 943 P.2d 1114 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) — 6.5, 17 State v. Gray, 851 P.2d 1217 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) — 6.5 State v. Hygh, 711 P.2d 264 (Utah 1985) — 3[b], 8[b] State v Johnson (1987) 60 Utah Adv Rep 30, 745 P2d 452 — 7[a], 12[a] State v. Shamblin, 763 P.2d 425 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) — 7[b], 14[b] State v. Sterger, 808 P.2d 122 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) — 6[b], 6.5, 9[a]

Virginia Boggs v. Com., 229 Va. 501, 331 S.E.2d 407 (1985) — 12[a] Butler v. Com., 31 Va. App. 614, 525 S.E.2d 58 (2000) — 6.5 Cabbler v. Com., 212 Va. 520, 184 S.E.2d 781 (1971) — 8[a] Cantrell v. Com., 65 Va. App. 53, 774 S.E.2d 469 (2015) — 4 Fisher v. Com., 42 Va. App. 395, 592 S.E.2d 377 (2004) — 7[a] Girardi v. Com., 221 Va. 459, 270 S.E.2d 743 (1980) — 10 Hamby v. Com., 222 Va. 257, 279 S.E.2d 163 (1981) — 14[a] King v. Com., 39 Va. App. 306, 572 S.E.2d 518 (2002) — 5[a] Reese v. Com., 220 Va. 1035, 265 S.E.2d 746 (1980) — 7[a], 7[b] Schaum v. Com., 215 Va. 498, 211 S.E.2d 73 (1975) — 8[a], 12[a] Servis v. Com., 6 Va. App. 507, 371 S.E.2d 156 (1988) — 5[a]

Washington Getchell v. Auto Bar Systems Northwest, Inc., 73 Wash. 2d 831, 440 P.2d 843 (1968) — 6[a] State v. Alexander, 33 Wash. App. 271, 653 P.2d 1367 (Div. 3 1982) — 7[a] State v. Bales, 15 Wash. App. 834, 552 P.2d 688 (Div. 1 1976) — 7[b] State v. Duncan, 185 Wash. 2d 430, 374 P.3d 83 (2016) — 8[b] State v. Ferguson, 131 Wash. App. 694, 128 P.3d 1271 (Div. 3 2006) — 4 State v. Froehlich, 197 Wash. App. 831, 391 P.3d 559 (Div. 2 2017) — 5[a] State v. Gluck, 83 Wash. 2d 424, 518 P.2d 703 (1974) — 4 State v. Green, 177 Wash. App. 332, 312 P.3d 669 (Div. 1 2013) — 18 State v. Greenway, 15 Wash. App. 216, 547 P.2d 1231 (Div. 1 1976) — 6[a], 8[a] State v. Hardman, 17 Wash. App. 910, 567 P.2d 238 (Div. 2 1977) — 6[a], 7[b] State v. Houser, 95 Wash. 2d 143, 622 P.2d 1218 (1980) — 5[a], 12[b] State v. Houser, 21 Wash. App. 30, 584 P.2d 410 (Div. 2 1978) — 7[a], 12[a] State v. Johnston, 107 Wash. App. 280, 28 P.3d 775 (Div. 2 2001) — 17 State v. Jones, 2 Wash. App. 627, 472 P.2d 402 (Div. 2 1970) — 6[a], 7[a] State v. Malbeck, 15 Wash. App. 871, 552 P.2d 1092 (Div. 2 1976) — 8[a] State v. McFadden, 63 Wash. App. 441, 820 P.2d 53 (Div. 1 1991) — 6[a] State v. Mireles, 73 Wash. App. 605, 871 P.2d 162 (Div. 3 1994) — 9[a], 14[a] State v. Montague, 73 Wash. 2d 381, 438 P.2d 571 (1968) — 4, 6[a], 7[a], 11[a] State v. Morales, 154 Wash. App. 26, 225 P.3d 311 (Div. 2 2010) — 7[a] State v. Olsen, 43 Wash. 2d 726, 263 P.2d 824 (1953) — 6[a], 7[a], 15[a], 17 State v. Patterson, 8 Wash. App. 177, 504 P.2d 1197 (Div. 1 1973) — 8[a], 17

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Simpson, 95 Wash. 2d 170, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980) — 5[a] State v. Singleton, 9 Wash. App. 327, 511 P.2d 1396 (Div. 1 1973) — 5[a], 7[b] State v. Stortroen, 53 Wash. App. 654, 769 P.2d 321 (Div. 1 1989) — 5[a], 7[b] State v. Sweet, 44 Wash. App. 226, 721 P.2d 560 (Div. 1 1986) — 8[a], 11[b] State v. Thompson, 24 Wash. App. 321, 601 P.2d 1284 (Div. 1 1979) — 6[a] State v. Tyler, 177 Wash. 2d 690, 302 P.3d 165 (2013) — 3[b], 3[c], 5[a], 6[a], 6[b], 12[b] State v. Tyler, 166 Wash. App. 202, 269 P.3d 379 (Div. 2 2012) — 7[a] State v. VanNess, 186 Wash. App. 148, 344 P.3d 713 (Div. 1 2015) — 12[b] State v. White, 135 Wash. 2d 761, 958 P.2d 982 (1998) — 6.5, 12[b] State v. White, 83 Wash. App. 770, 924 P.2d 55 (Div. 1 1996) — 12[a] State v. Wisdom, 187 Wash. App. 652, 349 P.3d 953 (Div. 3 2015) — 17 U.S. v. Maddox, 614 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying Washington law) — 5[a] U.S. v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying Washington law) — 6[a] U.S. v. Wanless, 882 F.2d 1459 (9th Cir. 1989) (applying Wash law) — 7[b]

West Virginia State v. Goff, 166 W. Va. 47, 272 S.E.2d 457 (1980) — 6[b] State v. Perry, 174 W. Va. 212, 324 S.E.2d 354 (1984) — 7[b] State v. York, 203 W. Va. 103, 506 S.E.2d 358 (1998) — 7[b]

Wisconsin State v. Asboth, 2017 WI 76, 376 Wis. 2d 644, 898 N.W.2d 541 (2017) — 8[a] State v. Axelson, 149 Wis. 2d 339, 441 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1989) — 8[a] State v. Clark, 2003 WI App 121, 265 Wis. 2d 557, 666 N.W.2d 112 (Ct. App. 2003) — 10 State v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis. 2d 486, 171 N.W.2d 349 (1969) — 3[b], 6[a] State v. Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, 247 Wis. 2d 765, 635 N.W.2d 188 (Ct. App. 2001) — 5[b] State v. McDougal, 68 Wis. 2d 399, 228 N.W.2d 671 (1975) — 3[a], 11[b], 14[b] State v. Prober, 98 Wis. 2d 345, 297 N.W.2d 1 (1980) — 8[a], 12[a], 14[b] State v. Weber, 163 Wis. 2d 116, 471 N.W.2d 187 (1991) — 8[a], 17 State v. Wisumierski, 106 Wis. 2d 722, 317 N.W.2d 484 (1982) — 7[a] Warrix v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 368, 184 N.W.2d 189 (1971) — 6[a], 7[a]

Wyoming Johnson v. State, 2006 WY 79, 137 P.3d 903 (Wyo. 2006) — 7[a] Perry v. State, 927 P.2d 1158, 47 A.L.R.6th 715 (Wyo. 1996) — 6.5

I. Preliminary Matters

§ 1[a] Introduction—Scope

This annotation collects and analyzes the cases in which the courts have discussed whether, or under what circumstances,

a search without a warrant of a motor vehicle 1 impounded 2 by the police is lawful where the police or the prosecuting attorney contends that the search was conducted not to secure evidence of a crime, but merely to take an inventory of the vehicle's contents incident to its impoundment and storage.

No effort has been made herein to provide an exhaustive treatment of the statutes dealing with or affecting the subject matter of this annotation, except insofar as such statutes have been referred to in the reported cases. The reader is therefore advised to consult the most recent legislation of his jurisdiction.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

§ 1[b] Introduction—Related matters

Related Annotations are located under the Research References heading of this Annotation.

§ 2[a] Background, summary, and comment—Generally

[Cumulative Supplement]

The legality of inventory searches of vehicles impounded by the police has apparently been judicially considered only in the last decade or two and has created a distinct split of authority on the subject.

The starting point for the present discussion is the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The United States Supreme Court has extended this constitutional guaranty to state prosecutions by holding that as a matter of due process, evidence obtained by search and seizure violative of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court

proceedings. 3 Although it has been recognized that questions involving searches of motor vehicles and things readily movable out of the jurisdiction cannot be treated on an equal footing with questions involving searches of fixed structures such as a house, and that what may be an unreasonable search of a house may be a reasonable search in the case of a motorcar, nevertheless the test for the validity of a search of a motor vehicle is whether it was reasonable under all

the circumstances. 4

In the area of motor vehicle searches, the courts have long recognized two exceptions to the requirement of a warrant.

Firstly, it is fundamental that a search may be made without a warrant if it is incident to a valid arrest. 5 Secondly, it is the right of an arresting officer to search without warrant where he has probable cause to believe that the vehicle is

carrying contraband or illegal merchandise. 6

An initial question of a semantic nature which has created a divergence of opinion among the courts is whether the procedure of taking an inventory of an impounded vehicle prior to its storage constitutes a "search" in the constitutional sense, so as to bring it within the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Some courts have recognized that a police inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle involves a substantial invasion into the privacy of the vehicle owner

and, therefore, constitutes a "search" subject to the requirements of reasonableness set down in the Fourth Amendment. 7

In one such case, 8 it was stated that regardless of professed benevolent purposes and euphemistic explication, an inventory search involves a thorough exploration by the police into the private property of an individual, and that the police are not exempt from the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment merely because they are not searching with the express purpose of finding evidence of crime. Other courts have supported the contention of enforcement officers involved in such procedures that since the inventory is conducted not for the purpose of uncovering contraband or other incriminating evidence, but for the seemingly benevolent purpose of safeguarding the contents of

the vehicle from theft, it does not constitute a "search" within the rubric of the Fourth Amendment. 9 This viewpoint is further supported by the definition of a "search" in the draft of the Model Code of Pre–Arraignment Procedure of the American Law Institute, wherein it is stated that a search is an intrusion under color of authority on an individual's

vehicle "for the purpose of seizing things." Accordingly, it was pointed out in one case 10 that the inventory procedure is far more remote from the processes and objectives of the criminal law than actions taken by authorities in seizing and

impounding a car as evidence. 11

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

An essential requirement to a valid inventory search is that the police must have acted in good faith in conducting the inventory, and must not have used the inventory procedure as a subterfuge for a warrantless search. It has therefore been held that where the conduct of the police was inconsistent with its contention that the search was conducted for inventory

purposes, the search was unlawful. 12 Another essential prerequisite to a valid inventory search is that the police must have taken lawful custody of the vehicle in the first instance. It has therefore been held that where the circumstances show that the police had no authority to impound the vehicle, or that police custodial care of the vehicle was not necessary,

the inventory search was unlawful. 13

There is still some authority, from at least one jurisdiction, that an inventory search of an impounded vehicle is lawful on the ground that since a police officer has lawful custody of a lawfully impounded vehicle, the contents of the vehicle are also legally in his possession, and that, therefore, no search or seizure occurs when articles contained in the vehicle

are examined and removed. 14 However, the most recently adopted view is that lawful custody of an impounded vehicle does not of itself dispense with the constitutional requirement of reasonableness in regard to searches thereafter made

of such vehicle. 15

Several courts have adopted the view that whenever the police are authorized to impound a vehicle, they have a

concomitant right to examine and inventory the vehicle's contents. 16 This proposition has been lucidly expressed as the "lawful arrest equal to the right of removal, equals the right to take into custody, equals the right to take an inventory, equals the right to search" doctrine. However, a few courts have adopted the contrary view, holding that the Constitution does not permit an otherwise unreasonable search of a vehicle simply because the police have statutory or other authority

to impound the vehicle. 17

The circumstances under which a vehicle was impounded and an inventory search conducted have sometimes been a controlling or influential factor in the court's decision, although the ultimate test is always the reasonableness of the search in view of the totality of the circumstances. Where an inventory search of an impounded vehicle is conducted following an arrest of the driver or occupant, and the police could ascertain the wishes of the driver or occupant as to the disposal of the car and its contents, but fail to do so, or where they conduct the search over the protest of the driver or

occupant, such conduct has been held improper. Thus in one case, 18 the court, in holding the search unlawful, pointed out that the arresting officers did not consult the driver's wishes or the willingness of his companions to drive the car to a place of safety, and that in view of the fact that the driver protested the search, police custodial care of the car was not required, and absent such custody, no inventory was necessary or proper.

Generally, the particular offense for which a driver or occupant was arrested has not been determinative of the result of a case involving the subsequent impoundment and search of the vehicle; however, in a few cases this factor has influenced

or controlled the court's decision. 19 The majority of the cases have involved searches made after the driver or occupant

had been arrested for a vehicle or traffic violation. 20 In one such case, one of the grounds relied on by the court in holding the search unlawful was that the search could have had no relation to the traffic violation for which the driver

was arrested. 1 Within the category of cases involving searches made after the driver or occupant had been arrested for

an offense other than a vehicle and traffic violation, 2 the same reasoning has been used in at least one case 3 to invalidate a vehicle's search following the arrest of the driver for vagrancy.

Turning to the category of cases in which an inventory search was conducted following the police impoundment of a vehicle because it was found abandoned or unattended, it would seem that the absence of the driver or the owner of the car would lend more justification to the conduct of the police in making an inventory search of the car in order to

safeguard its contents and to compile an official list of the articles that were found in the vehicle. Thus, in one case, 4

where police officers were called to the scene of a wreck involving a pickup, and upon their arrival discovered that the

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

lone occupant of the pickup had been removed in an unconscious condition to a hospital, the court took the view that it was the duty of the police to check the contents of the pickup so as to safeguard any possessions found therein. However,

other courts have reached opposing results under similar circumstances. 5 In the few cases involving an inventory search

of a motor vehicle impounded by the police for being illegally parked, the search has been held lawful. 6

While some courts have been content to determine the legality of an inventory search without reference to the question

whether any restriction or limit can or should be imposed on the scope of the search, 7 others have considered the extent and scope of the inventory search in determining its reasonableness. It appears universally accepted that the police, in the course of an inventory of a vehicle, may take note of any personal property or other valuables in plain sight within the automobile when it is lawfully taken into custody, and that any objects clearly visible without probing may be listed

in an inventory or other police report. 8 In the only case where an inventory search involving objects in plain view was held unlawful, the court's decision rested solely on the ground that the police had no lawful basis for taking the vehicle

into custody. 9

With regard to objects not in plain view, the courts have reached varied results, depending on the particular circumstances

of the case, in cases where the search extended to the trunk, 10 glove compartment, 11 or a briefcase, suitcase, or the

like, 12 as well as in cases where a search was made for items under or around the seat 13 and under the floormat. 14 In

a case involving a search of places other than those discussed in §§ 11- 16, the search was held lawful. 15 However, the Supreme Court of California has expressly held that an inventory of contents not within plain sight is unreasonable, and the same court has ruled that items of value left in an automobile which is to be stored by the police may be adequately

protected merely by rolling up the windows, locking the vehicle doors, and returning the keys to the owner. 16

In validating inventory searches of impounded vehicles, the courts have adopted varying rationales and theories to justify their decisions. For example, it has been suggested that the police, as involuntary bailees of motor vehicles lawfully taken into custody, have the obligation to inventory the contents of such vehicles for the protection of the owners, and as

a safeguard against claims of loss or damage. 17 However, in one case this proposition was rejected as without legal foundation, and the court observed that while the police are involuntary bailees within the definition of a state statute dealing with bailees, the statutory duty of care imposed on such bailees is to use "light care," and such duty, continued

the court, is adequately fulfilled by rolling up the windows and locking the doors of vehicles taken into custody. 18

One court has held that where an inventory search of a vehicle impounded by the police is conducted by a private citizen

acting on his own behalf, this fact would preclude a contention alleging violation of the Fourth Amendment. 19

Several courts have justified inventory searches on the ground that the procedure protects the police from false claims

of theft. 20 However, this rationale has been the subject of much criticism, and one commentator has observed that it is at least doubtful whether inventories serve any purpose other than as a means of conducting a warrantless search for

evidence. 1

Another justification which has been advanced in favor of inventory searches of impounded vehicles is that the procedure

serves the purpose of protecting the contents of impounded vehicles from theft. 2 This view has also been challenged by

some commentators. 3 Moreover, the conduct of the police does not always lend support to this justification, because the police have sometimes conducted an inventory search over the violent protests of the driver, or against his request

that his friend or someone else be permitted to take charge of the car. 4

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfied Fourth Amendment even assuming other reasonable alternative arrangements may be available. Colorado v Bertine (1987) 479 US 367, 93 L Ed 2d 739, 107 S Ct 738.

See Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 102 S. Ct. 3079, 73 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1982), § 5[b].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 2[b] Background, summary, and comment—Practice pointers

[Cumulative Supplement]

In order to suppress evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a

written motion must be filed in advance of trial. 5 An affidavit setting out evidence must accompany the written motion

in some jurisdictions. 6 A preliminary hearing on the motion will be held either a considerable period before trial or

immediately prior to the trial on the merits, depending upon the jurisdiction. 7

Although a motion to suppress evidence is the usual procedure in cases of allegedly illegal searches and seizures, in at least one jurisdiction (California) a pretrial motion may be made to set aside the indictment or information on the ground that it is based wholly on illegally obtained evidence; if this motion is erroneously denied, a writ of prohibition may be

obtained to restrain the trial court from proceeding with the trial. 8 Other possible remedies should not be overlooked. 9

For example, if it can be shown that the police obtained custody of a vehicle unlawfully, 10 it may be possible to enjoin

the police from conducting an "inventory search." 11 Moreover, a civil action for abuse of process may lie if the police

used what was ostensibly a routine "inventory search" as a subterfuge for a search for incriminating evidence. 12

A prosecuting attorney opposing a defense motion to suppress evidence in a case of the kind treated in this annotation can avoid the necessity of defending the reasonableness of a particular "inventory search" if he can persuade the court (1) that a routine inventory of the contents of a vehicle impounded by the police is not a "search" within the meaning of the

Fourth Amendment, 13 or (2) that the vehicle was lawfully impounded and that lawful impoundment per se authorizes

an "inventory search," 14 or (3) that the evidence seized was in "plain view" and therefore not the object of a "search." 15

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Suppression of physical evidence was ordered where search of vehicle was an inventory search pursuant to impoundment after arrest of driver and police policy did not permit reasonable alternatives to impoundment. State v Filter (1982, Fla App D2) 414 So 2d 1127.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Although police may not unnecessarily impound vehicle when owner or possessor is available and presents reasonable alternative, police were under no obligation to honor suggestion by intoxicated driver that some friends who lived "about five minutes away" be telephoned and asked to pick up car. Consequently inventory search of trunk following impoundment, disclosing two bags of marijuana and ten Quaalude tablets, was lawful. Everall v State (1982, Fla App D1) 414 So 2d 646, petition den (Fla) 422 So 2d 842.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

II. General rules

§ 3[a] Inventory search as "search"—Rule that inventory search constitutes "search" within meaning of Fourth Amendment

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following cases expressly support the proposition that a routine inventory of the contents of a vehicle impounded by the police constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

US U.S. v. Flores, 122 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cabbler v Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary (CA4 Va) 528 F2d 1142 United States v Lawson (DC SD) 355 F Supp 101, affd (CA8 SD) 487 F2d 468 (citing annotation) Ariz Re One 1965 Econoline, etc. 109 Ariz 433, 511 P2d 168 Boulet v State (1972) 17 Ariz App 64, 495 P2d 504 Cal Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84 People v Denman (1971) 19 Cal App 3d 632, 97 Cal Rptr 23 People v Heredia (1971) 20 Cal App 3d 194, 97 Cal Rptr 488 For contrary California cases, see infra Fla Gagnon v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 337 Jones v State (1977, Fla App D4) 345 So 2d 809 State v Jenkins (Fla App) 319 So 2d 91 (citing annotation) Chuze v State (Fla App D4) 330 So 2d 166 B. v State (Fla App D2) 339 So 2d 696 Kan State v Boster, 217 Kan 618, 539 P2d 294 (citing annotation) Me State v Cress (Me) 344 A2d 57 (citing annotation) Mo State v Peterson (1979, Mo App) 583 SW2d 277 State v Williams (1983, Mo App) 654 SW2d 238 State v. Wells, 33 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2000) NJ State v Jones, 122 NJ Super 585, 301 A2d 185 NM

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v Ruffino (1980) 94 NM 500, 612 P2d 1311 Wis State v McDougal, 68 Wis 2d 399, 228 NW2d 671

Thus, overruling earlier decisions, 16 the court in Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84, held that a routine police inventory of an impounded vehicle constitutes a "search," and that the police are not exempt from the requirements of reasonableness set down in the Fourth Amendment merely because they are not searching with the express purpose of finding evidence of crime. Relying on earlier cases from the United States Supreme Court and from its own jurisdiction, the court rejected cases which have adhered to what it considered a circumscribed and semantic approach in defining the scope of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court declared that it seems undeniable that a routine police inventory of the contents of an automobile involves a substantial invasion into the privacy of the vehicle owner, and that regardless of professed benevolent purposes and euphemistic explication, an inventory search involves a thorough exploration by the police into the private property of an individual. In that process, continued the court, suitcases, briefcases, sealed packages, purses—anything left open or closed within the vehicle—are subjected without limitation to the prying eyes of the authorities. In conclusion, the court stated that constitutional rights may not be evaded through the route of finely honed but nonsubstantive distinctions.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures, is not violated by local police warrantless routine inventory search, following standard procedures, of accused's automobile impounded for violations of municipal parking ordinances where (1) police standard procedure was not pretext concealing investigatory police motive, and (2) inventory, including matters in unlocked glove compartment, was not unreasonable in scope. South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 49 L Ed 1000, 96 S Ct 3092.

In conducting an inventory search of an automobile, police officers are permitted to exercise a reasonable degree of discretion as to how to conduct the search without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016).

Inventory search is constitutionally permissible if individual whose vehicle is to be searched has been lawfully arrested and search satisfies Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness, i.e., it is conducted as part of routine procedure incident to incarcerating arrested person and in accordance with established inventory procedures. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Sholola, 124 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 1997).

Generally, reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Richardson, 121 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997).

Lawful inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement encompasses distinct police actions: the decision to impound or tow a vehicle, the decision to search the vehicle, and the manner and scope of the search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2013).

Central question in evaluating the propriety of an inventory search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment is whether, in the totality of the circumstances, the search was reasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2013).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Once a car is legally seized, the arresting officers are entitled to inventory the contents of the car and take possession of the items found therein. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Rankin, 261 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2001).

Some degree of standardized criteria or established routine must regulate police impoundments of vehicles, which may be conducted without the safeguards of a warrant or probable cause, to ensure that impoundments and inventory searches are not merely a ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Le, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D.N.D. 2005).

Law enforcement officer was neither required to ask defendant whether he wanted to remove items from impounded vehicle that defendant had been driving before officer undertook inventory of vehicle's contents pursuant to Utah Department of Public Safety Policy Manual (UDPSPM), nor did defendant assert ownership of items in car before inventory, and thus UDPSPM provision providing for inventory even when defendant was present did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment Rights. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; UDPSPM § 504. United States v. Sanchez, 720 Fed. Appx. 964 (10th Cir. 2018).

The so–called "inventory search" of an automobile is a recognized exception to the general rule that a search must rest upon a valid warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Bratton v. State, 72 S.W.3d 522 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002).

An inventory intrusion into a vehicle is tested for its constitutionality by the application of the fourth amendment standard of reasonableness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Mason, 935 N.E.2d 130 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2010).

Inventory search of a vehicle is an exception to the search warrant requirement. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Woodford v. State, 752 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. 2001).

One exception to the warrant requirement is an inventory search of a vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Anderson v. State, 64 N.E.3d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Inventory search of vehicle in which defendant was a passenger at scene of traffic stop was not rendered unreasonable by law enforcement officer's subsequent decision to allow driver to leave with vehicle after search discovered what officer believed to be a crack pipe on front passenger seat floorboard, which resulted in defendant's arrest; nothing indicated any pretext or subterfuge for general rummaging. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Widduck v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

The justification for a warrantless search of an automobile does not vanish once an automobile has been immobilized, nor does it depend upon the likelihood that the automobile would have been driven away in that particular case, or that the contents of the vehicle would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

See State v Kuster (1984, Iowa) 353 NW2d 428, § 8[b].

Police were justified in conducting inventory search of murder suspect's truck, after suspect crashed the truck while fleeing from traffic stop; suspect was unconscious after the crash and was taken to the hospital, and his incapacity made him incapable of deciding upon steps to be taken with his property, so that police had little choice but to seize the truck to assure the security of the property, and the inventory search was justified to protect the police from any tort claims that might later be asserted. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 964 P.2d 681 (1998).

The inventory search exception to the warrant requirement permits the police to search a vehicle provided they (1) follow standard procedures in carrying out the search and (2) perform the search, at least in part, for the purpose of obtaining

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

an inventory and not for the sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 10. State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2001).

An inventory search is valid where reasonable police regulations for inventory procedures are administered in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; V.A.M.S. Const. Art. 1, § 15; V.A.M.S. § 542.296, subd. 1. State v. Ramires, 152 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2004).

Inventory searches, as exception to warrant requirement, serve a three-fold purpose: protection of the inventoried property while in police custody, shielding the police and storage bailees from false property claims, and safeguarding the police from potential danger. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; N.J. Const. art. 1, par. 7. State v. Hummel, 232 N.J. 196, 179 A.3d 366 (2018).

Police authorities who arrived at scene of one–vehicle collision failed to demonstrate that they acted reasonably in conducting an inventory of vehicle where they failed to advise owners, who were present at scene and uninjured, that they considered such action necessary, and where nature of property in vehicle was such that it should have been apparent to police that owners were capable of determining whether they wanted to safeguard few items of value in question themselves or preferred to have them left in vehicle and inventoried. State v Labianca (1978) 156 NJ Super 382, 383 A2d 1190 (citing annotation).

Inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Davis, 2018-NMSC-001, 408 P.3d 576 (N.M. 2017).

To satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle must be conducted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standardized procedures or established routine. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Eason, 2016-Ohio-5516, 69 N.E.3d 1202 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2016).

An inventory search, as an exception to the warrant requirement, must not be a ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence and must be conducted in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 14. State v. Banks-Harvey, 2016-Ohio-2894, 64 N.E.3d 570 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Warren County 2016), appeal allowed, 146 Ohio St. 3d 1502, 2016-Ohio-5792, 58 N.E.3d 1173 (2016).

City police department's inventory policy, requiring officer to open all closed containers in impounded vehicle, was invalid as not reasonably related to protecting property or eliminating false claims, and thus purported inventory of drug defendant's vehicle was warrantless and nonconsensual search that required suppression of evidence. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Nordloh, 208 Or. App. 309, 144 P.3d 1013 (2006).

On remand, see State v Opperman (SD) 247 NW2d 673, § 3[c].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 3[b] Inventory search as "search"—Rule that inventory search does not constitute "search" within meaning of Fourth Amendment

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following cases expressly support the proposition that a routine inventory of the contents of a vehicle impounded by the police does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

US Fagundes v United States (1965, CA1 Mass) 340 F2d 673 Kaufman v United States (1971, DC Mo) 323 F Supp 623, affd (CA8) 453 F2d 798 Cal For California cases, see § 3[a], supra Md St. Clair v State (1967) 1 Md App 605, 232 A2d 565 Mackall v State (1969) 7 Md App 246, 255 A2d 98 Plitko v State (1971) 11 Md App 35, 272 A2d 669 Neb State v Wallen (1970) 185 Neb 44, 173 NW2d 372, cert den 399 US 912, 26 L Ed 2d 568, 90 S Ct 2211 NY People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY 2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE2d 464, 48 A.L.R.3d 527 People v Robinson (1971) 36 App Div 2d 375, 320 NYS2d 665 Wis State v Dombrowski (1969) 44 Wis 2d 486, 171 NW2d 349 Ruling that a routine police inventory search does not constitute a "search," the court in People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE 2d 464, 48 ALR3d 527, adopted the definition enunciated in the draft of the Model Code of Pre–Arraignment Procedure of the American Law Institute, namely, that a "search" is an intrusion under color of authority on an individual's "vehicle," "for the purpose of" seizing things. The court pointed out that an inventory examination is not conducted for such purpose, and that the procedure is far more remote from the processes and objectives of the criminal law than actions taken by authorities in seizing and impounding a car as evidence. The court further pointed out that in the instant case, where the vehicle was impounded because it was illegally parked in a towaway zone, the impounding was undertaken without regard to any possible prosecution, and that its purpose was to promote public safety and to facilitate the flow of street traffic.

Also, in State v Dombrowski (1969) 44 Wis 2d 486, 171 NW2d 349, it was held that a police inventory of the contents of an automobile did not constitute a search in the true constitutional sense of the word, the court adopting the definition propounded in an earlier case, in which it was stated that a search implies an examination with a view to discovering contraband or evidence of guilt to be used in the prosecution of a criminal action.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Inventory searches are well–defined exception to warrant and probable cause requirements of Fourth Amendment. Colorado v Bertine (1987) 479 US 367, 93 L Ed 2d 739, 107 S Ct 738.

See South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 49 L Ed 2d 1000, 96 S Ct 3092, on remand (SD) 247 NW2d 673, § 3[a].

Law enforcement officers taking a vehicle into custody after an arrest may search it and inventory its contents without need for a search warrant and without regard to whether there is probable cause to suspect that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal conduct. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2017), for additional opinion, see, 2017 WL 1382192 (2d Cir. 2017).

When law enforcement officials take a vehicle into custody, they may search the vehicle and make an inventory of its contents without need for a search warrant and without regard to whether there is probable cause to suspect that the

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal conduct. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008).

Inventory searches are excepted from the general warrant requirement for several reasons: to protect the owner's property while it remains in police custody, to protect the police from claims or disputes over lost property, and to protect the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 2008).

Once vehicle is impounded, law enforcement officers can conduct inventory search of vehicle without warrant or any level of suspicion that vehicle contains contraband. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Price v. Phelps, 894 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D. Del. 2012).

Evidence found during an inventory search is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Young, 260 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Va. 2017).

Warrantless inventory search of impounded vehicle by authorities pursuant to a standard police policy or procedure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Davis, 185 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Ill. 2002).

Inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permits law enforcement to inventory the contents of a vehicle that is lawfully taken into custody, even without a warrant or probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Barraza-Maldonado, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Minn. 2012).

An inventory search undertaken pursuant to impoundment or the authority to impound constitutes a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Reyes-Vencomo, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D.N.M. 2012).

An inventory search of automobile does not require consent. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jacquez, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D.N.M. 2005).

An inventory search is a well–defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, designed to effect three purposes: protection of the owner's property, protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen property, and protection of the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Aguilar, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (D.N.M. 2004).

Under the Fourth Amendment, an inventory search of a vehicle must be conducted according to an established policy of the law enforcement agency; if a search is conducted according to policy, as opposed to a general rummaging for evidence, then no warrant is necessary. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lustig, 3 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

Warrantless inventory search of murder suspect's vehicle that had been wrecked in accident was not "unreasonable search" under the Fourth Amendment, where suspect had wrecked his vehicle and had been transported to the hospital, and police officer's policies mandated the impoundment of the vehicle and an inventory of its contents. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Ark. R. Crim. P. 12.6(b). Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. 211, 521 S.W.3d 466 (2017).

Inventory or administrative searches are excepted from requirement of probable cause and search warrant. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997).

Bona fide inventory search of automobile preparatory to reasonable impoundment thereof, where clearly for purpose of safeguarding property for protection of owner, police, and tow company, and not to gather evidence without warrant, is reasonable and not violative of Fourth Amendment rights. State v Gwinn (Del Sup) 301 A2d 291 (holding officer's opening of closed satchel found in trunk of automobile during inventory unlawful search).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officers may perform an inventory search of a car in preparation for impounding it. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Bell v. State, 302 Ga. App. 519, 691 S.E.2d 573 (2010).

An inventory search of a vehicle is an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Young, 300 Ill. Dec. 231, 843 N.E.2d 489 (App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2006).

A valid inventory search of a vehicle is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).

A valid inventory search of a vehicle is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of the state constitution. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Jones v. State, 856 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Search conducted without warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable, subject to specifically established and well delineated exceptions. With regard to vehicles, these recognized exceptions include inventory searches. State v Cohen (1989, La App 2d Cir) 549 So 2d 884, cert den (La) 559 So 2d 135.

An inventory search of an impounded vehicle is normally a non-investigatory community caretaking function. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Paynter, 234 Md. App. 252, 170 A.3d 891 (2017).

The inventory exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment allows police to search a lawfully impounded vehicle if they search according to standard procedures and, at least in part, for the purpose of obtaining an inventory of the vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Rohde, 839 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).

An inventory search is an exception to search warrant requirement. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Volkman, 675 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).

Inventory searches are well–defined exception to warrant requirement of Fourth Amendment. State v Jones (1993, Mo) 865 SW2d 658.

Inventory searches are an exception to the search warrant requirement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Henley, 2006 PA Super 276, 909 A.2d 352 (2006).

Inventory searches of automobiles subject to impounding are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and are a well- defined exception to the warrant requirement in that the policies behind the warrant requirement are not implicated in an inventory search, nor is the related concept of probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Marcopoulos v. State, 548 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2018), petition for discretionary review filed, (May 3, 2018).

Inventory search of an automobile pursuant to a lawful impoundment is exception to warrant requirement and does not implicate the policies underlying the warrant requirement. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Jackson v. State, 468 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2015).

An "inventory search," a well-defined exception to warrant requirement of Fourth Amendment, is motor-vehicle search conducted as part of impoundment process that is designed to produce an inventory of vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Cook, 389 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2012).

When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents; inventories serve to protect the owners' property while in custody and protect the police from

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

claims, disputes, or danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2010), petition for discretionary review filed, (May 14, 2010).

Inventory searches do not implicate interests which are protected under Fourth Amendment by requirement of warrant, because inventories promote such important interests as protecting police and public from danger, avoiding police liability for lost or stolen property, and protecting owner's property, and because inventories are not investigatory in purpose. State v Hygh (1985, Utah) 711 P2d 264.

A noninvestigatory inventory search of a vehicle may be conducted in good faith after it is lawfully impounded. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 302 P.3d 165 (Wash. 2013).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 3[c] Inventory search as "search"—Rule under state constitutional provisions

[Cumulative Supplement]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Evidence seized by police during inventory of defendant's vehicle incident to his arrest for obstructing search for fugitive was inadmissible absent indication as to whether impoundment and search were consistent with police department's standardized criteria, thus requiring reversal of defendant's conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and possession of a controlled substance; State presented no evidence of such standardized criteria, and trial court made no findings in that regard. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; West's F.S.A. R. App. P. Rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). Beezley v. State, 863 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2003).

Under inventory search exception, warrantless search of vehicle may occur when a vehicle is impounded following the arrest of the driver, provided there is firmly established police policy requiring that an impounded vehicle be inventoried. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Stevens v. State, 701 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

See State v Sawyer (1977, Mont) 571 P2d 1131, § 15[b].

An inventory search does not depend on any reason to believe that there is seizable property to be found, as the purposes that justify an inventory search are to safeguard the property from loss or theft, to protect the police from liability and false claims, and to protect police officers from hidden dangers. West's NMSA Const. Art. 2, § 10. State v. Saiz, 2008- NMSC-048, 191 P.3d 521 (N.M. 2008).

Warrantless inventory search of vehicle is permissible under State Constitution if (1) vehicle to be inventoried is in police control or custody, (2) inventory is made pursuant to established police regulations, and (3) search is reasonable. Const. Art. 2, § 10. State v. Arredondo, 123 N.M. 628, 1997-NMCA-081, 944 P.2d 276 (Ct. App. 1997).

Under the Fourth Amendment, and State Constitution, a police officer who has impounded a vehicle following a valid arrest can inventory the contents only pursuant to established guidelines to identify and protect the owner's property, and cannot on mere whim look for incriminating evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; McKinney's Const. Art. 1, § 12. People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341, 741 N.Y.S.2d 147, 767 N.E.2d 638 (2001).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

For an inventory search to be reasonable, absent warrant or circumstances constituting an exception to warrant requirement, there must be "minimal interference" with an individual's protected rights; as matter of protection under state constitutional provision prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, "minimal interference" with citizen's constitutional rights means that noninvestigative police inventory searches of automobiles without warrant must be restricted to safeguarding those articles which are within plain view of officer's vision. Thus, warrantless search of closed console of automobile was unreasonable where prior to seizure of marijuana found in console, police officer had no probable cause to believe that automobile contained contraband, defendant–owner of automobile was not under arrest, and his car was towed for violating mere parking ordinance and was searched pursuant to police department procedure. State v Opperman (SD) 247 NW2d 673 (on remand from South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 49 L Ed 1000, 96 S Ct 3092), § 3[a].

In the context of inventories of the contents of automobiles pursuant to lawful impoundments, the state constitution does not offer greater protection to individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004).

Under the Washington Constitution, a vehicle may be lawfully impounded (1) as evidence of a crime, when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle has been stolen or used in the commission of a felony offense; (2) under the "community caretaking function" if (a) the vehicle must be moved because it has been abandoned, impedes traffic, or otherwise threatens public safety or if there is a threat to the vehicle itself and its contents of vandalism or theft and (b) the defendant, the defendant's spouse, or friends are not available to move the vehicle; and (3) in the course of enforcing traffic regulations if the driver committed a traffic offense for which the legislature has expressly authorized impoundment. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 302 P.3d 165 (Wash. 2013).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 3.5. Validity of inventory search policy

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following authority addressed the validity of inventory search policies.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Police department's inventory search policy constituted a standardized policy that sufficiently limited searching officer's discretion in searching impounded or confiscated vehicles for the policy to be facially constitutional in the search of defendant's vehicle following traffic stop, even though the policy did not specify which areas of the vehicle to search or whether to search closed but unlocked containers, where the policy prohibited officers from removing door panels or air ducts without probable cause, the policy required the securing of inventoried trunk items, the policy required officers to fill out and sign an inventory sheet, and searching officer testified that an inventory search encompassed items in plain view, including unlocked glove compartments and center consoles, but not locked containers. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. White, 707 Fed. Appx. 766 (4th Cir. 2017).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory searches of vehicles subject to impoundment are permitted, provided the scope of the inventory search is authorized by standardized police procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Bah, 794 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2015).

In general, when taking custody of property such as a suspect's vehicle, law enforcement officers may conduct a warrantless search and inventory of the contents of the vehicle in order to protect the owner's property, to protect the police against claims of lost or stolen property, and to protect the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Baldenegro-Valdez, 703 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2013).

Utah Department of Public Safety Policy Manual (UDPSPM) section providing for law enforcement officers to inventory contents of impounded vehicle even when property owner was present and available was not required to further a community caretaking function in order to comport with Fourth Amendment rights of defendant; policy required thorough and accurate inventory of all property in a stored or impounded vehicle, and merely allowed officer to make reasonable accommodations to permit a driver or owner to retrieve small items of value or personal need. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; UDPSPM § 504. United States v. Sanchez, 720 Fed. Appx. 964 (10th Cir. 2018).

Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless inventory search is permitted when a vehicle is impounded (1) for protection of the vehicle owner's property, (2) for protection of the police from claims by the owner, and (3) for protection of the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lustig, 3 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

Warrantless search of defendant's automobile could not be upheld as inventory search; although the State elicited testimony from officer regarding police department's inventory-search policy, that testimony was limited, officer testified he completed the inventory and created an inventory list, but did not produce the list at hearing on motion to dismiss, and the State did not elicit any testimony regarding where a copy of the department's policy could be found, the particular criteria for conducting an inventory search contained in the policy, or whether the officer who conducted the search followed that criteria. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Keith v. State, 231 So. 3d 363 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017).

Police are free to perform highly invasive warrantless searches of impounded automobiles. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 10. State v. Eichers, 840 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).

The scope of an inventory search must be limited to an inventory. Or. Const. art. 1, § 9. State v. Steele, 290 Or. App. 675, 414 P.3d 458 (2018).

An administrative inventory of a person's property, such an impounded car or personal property seized from a person who is being taken to a secure facility, is a valid exception to the state constitutional warrant requirement if it satisfies several conditions: (1) the inventory must be conducted pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory; (2) the person performing the inventory must not deviate from the established protocol; and (3) the scope of the inventory must be reasonable in relation to its purpose. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Hite, 266 Or. App. 710, 338 P.3d 803 (2014).

Inventory search policy authorizing officers to open and inspect the contents of "[a]ll closed containers that could contain valuables[]" was unconstitutionally overbroad, as its implicit mandate required officers to open and inspect contents of every opaque closed container, and did not expressly or impliedly limit officers to searching closed containers "designed to contain" or "likely to contain" valuables. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Cordova, 250 Or. App. 397, 280 P.3d 1036 (2012).

[Top of Section]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 4. Validity as depending on purpose of search

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following cases, in addition to the many cases throughout the annotation which have apparently been decided under the assumed application of the same principle, expressly support the proposition that an inventory search, to be valid, must be conducted in good faith, meaning that it must not be used as a pretext for a warrantless search for incriminating evidence.

In Pigford v United States (1971, Dist Col App) 273 A2d 837, it was held that a search of the defendant's automobile in a police parking lot 1 hour after his arrest on three outstanding traffic violations, and prior to his being incarcerated for failure to post the requisite collateral, was exploratory and therefore illegal, despite the prosecution's contention that the arresting officers were merely taking an inventory of the contents of the automobile, that is, checking in the glove compartment, underneath the seats, and in the trunk for valuables that should have been listed in the property book and safeguarded. Prior to being placed in a cell, the defendant was requested to put the contents of his pockets on the counter, and he complied. The contents, which included his car keys, were placed in an envelope, which in turn was placed in a drawer where envelopes of that type were kept. Shortly afterwards, the arresting officers removed the car keys and proceeded to take an "inventory" of the automobile, during which they found a checkwriting machine and money orders in the trunk. After taking the "inventory," the police left the car with the trunk locked, but with the front doors unlocked. Although the defendant was released a short time after the necessary collateral was posted, the police did not release the machine or the blank money orders, but retained them at the police station. Rejecting the contention that the arresting officers were merely taking appropriate steps to protect the defendant's property while he was incarcerated, the court distinguished an earlier case in which a police officer opened the front left door of a car which was about to be towed away, in order to obtain and record on the tow slip the car's serial number which was on the doorpost. The court stated that the aforementioned situation was totally different from the instant one, where the doors, glove compartment, and trunk were opened and items removed from the trunk. Stating that the course of action taken by the police was inconsistent with the claim that it was necessary to take an inventory of the automobile to protect the defendant's property, the court observed that the arresting officers were admittedly suspicious of the defendant's conduct and had been watching him for a possible robbery, and that it was against such a background that within an hour after his arrest, while collateral for his release was being obtained, and without his permission, a thorough search of the car was made and items were removed from the trunk on a selective basis. The court further noted that the officers failed to take the elementary precaution of locking the car doors, that they did not return the property to the defendant, even though he was released shortly after being incarcerated, and that these circumstances militated strongly against any conclusion that the search of the car was for inventory purposes rather than a fishing expedition. Accordingly, the court reversed a conviction, ruling the purported inventory search and seizure illegal.

In State v Montague (1968) 73 Wash 2d 381, 438 P2d 571, where a driver was arrested for traffic infractions and then released on his personal recognizance, but was later rearrested on information that there was a warrant on file for his arrest, the court held that there was evidence from which the trial court could find that, during his detention after the second arrest, the police were acting in good faith in removing his car from the street, and that the search was made for the dual purpose of protecting its contents from undue risk during storage and protecting the police and the bailee from false claims of loss or theft. The court observed that he had been released upon his personal recognizance when he was unable to raise the required bail during his first arrest, that as a matter of courtesy, he was furnished transportation by the police back to his car, and that it was proper for the trial court to consider these circumstances in determining whether the impoundment and inventory of the car was merely a device resorted to by the police in order to make an exploratory search without a warrant. The court affirmed a conviction.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See Colorado v Bertine (1987) 479 US 367, 93 L Ed 2d 739, 107 S Ct 738, § 2[a].

See South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 49 L Ed 2d 1000, 96 S Ct 3092, on remand (SD) 247 NW2d 673, § 3[a].

See United States v Pappas (1979, CA1) 613 F2d 324, § 5[a].

Search of motor vehicle was permissible as routine inventory search conducted in accordance with established police procedure, and evidence could not be suppressed in trial of owner of motor vehicle for interstate transportation of stolen goods, where driver and two other passengers, none of whom were owner, were stopped for speeding, detained and later released without charge, pending investigation, on grounds of inability to identify themselves and of possession of out– of–state motor vehicle without license to operate, and where detective, prior to ordering vehicle impounded and contents inventoried and removed for safekeeping, determined there had been no criminal violations. United States v Dall (1979, CA1 Me) 608 F2d 910, cert den (US) 63 L Ed 2d 603, 100 S Ct 1280.

The Fourth Amendment does not permit police officers to disguise warrantless, investigative searches as inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008).

While officers may search vehicle without warrant after it has been impounded, officers must have probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime. U.S. v. Lake, 233 F. Supp. 2d 465 (E.D. N.Y. 2002).

For inventory search of vehicle to be lawful, search must be conducted pursuant to standardized procedures. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Flores, 122 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

Government agent's testimony that defendant's car was seized and searched for purpose of safekeeping car and defendant's personal belongings contained therein was incredible where, inter alia, car was searched before impoundment two and half blocks from place of arrest; to acceed to prosecutor's inventory search theory in this context would be tacit approval of proposition that any time car owner is arrested, Government may automatically comb streets for vehicle, secure and impound it, and also search its interior without warrant, ostensibly to save arrestee from embarrassment of parking violations, or broken windshield or stolen tape deck. However, warrantless search of defendant's parked car was permissible in that there were facts sufficient to supply legally adequate probable cause to believe that defendant's car was subject to statutory forfeiture for its part in narcotics transactions, and that it contained contraband. United States v Vidal (1986, SD NY) 637 F Supp 327, affd without op (CA2 NY) 810 F2d 1161.

Police officer did not engage in inventory search of vehicle as ruse to conduct investigatory search for incriminating evidence, as would render search invalid based on bad faith of officer; as result of traffic stop, officer was informed about driver's prior offenses, but had no information regarding either passenger's criminal history, officer conducted brief pat down of vehicle occupants for his own safety, prior to beginning vehicle search, but did not restrain occupants while he conducted search, and officer testified that it was standard practice for inventory searches to occur at scene before vehicle was turned over to towing company, and for vehicle occupants to remain present while search was conducted, in order to safeguard against subsequent claims of missing property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Johnson, 492 Fed. Appx. 437 (4th Cir. 2012).

Inventory search after lawful arrest was reasonable in light of Fourth Amendment where police removed vehicle from driveway of hospital emergency room, impounded and took inventory of its contents to protect both owner from loss and city from false claims. Cabbler v Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary (CA4 Va) 528 F2d 1142.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search is reasonable and lawful only if conducted for purposes of inventory and not as investigatory tool to produce or discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Castro, 129 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 1997), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc granted, 143 F.3d 920 (5th Cir. 1998).

See United States v Davis (CA5 Ala) 496 F2d 1026, reh den (CA5 Ala) 503 F2d 568, § 14[a].

An accompanying inventory search of an impounded vehicle is consistent with constitutional principles if it is conducted pursuant to standardized regulations and procedures that are consistent with: (1) protecting the property of the vehicle's owner; (2) protecting the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and (3) protecting the police from danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Goldman v. Williams, 101 F. Supp. 3d 620 (S.D. Tex. 2015).

See United States v Mourning (1989, WD Tex) 716 F Supp 279, § 8[a].

Although inventory searches of property lawfully seized and detained may not be undertaken for the purposes of investigation, the mere fact that an officer suspects that contraband may be found in a vehicle does not invalidate an otherwise proper inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013).

See United States v Ford (1989, CA6 Ohio) 872 F2d 1231, cert den (US) 109 L Ed 2d 309, 110 S Ct 1946, § 17.

Where police, on same day that they arrested defendant as suspect in kidnapping, went to suspect's home and seized his automobile without warrant and took it to police station, and 2 days later alleged fingerprint of victim was found in automobile, fingerprint evidence was inadmissible product of warrantless search and seizure, not justifiable by "plain view" exception, "automobile" exception, or "preservation of evidence" exception to warrant requirement. Cook v Johnson (CA6 Mich) 459 F2d 473.

When a car is impounded, officers may conduct an inventory search of the car, including any containers therein, so long as the search is (1) done pursuant to standard police policy, (2) not done in bad faith, and (3) not done for sole purpose of uncovering evidence of criminality. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Fleming, 201 F. Supp. 2d 760 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

Inventory search properly conducted without intent of avoiding warrant requirements does not infringe Fourth Amendment rights. U. S. v Gerlach (DC Mich) 350 F Supp 180.

A police officer's exercise of judgment based on concerns related to the purposes of an inventory search of an automobile does not violate the Fourth Amendment; for example, officers should be given sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or should not be opened in light of the nature of the search and characteristics of the container itself. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016).

Inventory search conducted according to established procedure following valid arrest was not pretextual. United States v Velarde (1990, CA7 Ill) 903 F2d 1163.

In prosecution for possession of an unregistered shotgun and possession of firearm after having been convicted of felony in which defendant moved to suppress sawed–off shotgun found in his vehicle incident to inventory search of vehicle on ground that impoundment of vehicle to preserve evidence on charge of aggravated assault was really ploy to search for suspected gun, where district court did not explicitly find that impoundment of vehicle was subterfuge, court of appeal would not do so on appeal. Thus vehicle was lawfully impounded to preserve evidence of aggravated assault and inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle was appropriate. United States v Belt (1988, CA7 Ill) 854 F2d 1054.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Law enforcement officers may conduct a warrantless search when taking custody of a vehicle to inventory the vehicle's contents in order to protect the owner's property, to protect the police against claims of lost or stolen property, and to protect the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Ball, 804 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2015).

Police are not barred from conducting an inventory search when they lawfully impound motor vehicle, simply because vehicle belongs to or is being driven by individual that they also happen to suspect is involved in illegal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Harris, 795 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2015).

An investigatory motive does not render an inventory search of a motor vehicle invalid unless that motive is the officers' sole motivation in carrying out the search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Evans, 781 F.3d 433 (8th Cir. 2015).

Police officers' warrantless search of defendant's truck was not justified, under inventory search exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, on grounds that officers had not conducted search according to standardized police procedures, and search was merely pretext for investigatory search to discover incriminating evidence, since inventory's description noting miscellaneous tools in truck failed to comply with police procedures requiring detailed itemized inventory of hundreds of valuable tools in truck, and officer testified that basis for traffic stop, arrest, towing of vehicle, and search was her belief that defendant had narcotics in his truck. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2011).

Police officers did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in conducting inventory search of his vehicle pursuant to police procedures, once decision was made to impound it after arrest for traffic offenses, even if officers had investigative motive. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Kanatzar, 370 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004).

The fact that the officers' motives may have been mixed in conducting an inventory search of vehicle pursuant to standard policy after the occupants were arrested did not invalidate the search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, where there was no indication that the search was a subterfuge for a general rummaging for evidence. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2001).

See United States v Marshall (1993, CA8 Mo) 986 F2d 1171, § 8[b].

See United States v Lewis (1993, CA8 Mo) 3 F3d 252, § 7[a].

See United States v Davis (1989, CA8 Mo) 882 F2d 1334, cert den (US) 108 L Ed 2d 610, 110 S Ct 1472, § 7[a].

Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless search of vehicle defendant had been driving when he was taken into custody did not constitute a lawful search pursuant to the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement; there was no evidence that state troopers who conducted the purported warrantless inventory search acted in accordance with state's standardized procedures, and fact that the troopers had suspicions that there were drugs in the vehicle before they searched it, and that the officers failed to document any of the vehicle's contents, provided strong reason to believe that the search was a pretextual investigatory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Barraza-Maldonado, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Minn. 2012).

While stop of motor vehicle driven by individual for whom there was outstanding arrest warrant, and impoundment of vehicle because it was blocking traffic and because driver could not provide owner contact information, were both valid under Fourth Amendment, officers' explicit admission, in arrest report and in subsequent application for search warrant, that items were seized from vehicle and placed in police evidence room, not to protect driver's property, but because officers believed that items, including backpack that made metallic "clink" when set on pavement, contained incriminating evidence of firearms and/or narcotics offenses, rendered the seizure invalid under "inventory" exception to warrant requirement. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Johnson, 889 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2018).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of defendant's impounded vehicle fell within scope of inventory search exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, even if officers had investigative motive, where inventory search complied with standardized inventory search procedures. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Moore, 655 Fed. Appx. 531 (9th Cir. 2016).

Inventory search of defendant's truck and camper that were impounded as result of report that the truck was stolen was reasonable and supported by probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, where initial valid search of truck eight days earlier uncovered an incendiary device, and although inventory search was delayed for eight days, search was conducted when lead investigator returned from his vacation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2009).

Following arrest of defendant, DEA could properly have conducted inventory search of rental automobile prior to returning automobile rental company and thus inevitable discovery rule allowed introduction of evidence seized during search of automobile ten minutes after arrest. United States v Mancera-Londono (1990, CA9 Cal) 912 F2d 373.

Inventory search of vehicle was unreasonable where testimony of searching officer established that impounding and inventory search were made for purposes of investigation; even if investigatory motive was not shown, inventory search would still be invalid where inventory of impounded car was not routine practice or policy of police department. United States v Hellman (1977, CA9 Or) 556 F2d 442.

Though according to state law inventory search of petitioner's car after his arrest was invalid, admission of evidence obtained in inventory in state court proceeding did not violate defendant's constitutional rights so as to justify granting of writ of habeas corpus; in habeas corpus proceeding, violation of rights is judged by federal standards, and under federal law inventory was valid since, in light of fact automatic pistol was in plain view and in light of petitioner's known affiliation with group suspected of bombing in area, protection of public justified impoundment and protection of petitioner's property and safety of police justified inventory. Cardenas v Pitchess (CA9 Cal) 506 F2d 1224.

There was no unlawful search where police patrolman, instructed to deliver arrested speeder's automobile to city impounding lot, observed number of valuable watches in plastic cases on front seat and floor of automobile and partially open sample case on front floor, and to safeguard such property, placed watches in sample case and took case to police station where case and contents were inventoried and found to contain 29 watches, blackjack, and automatic pistol. U. S. v Mitchell (CA9 Mont) 458 F2d 960.

Search of rental vehicle conducted on scene shortly after defendant had been arrested on suspicion of bank robbery could not be justified as inventory search under police policy of impounding vehicles used in crime, where it was admittedly conducted for purpose of finding additional evidence that crime had been committed and that vehicle was tied to defendant, rather than for purpose of recording vehicle's contents to protect police from potential liability. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Edwards, 242 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2001).

Police officer's warrantless search of defendant's car following traffic stop was not justified under inventory search exception to warrant requirement; officer took none of the actions required by police department policies governing impound and inventory searches, officer indicated that he was conducting a search for dangerous items and contraband, not to preserve private property, and it appeared that officer conducted search for sole purpose of investigation, as officer did not decide to tow vehicle until after he conducted search and arrested defendant. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Hernandez, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (D. Colo. 2017).

If an inventory search is conducted pursuant to department policy, to find the inventory search unconstitutional, the officers must have acted out of bad faith, for the sole purpose of investigation; inventory searches must not be a ruse for

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Reyes-Vencomo, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D.N.M. 2012).

An inventory search of an automobile is permissible for three distinct purposes: (1) the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; (2) the protection of the police against claims of lost, stolen or vandalized property; and (3) the protection of the police from danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jacquez, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D.N.M. 2005).

It is proper for police to inventory vehicle which has impounded following arrest of motorist, in order to protect owner's property or to protect vehicle from loss or misuse. U.S. v. Williams, 980 F. Supp. 1225 (D. Utah 1997).

See United States v Bosby (1982, CA11 Ala) 675 F2d 1174, § 14[b].

Police search of rental car driven by defendant did not fall within the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement; circumstances and timing of the search indicated that the car was searched for the purpose of discovering criminal activity, as three police vehicles and at least four officers were on the scene and the search was conducted immediately after an illegal search of a different vehicle that was not stopped based on reasonable suspicion, officers did not inventory any items found in car with any specificity and allowed two unknown women to take items from the car, and officers failed to follow standard procedure, as they never attempted to find another driver for the car before towing it without supervisor authorization. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Alexis, 169 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

Evidence (cash and drugs) seized from hidden compartments in vehicles that had been lawfully impounded six weeks prior to purported inventory search would be suppressed, where officers returned to private impound/storage area and conducted thorough, purposeful search intended to uncover valuables suspected to be contraband that were not found in initial inventory, but to possible presence of which officers were alerted by informant. United States v Cruz (1993, SD Fla) 837 F Supp 1228.

There are three reasons why a warrantless inventory search is permitted when a vehicle is impounded: (1) for the protection of the vehicle owner's property; (2) for the protection of the police from claims by the owner; and (3) for the protection of the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Phillips, 9 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

See Jackson v State (Ala Crim) 315 So 2d 131, cert den 315 So 2d 137, infra § 8[a].

A vehicle inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Rogers v. State, 355 P.3d 1248 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

What makes inventory search lawful under Fourth Amendment is not that subjective motives of police were simplistically pure, but whether facts indicate that inventory is reasonable under circumstances. Re One 1965 Econoline, 109 Ariz 433, 511 P2d 168.

Inventory exception to search warrant requirement allows police to search an impounded automobile if the search is designed to produce an inventory of the vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Kelley, 362 Ark. 636, 210 S.W.3d 93 (2005).

To suppress inventory search of impounded vehicle, defendant must show that officers were conducting search in bad faith for sole purpose of collecting evidence. Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

A purported inventory search of a vehicle must not be a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive or a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Cal. Const. art. 1, § 13. People v. Wallace, 15 Cal. App. 5th 82, 2017 WL 3911073 (1st Dist. 2017).

Inventory search of vehicle is reasonable if it is directed to the goal of securing the vehicle and its contents, but unreasonable when it is merely a ruse to conduct an investigatory search. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. In re Arturo D., 77 Cal. App. 4th 160, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 152 (1st Dist. 1999).

See People v Scigliano (1987, 4th Dist) 196 Cal App 3d 26, 241 Cal Rptr 546, § 14[a].

See People v Burch (1986, 5th Dist) 188 Cal App 3d 172, 232 Cal Rptr 502, § 7[a].

See People v Meeks (1977, Colo) 570 P2d 835, § 12[a].

See People v Rutovic (1977, Colo) 566 P2d 705, § 8[b].

Inventory searches of vehicles are not to be used as a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, (Jan. 9, 2006).

Warrantless search and seizure of black bag in defendant's car could not be justified as "inventory search" where state offered no evidence of any police department practice for inventory searches to be conducted on highway by field officers, and where it was clear that officers' purpose in searching vehicle at scene was to investigate and not to inventory contents, as indicated by fact that no lists of property were made and that officers discontinued search immediately after discovering contraband. State v Badgett (1986) 200 Conn 412, 512 A2d 160, cert den (US) 93 L Ed 2d 373, 107 S Ct 423.

A warrantless search of an automobile may be deemed reasonable if it was: (1) made incident to a lawful arrest; (2) conducted when there was probable cause to believe that the car contained contraband or evidence pertaining to a crime; (3) based upon consent; or (4) conducted pursuant to an inventory of the car's contents incident to impounding the car. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Brito, 170 Conn. App. 269, 154 A.3d 535 (2017), certification denied, 324 Conn. 925, 2017 WL 1174397 (2017).

Bona fide inventory search of automobile reasonably impounded, when made to safeguard property for benefit of owner, police, and tow company, and not under pretext to gather evidence without warrant, is reasonable and not violative of Fourth Amendment rights. State v Gwinn (Del Sup) 301 A2d 291 (holding search of closed satchel discovered in trunk of automobile unreasonable), infra § 14[b].

See State v Jenkins (Fla App) 319 So 2d 91 (citing annotation), infra § 7[a].

When police are lawfully in possession of, and responsible for, vehicle after owner has been arrested, it is reasonable to conduct inventory search, and objects in plain view are subject to seizure. State v Cash (Fla App) 275 So 2d 605.

After lawfully impounding a vehicle, it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for police to conduct a warrantless, non-investigatory search of the vehicle, pursuant to standard police procedures, to produce an inventory of the vehicle's contents to protect the owner's property, or to protect police from potential danger or claims for lost or stolen property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Armstrong v. State, 754 S.E.2d 652 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Although police officers cannot merely impound a car to search for contraband, they may impound a car if they must take charge of it for some legitimate reason. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Tyre v. State, 747 S.E.2d 106 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search was permissible to protecting officer and protect himself against claims for stolen or lost property; officer entered truck to unload and disable weapons, both for his own safety and in order to return them to defendant because they were valuable, officer was trying to accommodate defendant by returning personal items to him, it was reasonable for officer to determine whether vehicle contained loaded weapons before he had it towed, and evidence showed that legitimate purposes of inventory search were served. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Stringer v. State, 285 Ga. App. 599, 647 S.E.2d 310 (2007).

Alleged inventory search of defendant's automobile was unlawful where vehicle was searched following defendant's arrest half block away, where vehicle was legally parked and not creating traffic hazard, where there was no evidence that police entered automobile in order to prepare for impoundment, and where it could be inferred that police were acting not out of desire to protect car, but in hopes of finding fruits of defendant's suspected crime. State v Creel (1977) 142 Ga App 158, 235 SE2d 628.

To be deemed reasonable, an inventory search of an automobile must further the objectives of protection of the owner's property, protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen property, and protection of the police from potential danger, and it will satisfy the Fourth Amendment as long as the police procedures are reasonable and administered in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Nash, 947 N.E.2d 350 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2011).

In order to qualify as a valid inventory search, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the impoundment of the vehicle must be lawful; (2) the purpose of the search must be to protect the owner's property and to protect the police from claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property and to guard the police from danger; and (3) the search must be conducted in good faith pursuant to reasonable standardized police procedures and not as a pretext for an investigatory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Spencer, 408 Ill. App. 3d 1, 948 N.E.2d 196 (1st Dist. 2011).

To prove a valid inventory search of a vehicle under the community-caretaking function of police, the state must demonstrate (1) the belief that the vehicle posed some threat or harm to the community or was itself imperiled was consistent with objective standards of sound policing and (2) the decision to combat that threat by impoundment was in keeping with established departmental routine or regulation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).

To prove a valid inventory search of a vehicle under the community caretaking function, the state must demonstrate that: (1) the belief that the vehicle posed some threat or harm to the community or was itself imperiled was consistent with objective standards of sound policing, and (2) the decision to combat that threat by impoundment was in keeping with established departmental routine or regulation. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Woodford v. State, 752 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. 2001).

In prosecution for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, police officers' search of gym bag found in disabled, unattended vehicle did not constitute inventory search where police officers' sole purpose in opening gym bag was to search for registration documents, not to make list of property taken into police custody, and where police had not impounded vehicle and it remained owner's choice as to where it was to be towed. Paschall v State (1988, Ind) 523 NE2d 1359.

Inventory search of vehicle, following lawful impoundment of vehicle under the community caretaking function after traffic stop, deviated greatly from departmental requirements, constituting an unreasonable search and in essence a general investigatory search for contraband; neither officer created a list of property or description of the vehicle's contents found during the search of the vehicle, which disserved two of the purposes of inventory searches, protection of private property in police custody and protection of police against claims of lost or stolen property. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Sansbury v. State, 96 N.E.3d 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

A valid inventory search is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement, under which the police may conduct a warrantless search of a lawfully impounded vehicle if the search is designed to produce an inventory of the vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Wilford v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

The policy or practice governing inventory searches of an impounded vehicle should be designed to produce an inventory, and not simply be a ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Allensworth, 748 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2008).

See State v Kuster (1984, Iowa) 353 NW2d 428, § 8[b].

Where defendant was not registered owner of vehicle and where good faith of officer was demonstrated, impoundment and inventory search following defendant's felony arrest was valid. Helm v Commonwealth (1991, Ky) 813 SW2d 816.

Search of trunk of wrecked automobile was permissible, where vehicle had been impounded to remove it from hazardous position on road, and where searching officer had implied consent to make safe–keeping search. Cardwell v Commonwealth (1982, Ky App) 639 SW2d 549.

Inventory search must be strictly limited to practical purposes which justify it, those purposes being protection of occupant from loss of property and protection of law enforcement agencies against occupant's claim for failure to guard against such loss; there was no valid inventory search where, although defendant's car needed to be towed because part of it was on road, other indicia of true inventory search were lacking, in that alleged search was conducted in field, not at police station, tow truck was not called before search commenced, formal impoundment practices were not followed, officer did not ask defendant if he could search car, if there were any valuables in car or if he would consent to "the agency's failure to afford him protection of an inventory search," and officer did not give defendant opportunity to make his own arrangements for towing car. State v Dorociak (1986, La App 3d Ca) 493 So 2d 173.

Officers' search of vehicle was a valid, good faith inventory search, even though search was conducted in the field, where vehicle's location posed a potential danger for traffic, tow truck was called before the inventory search commenced, one officer filled out the standard wrecker inventory sheet documenting all of the belongings inside the vehicle while a second officer was conducting the search, officer asked the defendant if the vehicle contained any valuables, and officers asked the defendant before the search if there was any way he could have someone either pick up his vehicle or move it to a place where it would not be a safety hazard; the inventory search was a valid safeguarding procedure and not a subterfuge for a warrantless search without probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; LSA–Const. Art. 1, § 5. State v. Escoto, 41 So. 3d 1160 (La. 2010).

See State v Jewell (La) 338 So 2d 633 (citing annotation), § 17.

Warrantless search of automobile, which occurred following arrest of defendant, a passenger, during traffic stop of driver, was not justified as an inventory search, where search was conducted "in the field," police officer admitted only items he deemed as contraband were logged, and it was unclear whether a tow truck was called before commencing the search, and whether car owner was asked for his consent to the search, if his car contained valuables, if he would waive an inventory search, or if he could make arrangements to have someone pick up the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Fortune, 72 So. 3d 1000 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011).

Search of stopped automobile that contained phencyclidine (PCP) was not valid inventory search, where police officers did not testify that search was intended to be as result of inventory of automobile. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Robinson, 743 So. 2d 814 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of defendant's automobile pursuant to valid arrest was proper, despite fact that search took place in field rather than at storage area, where there was no indication that search was pretext for police to look for illegal drugs, there were no passengers who could drive vehicle home after defendant was arrested, car was stopped in unsafe area in private driveway and officers had called tow truck to impound vehicle for safekeeping. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; LSA– Const. Art. 1, § 5. State v. Cousin, 700 So. 2d 1016 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997), writ denied, 712 So. 2d 875 (La. 1998).

Impoundment of vehicle following unlawful arrest for criminal trespass was improper and search incident to that arrest was unconstitutional. State v Rack (1991, La App 1st Cir) 585 So 2d 1215.

A standardized inventory of a lawfully impounded vehicle is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment if conducted for community caretaking functions and not as a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Fox, 2017 ME 52, 157 A.3d 778 (Me. 2017).

Inventory search was proper where officer was justified in removing unsafe vehicle from road after scuffle with occupants in which one of occupants escaped and other was arrested, where inventorying of vehicles was standard practice, and where officer in fact followed standard inventory procedures. State v White (1978, Me) 387 A2d 230.

Where officer arrested defendant for outstanding bench warrant and impounded car, then conferred with state's attorney and was advised that there were no grounds to support issuance of warrant to search car, and then proceeded with inventory search which included removing contents of brown wallet, brown document box, and red pouch which was found in brown purse, meticulosity of search indicated that purpose was not to protect and tabulate contents of car but to secure incriminating evidence, and fruits of search should have been suppressed. Smith v State (1981) 48 Md App 425, 427 A2d 1064.

Where the police's true purpose for searching the vehicle is investigative, the seizure of the vehicle may not be justified as a precursor to an inventory search, and must instead be justified as an investigative search. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Commonwealth v. Crowley-Chester, 476 Mass. 1030, 71 N.E.3d 453 (2017).

Governing standard for evaluating the propriety of a vehicle impoundment and inventory search is not one of necessity, but whether the police actions in impounding and conducting the inventory search of the vehicle are reasonably undertaken based on the specific facts and circumstances presented. Com. v. Crowley-Chester, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 21 N.E.3d 988 (2015).

The distinction between an inventory search and an investigatory search is found in the objective of each; the objective of an investigatory search is to gather evidence, whereas an inventory search is conducted for the purposes of safeguarding the car or its contents, protecting the police against unfounded charges of misappropriation, protecting the public against the possibility that the car might contain weapons or other dangerous instrumentalities that might fall into the hands of vandals, or a combination of such reasons. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Ortiz, 39 N.E.3d 458 (Mass. Ct. App. 2015).

A warrantless inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle meets constitutional requirements if carried out in accordance with standard procedures and if there is no suggestion that the procedure was a pretext concealing an investigatory motive; rationale underlying this exception to the search warrant requirement is the necessity of safeguarding the vehicle or its contents, protecting the police against unfounded charges of misappropriation, protecting the public against the possibility that the vehicle might contain weapons or other dangerous instrumentalities that might fall into the hands of vandals, or a combination of such reasons. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Com. v. Muckle, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 678, 814 N.E.2d 7 (2004).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Warrantless search of van 48–hours after it was parked in restricted area of police station following arrest of driver for robbery (which led to discovery of gravity knife in pocket of coat belonging to driver) was not lawful "inventory" search where executed in context of criminal investigation rather than pursuant to non–criminal inquiry. Commonwealth v Woodman (1981) 11 Mass App 965, 417 NE2d 469.

See Commonwealth v Tisserand (1977) 5 Mass App 383, 363 NE2d 530, § 8[a].

Impoundment and search of automobile was for purpose of protecting police against claims of lost or stolen property following owner's arrest; vehicle war parked at airport in lot outside air freight office and defendant's purse was in front seat in plain view. People v Krezen (1986) 427 Mich 681, 397 NW2d 803.

When police officer's sole motivation in conducting inventory search of automobile is to discover evidence of crime, search is unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1997).

Where inventory search was not conducted solely for purpose of investigation, fact that officers may have expected to find evidence did not invalidate search. State v Surgeon (1991, Mo App) 823 SW2d 63.

An inventory search of a vehicle is permissible after an arrest where the search is preceded by lawful custody of the vehicle and the search is conducted pursuant to standardized inventory criteria or established routine. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Ray, 9 Neb. App. 183, 609 N.W.2d 390 (2000), review sustained, (June 28, 2000).

Police have duty to inventory contents of impounded automobile to protect against claims of theft and to protect storage bailee against false charges; however, inventory search must not be ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. Collins v. State, 113 Nev. 1177, 946 P.2d 1055 (1997), reh'g denied, (May 12, 1998).

Search of car driven by drunk–driving arrestee was not valid inventory search, and trial court improperly admitted marijuana found in box in trunk, where failure of officer to produce proper inventory list of all items found in vehicle indicated that true inventory was not being made and that "inventory" was thus ruse for illegal warrantless search. Weintraub v State (1994, Nev) 871 P2d 339.

See State v Luna (1980) 93 NM 773, 606 P2d 183, § 7[b].

To be valid under the "impoundment and inventory doctrine," the seizure and search of the item must meet a three-part test: (1) the vehicle must lawfully be in police custody and control; (2) officer must conduct the inventory search pursuant to established police regulations; and (3) the search is reasonable and will be upheld if made in furtherance of any one of three purposes: to protect the arrestee's property while it remains in police custody; to protect the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; or to protect the police from potential danger. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Byrom, 2018-NMCA-016, 412 P.3d 1109 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017), cert. denied, (Nov. 29, 2017).

Where police officer, after stopping automobile and arresting driver for driving while intoxicated, obtained automobile keys for purpose of locking automobile and parking it on street, and in accordance with what he testified was his general practice, searched automobile for contraband, search by which he discovered imitation pistol concealed under driver's seat was unreasonable, and evidence thereby discovered would be suppressed; although police may have had right to inventory and secure vehicle, they had no right to conduct general exploratory search for evidence. People v Rivera, 72 Misc 2d 307, 339 NYS2d 82.

Inventory search of vehicle in which defendant was a passenger was lawful; stop of vehicle based on driver's commission of traffic violation was lawful, police had reasonable suspicion either that vehicle had been operated by unlicensed driver or that it was soon to be operated by unlicensed driver, such that its towing was lawful, and officer's testimony

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

established that officers' intention for the search was to inventory items in vehicle prior to its lawful towing, not as mere pretext to uncover incriminating evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(1)(b)(i). People v. Huddleston, 160 A.D.3d 1359, 76 N.Y.S.3d 294 (4th Dep't 2018).

Inventory search of defendant's impounded car was reasonable, regardless of whether law enforcement officer suspected that contraband would be present, where there was no evidence that the search was conducted as a ruse. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Padilla, 932 N.Y.S.2d 71 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).

City's procedures for conducting inventory search of impounded car had rational relationship to legitimate governmental objectives, where city had standard practice of impounding vehicles left on private property after all occupants were arrested, officers performed cursory search at scene to identify who owned vehicle and determine whether any items inside vehicle had to be secured for officers' safety or because items could be easily lost, and more thorough search was performed at impound lot for purpose of safeguarding police personnel, protecting vehicle owner's property, and to guard against false claims of lost property. People v. Peters, 853 N.Y.S.2d 405 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).

See People v Lloyd (1990, 4th Dept) 167 App Div 2d 856, 562 NYS2d 257, § 15[b].

See People v Thomas (1990, 2d Dept) 163 App Div 2d 438, 558 NYS2d 150, app gr 76 NY2d 945, 563 NYS2d 74, 564 NE2d 684, § 17.

In prosecution for possession of controlled substance, trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in packages located on floor of rear seat, where officer who conducted search testified that search was motivated by his desire to discover potentially incriminating evidence or contraband. People v Solano (1989, 2d Dept) 148 App Div 2d 761, 539 NYS2d 494.

Search of impounded vehicle at police garage, which led to discovery of heroin stuffed in crack of back front seat, was not lawful as inventory search where record failed to clearly demonstrate that motive of search was to inventory contents (standard inventory form was never filled out) rather than secure evidence. People v Williamson (1981, 3d Dept) 81 App Div 2d 963, 439 NYS2d 752.

Though inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle may properly be made during arrested person's detention for purpose of protecting his property, search could not be so justified where officers testified unequivocally that they opened trunk of vehicle to find out whether it contained marijuana. People v Martin, 48 App Div 2d 213, 368 NYS2d 342.

See State v Phifer (1979) 39 NC App 278, 250 SE2d 309, affd 297 NC 216, 254 SE2d 586, § 7[a].

It is the caretaking function which legitimizes an inventory search, and absent that justification, an inventory is unreasonable and is an impermissible warrantless search in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Pogue, 2015 ND 211, 868 N.W.2d 522 (N.D. 2015).

Where admitted purpose of "impoundment" was to search for drugs, search was not valid inventory search. State v Kunkel (1990, ND) 455 NW2d 208.

Discretion as to impoundment of a vehicle is permissible so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. State v. O'Neill, 2015- Ohio-815, 29 N.E.3d 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Allen County 2015).

See State v Smith (1992, Cuyahoga Co) 80 Ohio App 3d 337, 609 NE2d 212, dismd, motion overr 65 Ohio St 3d 1417, 598 NE2d 1169 and (ovrld as stated in State v Gordon (Ohio App, Cuyahoga Co) 95 Ohio App 3d 334), § 8[b].

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search that revealed quantity of PCP was lawful, where driver and passenger were properly arrested, vehicle was therefore left unattended in area in which it would be vulnerable to theft, and search, which began with no officer suspicion that contraband would be found, was conducted according to written procedures. Wilson v State (1994, Okla Crim) 871 P2d 46.

Conviction for possession of marijuana would not be reversed on grounds drug was discovered in illegal inventory search, where search was conducted when car was impounded after accident which killed two of its occupants, and where search was conducted pursuant to mandatory police policy. Rudd v State (1982, Okla Crim) 649 P2d 791.

Police inventory is void ab initio where subterfuge for searching vehicle on suspicion that contraband might be stored therein; contraband discovered thereby is inadmissible. Gonzales v State (Okla Crim) 507 P2d 1277.

Where sole purpose of search is to inventory car's contents following valid arrest, search is reasonable as to evidence of crime in "plain view," whether or not related to crime for which arrest has been made. State v Keller (Or) 510 P2d 568 (citing annotation).

One exception to the constitutional search warrant requirement is the inventory exception; in general, a search qualifies for the exception if it is conducted for a purpose other than law enforcement, pursuant to a policy that is authorized by a politically accountable lawmaking body, if the policy eliminates the discretion of those responsible for conducting the search. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Cherry, 262 Or. App. 612, 325 P.3d 813 (2014).

Lawfulness of purported inventory search of automobile owned by driver arrested for outstanding failure–to–appear warrant would depend on whether arresting/searching officer, who claimed to have had suspicion that car had stolen tires and could contain illegal drugs, was influenced in decision to impound vehicle by his suspicions of criminal activity unrelated to warrant, since purpose of valid inventory search is custodial and not investigatory. State v Gaunce (1992) 114 Or App 190, 834 P2d 512.

Officer's search of vehicle impounded following traffic accident, resulting in discovery of burnt cigar on vehicle floorboard, was a lawful inventory search; vehicle was lawfully seized and impounded, and officer entered vehicle, not to carry out a search for evidence, but for the limited purpose of obtaining insurance and registration information. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 8. Com. v. Gatlos, 2013 PA Super 252, 76 A.3d 44 (2013).

An inventory search is reasonable if it is conducted pursuant to reasonable standard police procedures and in good faith and not for the sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Chambers, 2007 PA Super 81, 920 A.2d 892 (2007).

Motive is the sole factor which distinguishes a criminal investigatory search from a noncriminal inventory search of an automobile; a questionable impoundment is one factor of circumstantial evidence of an improper motive. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Henley, 2006 PA Super 276, 909 A.2d 352 (2006).

When impounding a vehicle, an inventory search is permissible when the vehicle is lawfully in the custody of police and when police are able to show that the search was in fact a search conducted for the purposes of protection of the owner's property. Com. v. Casanova, 2000 PA Super 34, 748 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).

Absent probable cause, search of automobile is reasonable provided commonwealth proves two elements, i.e., that vehicle was lawfully within custody of police and that search was in fact inventory search. Hearing judge must be convinced that police intrusion into automobile was for purpose of taking inventory of car and not for purpose of gathering incriminating evidence. Facts and circumstances which hearing judge must consider include scope of search,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

procedure utilized in search, whether any items of value were in plain view, reasons for and nature of custody, and anticipated length of custody. Commonwealth v Brandt (Pa Super) 366 A2d 1238 (citing annotation).

An inventory search is constitutionally permissible as long as it is not a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 296 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. El Paso 2009).

An inventory of the contents of an automobile is reasonable and lawful under the Fourth Amendment only if conducted for the purposes of an inventory and may not be used by police officers as a ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004).

Inventory search of vehicle is proper where impoundment is only reasonable alternative to protect vehicle. Perry v. State, 933 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1996), reh'g overruled, (Nov. 21, 1996) and petition for discretionary review refused, (Feb. 26, 1997).

A warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle that is conducted pursuant to standardized procedures is valid under the Fourth Amendment so long as the purpose of the inventory is not to gather incriminating evidence against the owner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Cantrell v. Com., 774 S.E.2d 469 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).

Appropriate reasons for conducting a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle include protecting the vehicle owner's property, protecting the police against false claims of theft by the owner, and protecting the police from potential danger. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Ferguson, 128 P.3d 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 3 2006).

Search of automobile could not be justified as inventory search where officers abandoned search after finding incriminating evidence and complete list of other items in vehicle was not made. State v Gluck, 83 Wash 2d 424, 518 P2d 703.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 5[a] Validity as depending on lawful custody of vehicle—Rule that police must obtain lawful custody of vehicle

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following cases, in addition to the many cases throughout the annotation which have apparently been decided under the assumed application of the same principle, support the proposition that an inventory search cannot be valid unless the police initially obtained lawful custody of the vehicle.

US United States v Bethea (1980, ED NY) 505 F Supp 698 United States v Abbott (1984, WD Pa) 584 F Supp 442, affd without op (CA3 Pa) 749 F2d 28 United States v Nelson (1980, WD Tex) 511 F Supp 77 United States v Rehkop (1996, CA8 Mo) 96 F3d 301 DC Schwasta v United States (1978, Dist Col App) 392 A2d 1071 Fla Fields v State (1978, Fla App D1) 369 So 2d 603, cert den (Fla) 368 So 2d 1366

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

McKnight v State (1983, Fla App D5) 435 So 2d 412 Montalvo v. State, 520 So. 2d 292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1987) B. v State (Fla App D2) 339 So 2d 696 Ga Fortson v State (1992) 262 Ga 3, 412 SE2d 833, 103-35 Fulton County D R 21 Sams v State (1995) 265 Ga 534, 459 SE2d 551, 95 Fulton County D R 2260, reconsideration den (Jun 30, 1995) Moore v State (1980) 155 Ga App 299, 270 SE2d 713 Phillips v State (1983) 167 Ga App 260, 305 SE2d 918 Gooden v State (1990) 196 Ga App 295, 395 SE2d 634 State v. Lowe, 224 Ga. App. 228, 480 S.E.2d 611 (1997) Staley v. State, 224 Ga. App. 806, 482 S.E.2d 459 (1997) Idaho Idaho Dept. of Law Enforcement by Richardson v $34,000 United States Currency (1991, App) 121 Idaho 211, 824 P2d 142 Ill People v Hundley (1993) 156 Ill 2d 135, 189 Ill Dec 43, 619 NE2d 744 People v Ursini (1993, 2d Dist) 245 Ill App 3d 480, 185 Ill Dec 428, 614 NE2d 869 Kan State v Boster (1975) 217 Kan 618, 539 P2d 294 State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 932 P.2d 964 (1997) State v Boster, 217 Kan 618, 539 P2d 294 (citing annotation) State v Urban (1979) 3 Kan App 2d 367, 595 P2d 352 Md Dixon v State, 23 Md App 19, 327 A2d 516 (citing annotation) Mass Com. v. Daley, 423 Mass. 747, 672 N.E.2d 101 (1996) Mich People v Mersino (1984) 419 Mich 899, 352 NW2d 272 People v Toohey (1990) 183 Mich App 348, 454 NW2d 209, app gr, in part 436 Mich 880, 461 NW2d 367, later proceeding 438 Mich 1202, 475 NW2d 29 and revd on other gnds 438 Mich 265, 475 NW2d 16 Minn State v Hoven (1978, Minn) 269 NW2d 849 Mo State v Jones (1993, Mo) 865 SW2d 658 State v Peterson (1979, Mo App) 583 SW2d 277 State v Walker (1988, Mo App) 755 SW2d 404 State v Prince (1995, Mo App) 903 SW2d 944 NM State v Ruffino (1980) 94 NM 500, 612 P2d 1311 NY People v Galak (1992, 2d Dept) 182 App Div 2d 702, 582 NYS2d 469, app gr 79 NY2d 1049, 584 NYS2d 1016, 596 NE2d 414 People v Bonneau (1988) 140 Misc 2d 938, 531 NYS2d 1013 Ohio State v Cole (1994, Summit Co) 93 Ohio App 3d 712, 639 NE2d 859 Okla Skelly v State (1994, Okla Crim) 880 P2d 401 Or State v Corey (1993) 123 Or App 207, 859 P2d 560, review den 318 Or 351

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Pa Commonwealth v Brandt (Pa Super) 366 A2d 1238 (citing annotation) Tex Benavides v State (1980, Tex Crim) 600 SW2d 809 Rodriguez v State (1982, Tex App 7th Dist) 641 SW2d 955 Va United States v Brown (1986, CA4 Va) 787 F2d 929, cert den (US) 93 L Ed 2d 80, 107 S Ct 137 (applying Va law) Servis v Commonwealth (1988) 6 Va App 507, 371 SE2d 156 Wash State v Houser (1980) 95 Wash 2d 143, 622 P2d 1218 State v Simpson (1980) 95 Wash 2d 170, 622 P2d 1199 Wyo United States v Donnes (1990, DC Wyo) 752 F Supp 411

Although a contrary result may have been reached in an earlier California case, 17 the court in Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793, held that an inventory search of a car impounded by the police after its driver had been arrested for reckless driving was unlawful, because police custody of the car was unjustified since no reason appeared why his friends, who were passengers in the car, could not have taken charge of the vehicle. The court observed that the officer did not consult the driver's wishes or the willingness of his companions to drive the car to a place of safety, and concluded that in view of the fact that the driver protested the search, police custodial care of the car was not required, and absent such custody, no inventory was necessary or proper.

In People v Nagel (1971) 17 Cal App 3d 492, 95 Cal Rptr 129, involving a prosecution for possession of marijuana, the court ruled that where a driver was arrested for running a red light and there was no apparent reason why he could not have driven the vehicle to a nearby place of safekeeping, police custody of the car was neither necessary nor proper, and consequently, there was no legal justification for taking what the police asserted was an inventory of its contents. The arresting officer testified that after taking the driver into custody, he proceeded to impound the vehicle because he intended to take the driver to the station, which would have left the car unattended on the street in an illegal parking zone. He also testified that although usually under such circumstances he would obtain the arrestee's permission to move the vehicle to a legal location where it could be parked and locked, in the instant case there was no lawful parking spot in the immediate vicinity. Pointing out that the burden was on the prosecution to explain the necessity for taking the vehicle into police custody, the court noted that neither the arrest of the driver for the minor traffic infraction, nor the fact that he could not present a driver's license or other valid identification, had any connection with the necessity for police custodial care of his car. The court further pointed out that unlike the situation in which the arrested driver was drunk or injured, the driver in the instant case was sober, unhurt, and capable of driving. The court suggested that a reasonable alternative would have been for one of the arresting officers to move the automobile to a place of safety, and that while it would be unreasonable to require an officer to spend unusual time or effort to find a legal parking place, no unusual effort would have been required in the instant case, since the arrest was made on a Sunday. Accordingly, the court affirmed a judgment suppressing the incriminating evidence.

In People v Greenwood (1971, Colo) 484 P2d 1217, the court stated that since it was conceivable that a motorist arrested for speeding was erroneously advised at the police station as to the amount of bond he had to post for certain automobile violations, and that he would have posted bond had he been properly advised, the police might have lacked authority to impound his vehicle upon his failure to post the bond, and consequently have lacked authority to take an inventory of the contents, which resulted in the discovery of marijuana. After the arrest, he had driven his vehicle to the station at the request of the police officer and parked it in the municipal parking lot behind the station, locking it. Further investigation inside the station had revealed that he was driving with a suspended license, whereupon the police officer booked him for speeding as well as driving with a suspended license, and informed him that he would have to post a cash bond of $23 for the speeding charge and $300 for the other charge. As he was unable to immediately post the amount required in cash, he was incarcerated and required to hand over the keys to his locked car for the purpose of making an

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

inventory of the contents prior to having the car towed to an impounding garage. The court observed that it was possible that upon another hearing, a court might have found that the driver should have been released on posting only a $23 bond and signing a promise to appear on the charge of driving with a suspended license. The court reasoned further that it was conceivable that the driver would have posted the $23 bond if properly advised, and in that event, the police would have lacked the authority to impound the vehicle, and would have lacked the authority to take the inventory of the contents which resulted in the discovery of the incriminating evidence. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for further hearing and determination in this respect.

In Williams v United States (1961, Mun Ct App Dist Col) 170 A2d 233, involving a prosecution for carrying an unlicensed gun, found in an automobile which the police had previously instructed the owner to drive to a nearby station in order to post collateral on a speeding charge, the court stated that although it would not question the propriety of a police

regulation 18 which authorized the police officer to thoroughly search and make an inventory of the contents of an impounded, stolen, or abandoned automobile, there was no legal basis by which the police acquired control of the automobile in the instant case, and that therefore the search of the automobile, which revealed the weapon, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. The evidence indicated that when the driver was unable to post immediately the requisite bond on the speeding charge, the police impounded his vehicle because, according to their testimony, they could not leave it parked in front of the police station, and that they took an inventory of the vehicle pursuant to the abovementioned departmental regulation. Reversing a conviction, the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove, by merely showing that the automobile had been parked in front of the police station and that it had to be removed from the street, that the automobile was impounded pursuant to the police regulation.

Affirming a judgment suppressing evidence of narcotics paraphernalia discovered during an inventory search, the court in United States v Pannell (1969, Dist Col App) 256 A2d 925, where a police officer arrested the owner of an automobile for driving without a permit, impounded the vehicle, and made an inventory of its contents, held that under the circumstances of the case, the police had no reason to impound the car, and that their subsequent search of it was exploratory and therefore unlawful. Shortly after the arresting officer learned that the owner's permit had been revoked for operating a vehicle while under the influence of narcotics, he ordered the car impounded and an inventory of its contents made. Replying to the contention that once the car had been impounded, the police officer had a duty to inventory the contents of the automobile for the protection of the owner, the court stated that while it recognized the need of police authorities to protect, by proper inventory, both the property of those arrested, and themselves against future claims for property loss and damage, nevertheless the police must first have had a lawful basis for acquiring custody of the automobile before they could employ safekeeping methods such as an inventory of its contents. The court pointed out that it was significant that in the instant case, the inventory was taken before the police had booked the owner on the traffic charge for which he was arrested, and that although the officer stated that he impounded the car because there was no one available to remove it from the police parking lot within a reasonable time, there was nothing in the record to show that while parked on the lot, the car was obstructing police operations, or that it ran any risk of damage or theft between the time when the owner was being booked and the arrival of his representative, who was to drive the car away. The court went on to caution that it did not intend, by its decision, to invalidate inventory searches by the police of vehicles within their lawful custody, but emphasized that under the circumstances of the instant case, the police had no reason to impound the car, and that their subsequent search of it was therefore exploratory and forbidden.

Also holding impoundment is improper if officers fail to advise driver of their intention to impound vehicle unless driver can provide reasonable alternative:

Fla B. v State (1982, Fla App D2) 420 So 2d 114 Long v State (1982, Fla App D2) 422 So 2d 72 Ga Mitchell v State (1986) 178 Ga App 244, 342 SE2d 738

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

NY People v Griffin (1982) 116 Misc 2d 751, 456 NYS2d 334 Tenn State v Lunsford (1983, Tenn) 655 SW2d 921

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Search of defendant's vehicle was a valid inventory search after a traffic stop, where state trooper lawfully stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation, trooper learned defendant did not have a valid driver's license, there was no other licensed driver in the vehicle, vehicle was then impounded, and search was conducted pursuant to established procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Ewart, 130 A.D.3d 1062, 2015 WL 4546255 (2d Dep't 2015).

Where DEA agents had probable cause to believe that government had right to possession of defendant's car under federal forfeiture statute, inventory search of defendant's car following its seizure by police from common parking area was valid despite fact that antecedent seizure of car was actually illegal. United States v Pappas (1979, CA1) 613 F2d 324.

Police department's standard policy of impounding vehicles for safekeeping was reasonable and comported with Fourth Amendment, and thus police officers were justified in impounding defendant's vehicle incident to his arrest even though it was legally parked in commercial parking lot at the time, given vehicle's location in high-crime area, and fact that no one else was available to remove vehicle for safekeeping; officers did not require separate reason to impound. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Best, 415 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Conn. 2006).

To show the lawfulness of a vehicle inventory search, the government must first establish that the vehicle was lawfully in police custody. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Lynch, 290 F. Supp. 2d 490 (M.D. Pa. 2003).

Warrantless searches of automobiles impounded or otherwise lawfully in police custody are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when they are conducted pursuant to standard police procedures. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. McMillan, 2017 WL 44862 (W.D. Pa. 2017).

Police officers' decision to have defendant's motor vehicle towed was reasonable, and, thus, inventory search of the vehicle fell within exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, although, after police discovered defendant in medical distress behind the wheel of his parked vehicle, defendant's wife arrived at the scene to drive the vehicle home, where defendant lacked ability to give consent for his wife to take custody of the vehicle, and lead officer complied with police inventory policy in determining that it was necessary to have vehicle towed and inventoried. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Fort, 313 Fed. Appx. 665 (4th Cir. 2009).

A warrantless inventory search of a vehicle may be conducted only if police have lawfully taken custody of the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013).

Vehicle was not impounded according to standardized criteria, and therefore firearm found in warrantless search of vehicle was suppressed, even though vehicle may have been parked in violation of city ordinance; vehicle was not rendered unattended as a result of any police action, inasmuch as defendant had parked the vehicle, turned off the engine and headlamps, and begun to walk away. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Richards, 56 Fed. Appx. 667 (6th Cir. 2003).

Officer was prohibited under Fourth Amendment from conducting inventory search of vehicle before seizing it. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Richards, 147 F. Supp. 2d 786 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

For an inventory search of a car to be legal, both the decision to take the car into custody and the concomitant inventory search must meet the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Cartwright, 630 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010).

Warrantless inventory searches of cars in police custody are proper as long as the police lawfully have custody of the vehicles. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Cherry, 436 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2006).

Police officers' impoundment of defendant's vehicle after they arrested defendant violated the Fourth Amendment, since it did not reasonably occur in conjunction with officers' community care-taking role and was not pursuant to a reasonable police department policy; policy permitting impoundment of vehicle left on the street in certain circumstances did not apply because defendant's vehicle had been left parked on the private property of an auto body shop, and statement in policy that officer would determine whether to impound an arrestee's vehicle following a custodial arrest set forth no criteria by which impound decision was to be made, and for all practical purposes, did not constitute a policy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Osborne, 489 F. Supp. 2d 860 (C.D. Ill. 2007).

Inventory of lawfully impounded automobile, where standard police procedures are followed, is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Bridges, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (S.D. Iowa 2003).

Law enforcement officers may search a lawfully-impounded vehicle to inventory its contents without obtaining a warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Ceruti, 2011 WL 5118970 (W.D. Mo. 2011).

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle, after he had been stopped and arrested, was not justified under the community caretaking doctrine, and thus the warrantless seizure and subsequent inventory search of the vehicle was not constitutionally reasonable; vehicle was lawfully parked in a residential neighborhood and did not create a hazard to other drivers or jeopardize the efficient movement of vehicular traffic, evidence was insufficient to establish that the vehicle presented a target for vandalism or theft, and the impounding officer did not sufficiently consider alternatives before impounding the vehicle, but denied defendant's request to be allowed to call his mother so that she could drive the vehicle home. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Rogers, 156 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (E.D. Cal. 2016), appeal dismissed, (9th Circ. 16-10059)(Mar. 1, 2016).

Police officers' inventory search of suspect's truck, following suspect's apprehension with probable cause for arrest and prior to truck's impoundment, did not violate Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Kilgore v. City of Stroud, 158 Fed. Appx. 944 (10th Cir. 2005).

Impoundment of vehicle, as basis for inventory search following defendant's arrest, was not supported by a community- caretaking rationale, as would be required under Fourth Amendment; vehicle was appropriately parked in private parking lot adjacent to several businesses, officers made no effort to consult with lot's owner or managers of adjacent businesses regarding possibility of leaving vehicle where it was parked, officers could have called a member of defendant's family to retrieve the vehicle, vehicle did not appear to have been involved in alleged offenses underlying warrant for defendant's arrest, and there was no suggestion that defendant or vehicle's absent owner consented to impoundment and inventory search. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Chavira, 157 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (D.N.M. 2015).

Police officer had no reason to conduct inventory search of vehicle belonging to man who suffered seizure at roadside commercial service area, so that search was improper, since vehicle could have been stored at service area, man had not been arrested, and there was no indication that weapon or other object harmful to third parties was inside vehicle. U.S. v. Roth, 944 F. Supp. 858 (D. Wyo. 1996).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

See United States v Ibarra (1989, DC Wyo) 725 F Supp 1195, reconsideration den (DC Wyo) 731 F Supp 1037 and app dismd (CA10 Wyo) 920 F2d 702, vacated (US) 116 L Ed 2d 1, 112 S Ct 4, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12656 (vacating judgt and ruling that 30–day period of limitation began to run on date not to reconsider was denied), § 7[b].

Warrantless search of defendant's truck was a valid inventory search after it was impounded, and therefore, did not violate the Fourth Amendment; police had authority to impound truck due to it having been used in multiple traffic crimes, officer had observed defendant driving 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, defendant had no driver's license, defendant was unable to produce proof of registration or insurance, officer stopped defendant at gas station, and it would not have been reasonable for officer to leave truck for gas station owner to handle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Vladeff, 630 Fed. Appx. 998 (11th Cir. 2015).

To the extent that police detective lawfully impounded the defendant's overdue rental car at the request of rental company, he permissibly could conduct an inventory search of the car, including a search of closed containers, according to standardized criteria in policy manual and established police department routine; policy manual stated that it was police department's policy to safeguard and properly document the contents of towed conveyances and contents, "whether locked, opened or closed, shall be ascertained and inventoried," and detective indicated that it was normal police department procedure to search and inventory any vehicle that was being towed, even if it was being impounded at the request of a private party and not for criminal conduct. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Handy, 592 Fed. Appx. 893 (11th Cir. 2015).

Police were not entitled to remove vehicle from its location, and therefore, post–impoundment inventory search was not justified; vehicle was not owned by defendant, tip that defendant stored drugs and a firearm in apartment did not mention vehicle was used for drug trafficking, vehicle was not illegally parked, and agents did not obtain an order of forfeiture prior to conducting search of vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Holly, 219 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2002).

Police officer conducted inventory search of driver's vehicle pursuant to city's tow policy, and therefore, did not require probable cause to search vehicle after arranging tow for vehicle when it was rendered inoperable in an accident. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Boans v. Town of Cheektowaga, 5 F. Supp. 3d 364 (W.D. N.Y. 2014).

Under the Fourth Amendment, impounding of defendant's vehicle following his arrest, for purpose of preventing it from being vandalized or stolen, was a permissible warrantless seizure under the vehicle impound doctrine, such that inventory search of the vehicle, during which five cell phones were discovered, was lawful. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lustig, 3 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

Inventory search was reasonable where officer had lawful possession of vehicle and would not have been warranted in leaving automobile in control of incoherent owner. Re One 1965 Econoline, 109 Ariz 433, 511 P2d 168.

Officers, in impounding drug defendant's vehicle, did not rely in good faith upon the district court's standing order authorizing impoundment of vehicle for failure to provide proof of insurance and, thus, evidence seized during inventory search of vehicle was subject to suppression; while both officers testified at the suppression hearing that the insurance card produced by defendant was expired, four other witnesses, in addition to defendant, testified that the car was validly insured, and officers who impounded the car took inventory had no record at all of what they discovered in their search of defendant's vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.C.A. § 27–22–104(a)(2). State v. Kelley, 362 Ark. 636, 210 S.W.3d 93 (2005).

Marijuana odor emanating from defendant and the vehicle, alone, provided reasonable suspicion to detain defendant to determine the lawfulness of his conduct and, depending on circumstances, to search the vehicle, to arrest him, and to inventory-search car in preparation for towing and impounding. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Blair v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 623, 447 S.W.3d 608 (2014).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Vehicle may be impounded and inventoried only as result of lawful arrest. Mounts v State (1994) 48 Ark App 1, 888 SW2d 321.

When an inventory search is conducted based on a decision to impound a vehicle, the reviewing court focuses on the purpose of the impound rather than the purpose of the inventory, since an inventory search conducted pursuant to an unreasonable impound is itself unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651. People v. Williams, 145 Cal. App. 4th 756, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 (2d Dist. 2006).

The seizure of vehicles by the police for caretaking purposes, as well as an inventory of the contents of vehicles lawfully in government custody, can amount to reasonable searches and seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, without regard for either probable cause or a warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Brown, 2018 CO 27, 415 P.3d 815 (Colo. 2018).

Impoundment of defendant's car was unreasonable, even where department policy allowed officers to impound a vehicle, and therefore, subsequent inventory search was unlawful, and any evidence found should have been suppressed; defendant had not been arrested prior to inventory search, and therefore could have remained to safeguard his car, or called someone to arrange for car's removal, and police caretaking function would not have been implicated, regardless of defendant's inability to drive car with a suspended license. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Brown, 2016 COA 150, 417 P.3d 868 (Colo. App. 2016), cert. granted, 2017 WL 3016379 (Colo. 2017) and judgment aff'd, 2018 CO 27, 415 P.3d 815 (Colo. 2018).

Inventory search of the contents of the vehicle may be made by an officer who has validly taken a vehicle into custody. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Grenier, 200 P.3d 1062 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied, 2009 WL 377044 (Colo. 2009).

Evidence did not indicate that defendant's vehicle was towed prior to search warrant issued for vehicle, and thus, evidence of gun, magazine containing round of ammunition, and additional ammunition found in vehicle were not subject to suppression in prosecution for attempt to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, assault, and alteration of firearm identification number; no evidence was presented that the vehicle was towed prior to the issuance of the warrant, whereas testimony was given by one officer familiar with the investigation that the vehicle was towed after the issuance of the warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Barlow, 70 Conn. App. 232, 797 A.2d 605 (2002).

The court must determine whether the impoundment of the vehicle was justified, and not just a pretext to an exploratory search of a vehicle; in making that determination, the court should consider the reason for the impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Tyler v. State, 185 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Automobile was not in police custody following intersection accident, precluding admission of drugs found in vehicle by investigating officer, where driver did not turn over custody to police simply by agreeing to use of tow service summoned by police; accordingly, search of vehicle could not be sustained as valid inventory search. Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988).

Although defendant's motor vehicle had expired license plates, police officer did not have the authority under Florida law to have the vehicle impounded and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless inventory search of the vehicle prior to towing and impounding was unreasonable; statute prohibiting motor vehicles with expired license plates from operating on roads did not authorize the impounding of such vehicles, and there was no evidence in the record suggesting that defendant's vehicle was illegally parked or created any type of traffic hazard. West's F.S.A. § 320.07. Morris v. State, 958 So. 2d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Seizure of evidence was permissible as incident of proper impoundment where officer acted reasonably by choosing to impound vehicle given fact that he originally stopped defendant for driving on wrong side of road, after which stopped car was obstructing traffic; defendant exhibited signs of intoxication and his attempts to complete several sobriety tests were not altogether successful. Officer was not compelled to provide defendant with alternative to impoundment but was instead entitled to make discretionary decision to impound vehicle or not to do so. Green v. State, 550 So. 2d 535 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1989).

See McClendon v. State, 476 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1985), § 7[b].

State's burden of showing that impoundment was reasonable and necessary failed absent notice by police to driver arrested for driving with suspended license, that impoundment need not occur if reasonable alternative is provided; drugs found during inventory search were suppressed. Shufty v State (1982, Fla App D2) 419 So 2d 1171.

Evidence seized in inventory search was inadmissible on grounds search was illegal, where officer did not inform driver vehicle would be towed and give driver reasonable opportunity to avoid impoundment of vehicle. Moore v State (1982, Fla App D5) 417 So 2d 1131.

Since purpose of impoundment and inventory search of automobile was protection of vehicle and contents, inventory search of car with improper license plates was illegal where officer did not as required advise driver, who was present at scene and arrested for loitering, that his car would be impounded unless he could provide reasonable alternative to impoundment and conviction based on evidence found in trunk during search would be reversed. Stevens v State (1982, Fla App D2) 412 So 2d 456.

In prosecution for possession of marijuana, which was discovered during inventory search under automobile floor mat, denial of defendant's motion to suppress was reversible error as there was no legal justification for impounding defendant's automobile where (1) police officers approached vehicle which was legally parked in high crime area, (2) defendant was arrested on charge of municipal contempt of court warrant after teletype check of identification, and (3) police officers denied defendant option of leaving vehicle there or having friend drive car away as requested, in disregard of controlling law and police department regulations. Tolbert v State (1977, Fla App D4) 348 So 2d 623.

Ultimate test for the validity of police seizure and inventory search of automobile is whether, under the circumstances then confronting the police, their conduct was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Wright v. State, 579 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. 2003).

The test for determining whether an inventory search was authorized is whether, under the circumstances, the officer's conduct in impounding the vehicle was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Stroud v. State, 812 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

While the police may not impound a car to search for contraband, they may impound a vehicle if they must take charge of it for some reason; and ultimately, the test for the validity of the police's conduct is whether, under the circumstances then confronting the police, their conduct was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. McCloud, 810 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Justification for an inventory search of an impounded vehicle is premised upon the validity of the impoundment of the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Ahmad v. State, 312 Ga. App. 703, 719 S.E.2d 563 (2011).

To justify an inventory search of a vehicle, the impoundment of the vehicle must be reasonably necessary. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Bell v. State, 302 Ga. App. 519, 691 S.E.2d 573 (2010).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Record supported finding that impoundment of drug defendant's vehicle was not reasonably necessary, and thus inventory search of vehicle prior to impoundment was not authorized; defendant was arrested on a violation of a municipal ordinance unconnected with his car, car was legally and safely parked on private property, defendant did not request that the car be removed, and defendant was not asked if there was anyone who could retrieve his vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Bell, 577 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Where defendant was arrested for possession of beer in park and stated that parked vehicle belonged to relative, officer's failure to attempt to contact relative, or to inquire as to whether defendant's companion, who was not arrested, could be trusted with vehicle, before impounding vehicle rendered impoundment and subsequent search improper. Strobhert v State (1983) 165 Ga App 515, 301 SE2d 681.

Inventory search of motor vehicle following arrest of driver for drunk driving was unreasonable where driver selected towing service for his vehicle. Mulling v State (1980) 156 Ga App 404, 274 SE2d 770.

Impoundment of vehicle following arrest of driver for driving while intoxicated was not reasonable, and inventory search leading to discovery of cash and gambling paraphernalia was unlawful, where car was lawfully parked and perfectly safe, and where arresting officer made no attempt to comply with driver's request that her husband be contacted for purposes of picking up vehicle. State v Thomason (1980) 153 Ga App 345, 265 SE2d 312.

Where automobile did not have to be removed from public highway in interest of public safety nor was automobile forfeited under authority of statute, but rather automobile was parked off street in parking lot of unused night club, impounding of automobile was unauthorized and subsequent search was unlawful, although purportedly made as inventory of car pursuant to standard police department procedure. Dunkum v State, 138 Ga App 321, 226 SE2d 133.

Although inventory searches of impounded vehicles' contents constitute an exception to the warrant requirement, an inventory search is not valid unless the police first obtain lawful possession of the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Stewart, 152 Idaho 868, 276 P.3d 740 (Ct. App. 2012), review denied, (May 22, 2012).

Threshold issue in considering whether the police have conducted a valid inventory search incident to a tow of defendant's vehicle is whether the impoundment of the vehicle is proper. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Fellers, 413 Ill. Dec. 187, 77 N.E.3d 994 (App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2016).

See People v Paarlberg (1993, 3d Dist) 243 Ill App 3d 731, 183 Ill Dec 849, 612 NE2d 106, § 7[b].

Where vehicle was originally removed by private towing company at police request and where tow report indicated vehicle was eligible for release, police did not have sufficient custodial interest to justify subsequent inventory search. People ex rel. Burmila v One 1987 Cadillac (1990, 3d Dist) 206 Ill App 3d 407, 151 Ill Dec 433, 564 NE2d 885.

Where bowling alley robber was arrested after returning to scene of crime seven months later, warrantless seizure and search of suspect's car, which was lawfully parked on public street, could not be justified as routine police impoundment practice on basis of need for protection of owner's property, or to protect police against claims of loss or theft. People v Brown (1981) 100 Ill App 3d 57, 55 Ill Dec 429, 426 NE2d 575.

See People v Velleff (1981) 94 Ill App 3d 820, 50 Ill Dec 222, 419 NE2d 89, § 7[b].

Impounding of vehicle and resultant search were improper where vehicle was parked in restaurant lot, impounding of vehicle was not part of investigation of crime for which defendant was arrested, and owner of lot had not requested that vehicle be moved; evidence obtained from vehicle should have been suppressed. People v Schultz (1981) 93 Ill App 3d 1071, 49 Ill Dec 362, 418 NE2d 6.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Officers had no right to move automobile from legal parking place at motel after arrest of defendants at motel, and any subsequent inventory custodial search was unlawful. People v Von Hatten (1977) 52 Ill App 3d 338, 10 Ill Dec 168, 367 NE2d 556.

A vehicle's impoundment is warranted, as required for a valid inventory search of the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment, when it is part of routine administrative caretaking functions of the police or when it is authorized by statute. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).

Sheriff deputy's decision to impound defendant's vehicle after deputy initiated a valid traffic stop, discovered defendant's driving privileges were suspended, and gave defendant opportunity to have someone come get the vehicle, was reasonable, for purposes of determining validity of deputy's warrantless inventory search of the vehicle, where no one came to retrieve the vehicle, and vehicle was parked 16 to 18 inches from curb in a position in which it could potentially impede traffic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Weathers v. State, 61 N.E.3d 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Inventory search by police of properly impounded vehicle was reasonable under Fourth Amendment, even though police officers failed to list all items found in vehicle during inventory search as required by police department's established policy, where police decision to impound vehicle was unquestionably reasonable, nothing suggested police officers began inventory search as a pretext for looking for evidence of crime, and photographs taken by police evidence technician after inventory search was completed provided photographic record of vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Whitley v. State, 47 N.E.3d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), transfer denied, 46 N.E.3d 445 (Ind. 2016).

Valid "inventory search" is a warrantless search of a lawfully impounded automobile if the search is designed to produce an inventory of the vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Berry v. State, 2012 WL 1553063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

In determining reasonableness of inventory search, propriety of the impoundment must be established because the need for the inventory arises from the impoundment, and the scope of the inventory must be evaluated; where either is clearly unreasonable, the search will not be upheld. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Lucas, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

In determining the propriety of an inventory search of a vehicle after impoundment, the threshold question is whether the impoundment itself was proper. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Jones v. State, 856 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Threshold question in cases involving the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement is whether the impoundment of the subject vehicle itself was improper. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Gonser v. State, 843 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

In order to establish that impoundment of vehicle was proper, so that warrantless search of vehicle does not violate Fourth Amendment, the state must demonstrate: (1) belief that vehicle posed some threat or harm to the community or that it was itself imperiled was consistent with objective standards of sound policing, and (2) the decision to combat that threat by impoundment was in keeping with established departmental routine or regulation of law enforcement. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Evidence found during inventory search of vehicle had been impounded illegally was properly excluded. State v Baldwin (1986, Iowa) 396 NW2d 192.

See State v Kuster (1984, Iowa) 353 NW2d 428, § 8[b].

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Impoundment of vehicle was unreasonable where defendant was pulled over by officer for suspected equipment violations, defendant parked in liquor store parking lot open to public, defendant's car was not obstructing traffic or otherwise presenting danger to public or nuisance, vehicle itself was in no danger of theft or vandalism, and no effort was made by police to allow defendant to provide for care of his vehicle. Even if impoundment had been reasonable, inventory search exceeded permissible scope where officers opened over–the–counter medicine bottle and tin box found in glove compartment, outward appearance of which did not indicate that they held dangerous instrumentalities; safekeeping purpose of inventory could have been fully accomplished by noting containers as Comtrex bottle and tin box without opening them. State v Casteel (1986, Iowa App) 392 NW2d 168.

Impoundment of vehicle of individual who had no driver's license or liability insurance but who was not under arrest was unlawful, and therefore contents of vehicle seized as result of impoundment would be suppressed, where although occupant of vehicle was capable of making decisions about whether to leave his car parked or to arrange for someone else to move or tow it, he was not consulted. Therefore, under facts of case, police officer did not have reasonable basis to impound vehicle. State v Teeter (1991) 249 Kan 548, 819 P2d 651.

Police officers lacked statutory authority or other reasonable grounds to impound defendant's vehicle, thus rendering inventory search unlawful; at time of defendant's arrest, his vehicle was not unattended, illegally parked, or obstructing traffic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Branstetter, 199 P.3d 1272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

Since the need for an inventory search arises only after police seize a vehicle without a warrant, the lawfulness of that inventory search turns first upon the reasonableness of the seizure. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Cobb v. Commonwealth, 509 S.W.3d 705 (Ky. 2017).

Inventory search of car after driver's arrest for drunk driving was unreasonable where car could have safely been parked and locked in neighborhood or could have been picked up by relative of driver. City of Danville v Dawson (Ky) 528 SW2d 687.

Defendant's vehicle was lawfully in custody of police when it was impounded, for purposes of determining whether inventory search of vehicle's contents constituted illegal search; officer initiated traffic stop for speeding, defendant was sole occupant of vehicle, radio check revealed that defendant's driver's license had been suspended, registration check showed that Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) had suspended tags and that there was pick-up order for tags, officer testified that when they encounter "pick-up order," they are required to remove tags from vehicle and return them to MVA, and even if defendant was accompanied by licensed driver, no one would have been permitted to drive vehicle without tags. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Paynter, 234 Md. App. 252, 170 A.3d 891 (2017).

Under both the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions, an inventory search of an impounded vehicle is lawful only if, first, the seizure, or impoundment, of the vehicle was reasonable, and, second, the search of the vehicle that follows its seizure was conducted in accord with standard police written procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Oliveira, 474 Mass. 10, 47 N.E.3d 395 (2016) (applying Massachusetts law).

The underlying impoundment of a vehicle must be the first part of the analysis of whether an inventory search, as an exception to the warrant requirement, was reasonable; if the impoundment was unreasonable, then the resulting search was also unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Rohde, 852 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 2014).

Impoundment of vehicle was unreasonable, and inventory search incident to impoundment violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights where defendant called mother and brother who came to scene to drive away automobile after defendant had been arrested for drunk driving; mere fact that automobile was not registered to defendant did not furnish basis for impounding vehicle in absence of reason to believe that defendant was wrongfully in possession of it. State v Goodrich (1977, Minn) 256 NW2d 506.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

To determine whether an inventory search, which falls under an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is reasonable, the threshold inquiry is the propriety of the impoundment itself, since the act of impoundment gives rise to the need for and justification of the inventory; if impoundment is not necessary, then the concomitant search is unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Rohde, 839 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).

An inventory search of an automobile is permitted where: (1) the police have lawfully impounded the automobile, and (2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. McDowell, 519 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2017), reh'g and/or transfer denied, (Apr. 27, 2017) and transfer denied, (June 27, 2017) and transfer denied.

For there to be a lawful inventory search, as exception to warrant requirement, there must be a lawful impoundment of the property at issue. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; N.J. Const. art. 1, par. 7. State v. Hummel, 232 N.J. 196, 179 A.3d 366 (2018).

Decision to "impound" car after its driver was arrested was not reasonable, and thus there was no basis for inventory search of vehicle, where there was no general, statutory authority giving police right to impound vehicle stopped on street, where driver or defendant passenger could have moved vehicle to lawful parking area and locked it, and where police had alternative of turning vehicle over to defendant in accordance with driver's wishes, inasmuch as they apparently planned to release car to defendant following impoundment and inventorying. State v McDaniel (1978) 156 NJ Super 347, 383 A2d 1174 (citing annotation).

Inventory search of vehicle, which had been leased by defendant, after police had relinquished possession, custody and control of vehicle to lessor was not constitutionally permissible absent search warrant; search could not be justified as incident to caretaking function since police were no longer burdened with that responsibility. State v Clark (App) 89 NM 695, 556 P2d 851.

See People v Scott (1994, App Div, 4th Dept) 621 NYS2d 260, § 7[a].

Police officer's seizure of cocaine during inventory search of vehicle did not violate suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, where officer had received information that "suspicious looking male" was sitting in vehicle, officer observed suspect exit vehicle, suspect did not have valid driver's license and did not know where car's owner was, officer decided to impound and tow vehicle for safekeeping, and inventory search was conducted pursuant to standardized procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Majors, 828 N.Y.S.2d 866 (City Ct. 2007).

In determining whether tangible property was lawfully seized during inventory search of vehicle, court must first decide distinct, though overlapping, issue whether police had authority to impound vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Francis, 12 Misc. 3d 781, 819 N.Y.S.2d 393 (Sup 2006).

Purported inventory search of vehicle was unlawful, requiring reversal of conviction for possession of stolen firearm found in unlocked trunk, where officers, after executing liquor warrant at nightclub, seized locked vehicle left in club's parking lot on pretext of preventing possible theft or vandalism, finding gun in trunk, but seizure to prevent vandalism of vehicle lawfully parked on private property was not authorized by city's inventory–search procedures or allowed by Fourth Amendment, and where police did not wait sufficient time to permit conclusion that vehicle had been abandoned. State v Peaten (1993) 110 NC App 749, 431 SE2d 237.

The inventory search of a vehicle under the community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement must follow a lawful impoundment of that vehicle and must not be a pretext for an evidentiary search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Leak, 2016-Ohio-154, 47 N.E.3d 821 (Ohio 2016).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Warrantless search of trunk of vehicle in which defendant was passenger did not come within "inevitable discovery" exception to warrant requirement, given illegality of stop for lack of probable cause and lack of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify investigatory detention. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. Wood County 2018).

Lawfulness of police custody of a vehicle—arising typically but not necessarily by impoundment—is generally a preliminary and distinct issue to be addressed when determining the lawfulness of an inventory search. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Foster, 2017-Ohio-4036, 90 N.E.3d 1282 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. Hamilton County 2017).

Evidence that defendant, when arrested for disorderly conduct and public intoxication, told police officers he was not supposed to be driving because he did not have a valid driver's license, and officer's testimony that he impounded defendant's vehicle pursuant to a police department general order, established that the impoundment was lawful, as element for allowing inventory search under Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Cook, 143 Ohio App. 3d 386, 758 N.E.2d 213 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2001), dismissed, appeal not allowed, 93 Ohio St. 3d 1412, 754 N.E.2d 260 (2001).

Impoundment and subsequent inventory search of defendant's car were illegal, where defendant's car was not abandoned, but was legally parked when searched, and defendant was not arrested in car on public highway; no pressing public concern justified removal of car from legal parking space. State v Collura (1991, Cuyahoga Co) 72 Ohio App 3d 364, 594 NE2d 975, dismd, motion overr 60 Ohio St 3d 718, 574 NE2d 1079.

Police had no authority to impound properly parked automobile merely because police had taken driver into custody for offense unrelated to vehicle, since driver could have called family member or friend to have vehicle moved to place of safekeeping. State v. Duncan, 77 Ohio Misc. 2d 7, 665 N.E.2d 767 (C.P. 1996).

Impound of defendant's automobile from his friend's driveway, after defendant had abandoned automobile, constituted an illegal seizure, in violation of Fourth Amendment; state offered no law, ordinance, or police department policy authorizing the impound, nor did it claim that defendant's friend requested that automobile be removed from her property. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV; Const. Art. 2, § 30. McGaughey v. State, 2001 OK CR 33, 37 P.3d 130 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).

Inventory search of vehicle, which revealed 61 pounds of marijuana, could not be justified by feigned arrest made by private security guard who, after conferring with officers he had summoned to convenience store that was not his patrol responsibility, made citizen's arrest on bogus trespassing charge arising from defendant's presence at shopping center two hours earlier. Tomlin v State (1994, Okla Crim) 869 P2d 334.

Officers may inventory the contents of a vehicle consistently with state constitution, if (1) they lawfully have impounded the vehicle and (2) they conduct the inventory pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program that limits their discretion. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Connally, 339 Or. 583, 125 P.3d 1254 (2005).

In determining the validity of a purported inventory of a vehicle impounded by police, the first step is to determine the source of the authority for custody, and the officer conducting the inventory cannot deviate from the procedures established in the inventory policy. State v. Tschantre, 182 Or. App. 313, 50 P.3d 1174 (2002).

Once the police have taken lawful custody of a vehicle, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle if concerns for an inventory search arise. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Thompson, 2010 PA Super 126, 999 A.2d 616 (2010).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In determining whether a proper inventory search has occurred, the first inquiry is whether the police have lawfully impounded the automobile, i.e., have lawful custody of the automobile; the authority of the police to impound vehicles derives from the police's reasonable community care-taking functions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Chambers, 2007 PA Super 81, 920 A.2d 892 (2007).

An inventory search of an automobile is permitted where: (1) the police have lawfully impounded the automobile, and (2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Henley, 2006 PA Super 276, 909 A.2d 352 (2006).

A vehicle which has simply been immobilized in place is not in the lawful custody of police for purposes of an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 8. Com. v. Lagenella, 83 A.3d 94 (Pa. 2013).

For an inventory search to be valid, the vehicle searched should first be in the valid custody of the law enforcement officers conducting the inventory; the question is whether the police officer's decision to impound was reasonable under the circumstances. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Miller, 814 S.E.2d 166 (S.C. 2018).

See Capps v State (Tenn) 505 SW2d 727, § 12[a].

Where defendant's car was lawfully parked in private parking lot, decision whether to impound it should have been left to defendant and thus search was not justifiable as inventory search. Smith v State (1988, Tex App 14th Dist) 759 SW2d 163.

Inventory search was justified where police followed statute by impounding vehicle with altered or obliterated vehicle identification number. Turner v State (1982, Tex App 14th Dist) 642 SW2d 216.

Law enforcement officers may impound a vehicle and inventory its contents when the driver is removed from her automobile and placed under custodial arrest and no other alternatives are available other than impoundment to insure the protection of the vehicle. Harris v. State, 468 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2015).

Inventory search is not rendered unlawful because it is conducted prior to actual impoundment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Jackson v. State, 468 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2015).

Following traffic stop and defendant's arrest, defendant's truck was not legally impounded, as required for inventory search, since status of passenger's driver's license was never established, video showed officer attempting to justify search after he found contraband, passenger was ultimately allowed to walk to city hall to address traffic tickets, and police did not conduct further inventory after contraband was found. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Cook, 389 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2012).

An inventory search is permissible under the federal and state constitutions if it is conducted pursuant to a lawful impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 296 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. El Paso 2009).

Impounding of vehicle, driven by defendant cited for driving on suspended license, pursuant to community caretaking doctrine was improper, and thus evidence seized during subsequent inventory search of vehicle had to be suppressed, where defendant's vehicle was properly parked, vehicle did not obstruct free flow of traffic, pose a trespassory presence on private property, or violate any parking ordinances, defendant was not taken into custody or removed from scene, evidence failed to show defendant was unable to arrange for vehicle's removal to another location, and there was no evidence that, prior to impoundment, defendant had property in car, subject to theft or vandalism. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. King v. Com., 572 S.E.2d 518 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle violated Washington law, and therefore, search of vehicle was not a valid inventory search, where officer verified vehicle belonged to defendant, vehicle was not abandoned or threatening public safety or convenience, and defendant offered to have a friend move vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Maddox, 614 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying Washington law).

The requirement that an inventory search of an impounded vehicle be conducted in good faith is a limitation that precludes an inventory search as a pretext for an investigatory search. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 302 P.3d 165 (Wash. 2013).

Even though officer's impoundment of vehicle after defendant was transported to hospital following automobile accident was authorized by statute, officer failed to consider reasonable alternatives to impoundment, and therefore, subsequent search of vehicle did not qualify under inventory exception to warrant requirement; officer had the opportunity to have discussions with defendant on several issues before she left the scene, but did not ask defendant about any other alternatives besides impoundment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Wash. Const. art. 1, § 7; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 46.55.113(2) (b), (c). State v. Froehlich, 197 Wash. App. 831, 391 P.3d 559 (Div. 2 2017).

See State v Stortroen (1989) 53 Wash App 654, 769 P2d 321, § 7[b].

Inventory conducted after defendant's arrest on warrant for minor traffic violation was unlawful, since there was no reasonable cause for impoundment of vehicle in that defendant did not request it, car was not illegally parked after arrest and could have been left parked with windows and doors locked, defendant's presence at police station to post bail required only temporary absence from vehicle, and if it became necessary to remove car later, defendant could have made arrangements with his wife. State v Singleton, 9 Wash App 327, 511 P2d 1396.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 5[b] Validity as depending on lawful custody of vehicle—Rule that lawful custody of vehicle accords police lawful custody of its contents

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following case supports the proposition, as one theory of justification of inventory searches, that where a vehicle is in the lawful custody of the police as an incident to its having been impounded, the contents of such vehicle are also legally in their possession.

For overruled California cases, see § 5[c], infra.

In Heffley v State (1967) 83 Nev 100, 423 P2d 666, involving a prosecution for burglary, it was held that where a driver was arrested on the highway for unlawful possession of a pistol, and his car was removed to a police station where an officer conducted an inventory search of the vehicle, the search was lawful since, from the time of seizure of the car until the inventory at the police station, the vehicle was in the lawful custody of police officers. The court stated that under these circumstances the search without a warrant could not be said to be "unreasonable." Noting that the officers had the responsibility to inventory the unusually large number of guns which were in plain view on the rear seat, the court ruled that the requirement to inventory placed the officers in lawful possession of everything they found in the car at the time that it was taken into custody.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Absence of "exigent circumstances," did not preclude warrantless search of car conducted after police arrested defendant passenger for possession of open intoxicants in motor vehicle, truck was called to tow automobile of which defendant claimed ownership, and in searching vehicle (pursuant to departmental policy that impounded vehicles be searched prior to being towed) two bags of marijuana were found in unlocked glove compartment, and loaded revolver was found in subsequent search of air vent under dashboard. Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 102 S. Ct. 3079, 73 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1982).

If probable cause to believe vehicle contains contraband or other seizable items existed at time vehicle is seized and impounded, delayed warrantless search is no less valid than if searched at time of seizure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Price v. Phelps, 894 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D. Del. 2012).

Police search of impounded vehicle, which revealed packets of heroin in ashtray, was proper, where vehicle was lawfully impounded after parole violator drove it to parole office at which he was arrested, and where girlfriend who was to drive truck from parole office did not have license. United States v Ponce (1993, CA5 Tex) 8 F3d 989.

Law enforcement officers may conduct a warrantless search of a motor vehicle and inventory its contents in order to protect the owner's property, to protect the police against claims of lost or stolen property, and to protect the police from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).

Once probable cause is established, a vehicle can be searched without a warrant under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement; exception likewise applies to an inventory search conducted after the vehicle was towed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Sanchez, 417 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2005).

Authorities who legally seize an automobile are entitled to inventory the contents of the automobile and take possession of the items found therein. U.S. v. LaFountain, 252 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D.N.D. 2003).

Inasmuch as officers were entitled to engage in warrantless search of defendant's rental car, it was irrelevant that, when warrant was eventually issued for search of vehicle, magistrate relied on observations that agent made while defendant's companion was rummaging through vehicle for her belongings. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended, (Mar. 5, 2001).

Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car, the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651. People v. Williams, 145 Cal. App. 4th 756, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 (2d Dist. 2006).

If a vehicle is lawfully impounded by the police and police policy requires an inventory search of its contents, then evidence found during such an inventory search is admissible. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Radcliff, 305 Ill. App. 3d 493, 238 Ill. Dec. 702, 712 N.E.2d 424 (5th Dist. 1999).

Warrantless search of defendant's truck was not justified by exigent circumstances, as police properly impounded truck, and thus, truck did not fall into automobile exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; vehicle was no longer inherently mobile and was not likely to disappear. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Edwards v. State, 768 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Critical factor in approving an inventory search is whether the search was carried out in accordance with the standard procedure of law enforcement agency. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Volkman, 675 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).

The personal effects in an arrestee's possession may be the subject of an inventory search conducted as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station house incident to booking and jailing. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; N.J.S.A. Const. Art. 1, par. 7. State v. Oyenusi, 387 N.J. Super. 146, 903 A.2d 467 (App. Div. 2006).

Following lawful arrest of driver of automobile that must then be impounded, police may conduct inventory search of vehicle pursuant to established police regulations. People v. Morman, 145 A.D.3d 1435, 43 N.Y.S.3d 619 (4th Dep't 2016).

Where officers had clear probable cause to arrest, they were fully authorized to conduct inventory search of impounded vehicle. People v Wilson (1990, 2d Dept) 161 App Div 2d 742, 555 NYS2d 875, app den 76 NY2d 868, 560 NYS2d 1008, 561 NE2d 908.

Car that is lawfully in police custody is subject to routine inventory search to catalogue its contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Francis, 12 Misc. 3d 781, 819 N.Y.S.2d 393 (Sup 2006).

For purposes of inventory-search exception to warrant requirement, inventory search is predicated on the interest in protecting the owner's property while it is in police custody, protecting the police against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and protecting the police against danger posed by the inventoried property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Ressler, 2005 ND 140, 701 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2005).

Where defendant was arrested in Tennessee for murder committed in Pennsylvania, it was reasonable to assume defendant could not have made viable alternative arrangements for his vehicle and thus impoundment and investigatory search were proper. Commonwealth v Hernandez (1991, Pa Super) 590 A2d 325.

An inventory search of a vehicle subsequent to its impoundment is proper when the vehicle's impoundment is proper. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Roberts v. State, 444 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2014).

An impounded vehicle may be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause; stolen property may be seized and impounded for the true owner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Fineron v. State, 201 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. El Paso 2006).

See Dotson v State (1990, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 785 SW2d 848, § 12[a].

Fact that officers could have secured search warrant for murder defendant's car, either before towing it or before searching it at police station, did not render automobile exception to warrant requirement inapplicable. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; W.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 11. State v. Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, 635 N.W.2d 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 5[c] Validity as depending on lawful custody of vehicle—Rule that lawful custody of vehicle does not dispense with constitutional requirements of search

[Cumulative Supplement]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

The following cases support the view that mere legal custody of a vehicle does not create a possessory right in its contents so as to validate an inventory search without reference to the constitutional requirement of reasonableness.

Fla Diaz v State (1990, Fla App D4) 555 So 2d 1306 Okla Fallon v State (1986, Okla Crim) 725 P2d 603 Fruit v State (Okla Crim) 528 P2d 331

Overruling earlier decisions, 19 the court in Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84, held that mere legal custody of an automobile by the police does not create some new possessory right to justify a search of the vehicle. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on a United States Supreme Court

decision 20 in which it was stated that lawful custody of an automobile does not of itself dispense with constitutional requirements of searches thereafter made of it.

In People v Roth (1968) 261 Cal App 2d 430, 68 Cal Rptr 49 (ovrld on other grounds Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County, 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84), the court stated that it is clear that lawful custody of an automobile does not of itself dispense with constitutional requirements of a search thereafter made of it. However, the court went on to hold that the reason for and nature of the custody, and the circumstances surrounding the entry of the vehicle, made the search reasonable.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Marijuana found in locked suitcase in trunk of impounded car was inadmissible where inventory search had been conducted at direction of highway patrol trooper and where highway patrol had no policy with respect to opening of such closed containers; accused had been arrested for driving under influence of alcohol. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990).

A general written automobile inventory policy does not grant police officers carte blanche when conducting a search; rather, it must be sufficiently tailored to only produce an inventory. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016).

Impoundment of driver's vehicle and subsequent inventory search after police officer cited driver for driving on suspended license did not fall within community caretaking exception to the search warrant requirement, even though impoundment prevented driver from continuing to drive his car with suspended license after police left. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Quick, 2018 CO 28, 417 P.3d 811 (Colo. 2018).

Inventory search of motorcycle saddlebags, which revealed illegal drugs, was lawfully conducted by officer called to scene of single–vehicle motorcycle accident that disabled rider from proceeding, where rider told officer that one bag contained pistol, and motorcycle was lawfully impounded as standing unattended at roadside, vulnerable to theft or vandalism. State v Bray (1992, Idaho App) 834 P2d 892, petition for certiorari filed (Jan 6, 1993).

Second step of test for validity of inventory searches of automobiles looks to reasonableness of search itself, as even lawful custody of impounded vehicle does not of itself dispense with constitutional requirement of reasonableness in regard to searches conducted thereafter. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Vehorn v. State, 717 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 1999).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Even the lawful custody of an impounded vehicle does not itself dispense with the constitutional requirement of reasonableness in regard to the searches conducted thereafter. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Lucas, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

In determining propriety of a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle, threshold question is whether the impoundment itself was proper, and once that question is answered, court will look to reasonableness of the search itself. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Lewis v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

See State v Green (1986, La App 2d Cir) 482 So 2d 930, § 7[b].

Mere lawful custody of impounded vehicle does not ipso facto dispense with constitutional requirement of reasonableness mandated in all warrantless search and seizure cases. State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird, 349 N.J. Super. 352, 793 A.2d 792 (App. Div. 2002).

See People v Colon (1994, App Div, 3d Dept) 608 NYS2d 351, § 7[b].

Prosecution established that inventory search of defendant's vehicle was conducted pursuant to standardized procedures. People v Ballard (1991, App Div, 4th Dept) 572 NYS2d 190.

Trial court erred in failing to suppress cocaine found in airline bag in defendant's car that was impounded for unpaid tickets, but which was searched after tickets were paid and after officer had written notice that tickets were paid so that search of vehicle was conducted contrary to authorized procedure, where search was without any lawful predicate and wholly improper, where inventory search of impounded vehicle must be reasonable to pass constitutional muster, and where inventory search could only be conducted pursuant to standardized procedure as officer was not vested with discretion to determine scope of search. People v Townsend (1989, 1st Dept) 152 App Div 2d 515, 544 NYS2d 349, app gr 74 NY2d 953, 550 NYS2d 288, 549 NE2d 490 and app dismd 76 NY2d 746, 588 NYS2d 484, 557 NE2d 777.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 6[a] Validity as based on lawful impoundment per se—Rule that lawful impoundment per se authorizes inventory search

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following cases expressly or implicitly support the proposition that whenever the police are authorized to impound a vehicle, they have a concomitant right to examine and inventory its contents.

US Fagundes v United States (1965, CA1 Mass) 340 F2d 673 United States v Smith (1972, DC Conn) 340 F Supp 1023 United States v Young (DC Del) 369 F Supp 540 Wilkins v Whitaker (1983, CA4 NC) 714 F2d 4, cert den (US) 82 L Ed 2d 884, 104 S Ct 3586 Kimbrough v Beto (1969, CA5 Tex) 412 F2d 981 United States v Lipscomb (1970, CA5 Ala) 435 F2d 795, cert den 401 US 980, 28 L Ed 2d 331, 91 S Ct 1213, reh den 402 US 966, 29 L Ed 2d 131, 91 S Ct 1635 United States v Boyd (1971, CA5 Ala) 436 F2d 1203 United States v Pennington (1971, CA5 Fla) 441 F2d 249, cert den 404 US 854, 30 L Ed 2d 94, 92 S Ct 97 United States v Hall (1978, CA5 Tex) 565 F2d 917

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

United States v Stocks (1979, CA5 Fla) 594 F2d 113 United States v Gravitt (CA5 Fla) 484 F2d 375, cert den 414 US 1135, 38 L Ed 2d 761, 94 S Ct 879 United States v Logan (1990, ND Miss) 744 F Supp 735 Wagner v Higgins (1985, CA6 Ky) 754 F2d 186 United States v Lyles (1991, CA8 Mo) 946 F2d 78 U.S. v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended, (Mar. 5, 2001) United States v Martin (1977, CA10 Okla) 566 F2d 1143 United States v Long (1983, CA10 Okla) 705 F2d 1259 United States v Speers (1977, DC Okla) 429 F Supp 188 United States v Bosby (1982, CA11 Ala) 675 F2d 1174 United States v Fuller (1967, DC Dist Col) 277 F Supp 97 U.S. v. Hill, 458 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1978) Ala Jones v State (1981, Ala App) 407 So 2d 870 (citing annotation) Witcher v State (1982, Ala App) 420 So 2d 287 Ariz State v Lynch (1978, App) 120 Ariz 584, 587 P2d 770 Ark Snell v State (1986) 290 Ark 503, 721 SW2d 628, reh den 290 Ark 503, 723 SW2d 1 and cert den (US) 98 L Ed 2d 153, 108 S Ct 202 Asher v State (1990) 303 Ark 202, 795 SW2d 350, cert den (US) 112 L Ed 2d 777, 111 S Ct 757 Cal For overruled California cases, see § 6[b], infra DC United States v Pannell (1969, Dist Col App) 256 A2d 925 Mayfield v United States (1971, Dist Col App) 276 A2d 123 (recognizing rule) Fla Jackson v State (1966, Fla App) 192 So 2d 78 Roush v State (1967, Fla App) 203 So 2d 632 Gagnon v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 337 Knight v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 900 Godbee v State (1969, Fla App) 224 So 2d 441 State v Ruggles (1971, Fla App) 245 So 2d 692 Urquhart v State (1971, Fla App) 261 So 2d 535 Ga Sams v State (1995, Ga) 457 SE2d 812, 95 Fulton County D R 1922, corrected 265 Ga 534, 459 SE2d 551, 95 Fulton County D R 2260, reconsideration den (Jun 30, 1995) Hartley v State (1981) 159 Ga App 157, 282 SE2d 684 Hansen v State (1983) 168 Ga App 304, 308 SE2d 643 State v Gilchrist (1985) 174 Ga App 499, 330 SE2d 430 Idaho State v Smith (1991) 120 Idaho 77, 813 P2d 888 Ill People v Gaines (1991, 1st Dist) 220 Ill App 3d 310, 163 Ill Dec 263, 581 NE2d 214 Ind Brown v State (1982, Ind) 442 NE2d 1109 Foulks v State (1991, Ind) 582 NE2d 374 Moore v State (1994, Ind App) 637 NE2d 816, transfer den (Sep 14, 1994) Md

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

St. Clair v State (1967) 1 Md App 605, 232 A2d 565 Mackall v State (1969) 7 Md App 246, 255 A2d 98 Plitko v State (1971) 11 Md App 35, 272 A2d 669 Minn St. Paul v Myles, 298 Minn 298, 218 NW2d 697 Miss Jackson v Mississippi (1972, Miss) 261 So 2d 126 Mo State v Milliorn (1990, Mo) 794 SW2d 181 State v Jones (1993, Mo) 865 SW2d 658 State v Hall (1987, Mo App) 745 SW2d 745 Mont State v Armstrong (1967) 149 Mont 470, 428 P2d 611 Neb State v Wallen (1970) 185 Neb 44, 173 NW2d 372, cert den 399 US 912, 26 L Ed 2d 568, 90 S Ct 2211 Nev Heffley v State (1967) 83 Nev 100, 423 P2d 666 Yeoman v State (Nev) 550 P2d 1273 NM State v Ruffino (1980) 94 NM 500, 612 P2d 1311 State v Vigil (App) 86 NM 388, 524 P2d 1004 (citing annotation), cert den 86 NM 372, 524 P2d 988, cert den 420 US 955, 43 L Ed 2d 432, 95 S Ct 1339 NY People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY 2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE2d 464, 48 A.L.R.3d 527 People v Robinson (1971) 36 App Div 2d 375, 320 NYS2d 665 People v Brnja (1979, 2d Dept) 70 App Div 2d 17, 419 NYS2d 591 People v Turner (1982, 2d Dept) 91 App Div 2d 646, 456 NYS2d 831 People v Lowe (1983, 3d Dept) 91 App Div 2d 1100, 458 NYS2d 357 People v Italia (1988, 2d Dept) 138 App Div 2d 743, 526 NYS2d 556, app den 71 NY2d 969, 529 NYS2d 80, 524 NE2d 434 People v Butler, 44 App Div 2d 423, 355 NYS2d 172 People v Watson (1991, App Div, 2d Dept) 576 NYS2d 370, app den 79 NY2d 866 People v Middleton (App Div) 377 NYS2d 938 NC State v Spruill (1977) 33 NC App 731, 236 SE2d 717 State v Carr, 20 NC App 619, 202 SE2d 289 (citing annotation) Okla Lee v State (1981, Okla Crim) 628 P2d 1172 Horn v State (1983, Okla Crim) 671 P2d 1163 Harmon v State (1988, Okla Crim) 748 P2d 992 Johnson v State (1988, Okla Crim) 764 P2d 530 Hall v State (1988, Okla Crim) 766 P2d 1002 Or State v Keller (Or) 510 P2d 568, infra (citing annotation; but ruling that legitimate scope of inventory search had been unlawfully exceeded by opening wired shut fishing tackle box discovered in automobile) § 14[b] State v Raiford (1971, Or App) 490 P2d 1036 State v Sell (1972, Or App) 496 P2d 44 State v Keller (1972, Or App) 497 P2d 868 State v Weeks (1977) 29 Or App 351, 563 P2d 760 Pa

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Commonwealth v Randle (1977, Pa Super) 375 A2d 76 Tex Daniels v State (1980, Tex Crim) 600 SW2d 813 Alston v State (1988, Tex App Beaumont) 763 SW2d 557 Dart v State (1990, Tex App Fort Worth) 798 SW2d 379, petition for discretionary review ref (May 8, 1991) Bass v State (1992, Tex App Beaumont) 835 SW2d 815 Parks v State (1993, Tex App Fort Worth) 858 SW2d 623 Manning v State (1993, Tex App Waco) 864 SW2d 198, petition for discretionary review ref (Apr 20, 1994) Martinez v State (1982, Tex App 4th Dist) 644 SW2d 104 Dansby v State (1983, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 659 SW2d 78 Johnson v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 684 SW2d 129 Beasley v State (1988, Tex App Houston (1st Dist)) 745 SW2d 406 Utah State v Criscola (1968) 21 Utah 2d 272, 444 P2d 517 Wash State v Olsen (1953) 43 Wash 2d 726, 263 P2d 824 State v Montague (1968) 73 Wash 2d 381, 438 P2d 571 State v Jones (1970) 2 Wash App 627, 472 P2d 402 State v Hardman (1977) 17 Wash App 910, 567 P2d 238. State v Thompson (1979) 24 Wash App 321, 601 P2d 1284 State v McFadden (1991) 63 Wash App 441, 820 P2d 53 Wis State v Dombrowski (1969) 44 Wis 2d 486, 171 NW2d 349 Warrix v State (1971) 50 Wis 2d 368, 184 NW 2d 189 Thus, in United States v Boyd (1971, CA5, Ala) 436 F2d 1203, the court stated that once a police officer had arrested a driver and removed his demolished automobile to police headquarters, he was under a duty to itemize the contents of the vehicle and to store them for safe–keeping, and that evidence discovered as a result of such necessary inventory was admissible at the driver's trial for transporting, and causing to be transported, forged money orders.

Although an earlier Florida case 1 may have supported a contrary view, the present rule appears to be that the police have a right and a duty to inventory the contents of an impounded vehicle. Thus, in Godbee v State (1969, Fla App) 224 So 2d 441, where the appellant, who had locked his car and left it standing illegally on a sidewalk, escaped from the police after he was arrested on an outstanding warrant, the court held that the police were duty bound not only to remove the car from the illegal area to protective custody, but also to inventory the car and its contents, in accordance with routine police procedures, to protect themselves and a garage owner acting under their direction from possible responsibility in the event of theft or destruction.

In State v Armstrong (1967) 149 Mont 470, 428 P2d 611, the court held that where police officers arrested the occupants of a pickup truck on larceny charges and discovered that the truck belonged to someone else, they had just cause not only to impound the truck from the highway for its protection, but also to inventory the contents so that they would be safeguarded for the owner.

In State v Wallen (1970) 185 Neb 44, 173 NW2d 372, cert den 399 US 912, 26 L Ed 2d 568, 90 S Ct 2211, where the evidence showed that the defendant was arrested for intoxication after a police officer found him standing by his stalled automobile in a highway intersection, the court held that once the driver was lodged in jail, the duty devolved upon the patrolman to clear the highway by removing the automobile, and in so doing he had to take the necessary steps to protect the contents of the car for the benefit of the driver. The court took the view that taking an inventory of the contents of the automobile to insure the return of all the personal property to the driver and to protect the patrol against false claim of loss while in the custody of the law enforcement officers is a salutary practice whether required by rule or by common procedure.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In Heffley v State (1967) 83 Nev 100, 423 P2d 666, the court stated that where there is just cause, the police have a duty not only to impound a car from the public highway for its own protection, but also to inventory the contents so that they may be safeguarded for the owner. The court further stated that such practice is deemed necessary to defeat dishonest claims of theft of the car's contents and to protect the temporary storage bailee against false charges.

In State v Montague (1968) 73 Wash 2d 831, 438 P2d 571, the court stated that the primary issue was whether a search of an automobile is illegal when a police officer, following the routine inventory procedure prescribed by the police department, makes a search of an automobile which will have to be impounded and removed from the streets on account of the owner's detention. Answering the question, the court declared that when the facts indicate a lawful arrest followed by an inventory of the contents of the automobile preparatory to or following the impoundment of the car, and there is found to be reasonable and proper justification for such impoundment, and where the search is not made as a general exploratory search for the purpose of finding evidence of crime, but is made for the justifiable purpose of finding, listing, and securing from loss, property belonging to the arrested party, then it would have no hesitancy in declaring such inventory reasonable and lawful.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

The impoundment of defendant's car did not violate the Fourth Amendment merely because the impoundment was not done pursuant to pre-existing police protocols. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006).

Any search of arrestee's vehicle at police station was valid as an inventory search, where vehicle was being impounded after the arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Hodge v. Village of Southampton, 838 F. Supp. 2d 67 (E.D. N.Y. 2012).

Even if police officers seized boxes of marijuana from inside motorists' truck after motorists were arrested and transported to police station, seizure of those boxes was justified under inventory exception to search warrant requirement; inventory search of vehicle was inevitable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Echevarria, 692 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D. N.Y. 2010).

Following arrest of defendant for driving under the influence (DUI), officers had no choice but to impound and eventually remove defendant's truck, which was blocking a lane of traffic, and, once truck was in police custody, officers were permitted to inventory the vehicle. U.S. v. Morris, 179 Fed. Appx. 825 (3d Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 14, 2006).

Vehicle used in transportation of narcotics was lawfully subjected to inventory search following seizure pursuant to federal forfeiture statute, and agents properly opened trunk and examined contents of unsecured cardboard box, thereby discovering narcotics paraphernalia. United States v Bush (1981, CA3 Pa) 647 F2d 357.

Even if police did not obtain defendant's consent to search his vehicle, evidence discovered during search would be admissible under inevitable discovery rule, given that police would have conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle after it was impounded for lack of registration, and there was no basis to support defendant's hypothesis that, had he not been arrested, he would have left the scene with backpack without the officers searching it, given that officers could have searched it to be certain that it did not contain anything that would pose danger, such as a weapon, to the officers. U.S. v. Chambers, 59 Fed. Appx. 509 (4th Cir. 2003).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of properly impounded vehicle pursuant to written police policy, even if not thorough and complete, satisfies Fourth Amendment if administered in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Stanley, 4 Fed. Appx. 148 (4th Cir. 2001).

See United States v Skillern (1991, CA5 Tex) 947 F2d 1268, cert den (US) 117 L Ed 2d 646, § 7[b].

See United States v Gallo (1991, CA5 Tex) 927 F2d 815, § 7[a].

Police may conduct an inventory search of an automobile that is being impounded without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jackson, 682 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2012).

City ordinance permitting police to impound vehicle whenever driver was unfit to drive, whenever driver had been arrested, and whenever vehicle was illegally parked on public street did not require that all three situations be present, but rather permitted police to impound vehicle and conduct inventory search if any one situation was present. U.S. v. Lewis, 73 Fed. Appx. 108 (6th Cir. 2003).

One exception to Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement is an inventory search conducted as a standard police practice; under this exception, police may search a vehicle properly impounded or towed in order to establish the contents of the car. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. West v. Duncan, 179 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ohio 2001).

Police who lawfully impound a motor vehicle may take an inventory search of its contents, because they are responsible for those contents while the car and its contents are in their custody. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Clinton, 591 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2010).

See United States v Belt (1988, CA7 Ill) 854 F2d 1054, § 4.

Police officers' had probable cause to search impounded vehicle which was suspected of being involved in hit and run accident pursuant to automobile exception to warrant requirement, despite fact that search occurred some four and one half months after automobile was impounded, where lapse was due to priority of more pressing law enforcement matters. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Bayless v. City of Frankfort, 981 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Ind. 1997).

Law enforcement may search a lawfully impounded vehicle to inventory its contents without obtaining a warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kimhong Thi Le, 474 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2007).

Warrantless inventory search of motor vehicle was justified upon impoundment of vehicle following driver's arrest; even though registered owner of vehicle appeared before vehicle was impounded and was ready to take custody of it, driver was alone in the vehicle at time of his arrest, police could not have been sure it was safe for owner to take possession of it, and police department policy required impoundment and inventory search of vehicle upon driver's arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).

Police may conduct a warrantless search of a lawfully-impounded vehicle even in the absence of probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 2005).

That an officer suspects he might uncover evidence in a vehicle does not preclude police from towing the vehicle and inventorying its contents, as long as the impoundment is otherwise valid. U.S. v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2004).

In considering the reasonableness of an inventory search, the subjective intent of the executing officer does not invalidate an otherwise valid inventory search, and thus, even if, at the time that they conducted an otherwise valid inventory search,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

officers suspected that they might find evidence of criminal activity, the search would not be unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. May, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minn. 2006).

Following traffic stop for speeding, law enforcement officer impounded rented vehicle that was being driven by defendant because rental car company had requested impound when it learned no authorized driver was in the area, and thus otherwise lawful inventory search of vehicle was not invalidated based on officer's subjective intent to uncover evidence of crime; although officer stated that he hoped to search the vehicle for drugs, searching for drugs was not the sole motive, and officer was required to conduct inventory search of car and its contents once rental car company requested that the vehicle be impounded. United States v. Sanchez, 720 Fed. Appx. 964 (10th Cir. 2018).

Warrantless inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle was justified and reasonable, where officers followed city policy in conducting search, and search was justified by police interests in safeguarding impounded property, preventing claims of theft, vandalism, or negligence, and averting any danger property might pose to police and others. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kinzalow, 236 Fed. Appx. 414 (10th Cir. 2007).

Ample evidence supported determination that police were conducting administrative inventory of impounded automobile, pursuant to departmental policy, precluding claim of warrantless investigatory search violating Fourth Amendment, when they discovered weapon forming basis of felon in possession of firearm conviction obtained against occupant, even though searching officer checked "evidence" box on section of search form and one officer urged others to go over vehicle with fine tooth comb. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Allen, 43 Fed. Appx. 363 (10th Cir. 2002).

Trial court properly upheld lawfulness of inventory search, which revealed illegal drugs, of vehicle driven by driver arrested for driving under influence of alcohol, where, under community caretaking function unrelated to suspicion of criminal activity, police lawfully impounded car from private parking area that was not under driver's control or in which he was entitled to park. Cannon v State (1992, Ala App) 601 So 2d 1112 (citing annotation).

Where defendant was stopped on public highway and arrested on felony warrant, impoundment of his truck pursuant to state statute, and inventory search carried out in accordance with department procedures, were lawful. Ringer v State (1986, Ala App) 489 So 2d 646.

Where motorist driving erratically was stopped by police and immediately arrested for driving under influence of alcohol, and officers then made routine inventory of automobile, including opening trunk containing two garbage disposal–type bags of marijuana, contents of bags being plainly visible when trunk was opened, discovery of marijuana was not result of illegal search. State v Gowans, 18 Ariz App 110, 500 P2d 641.

Inventory search exception to search warrant requirement permits police officers to conduct a warrantless inventory of a vehicle that is being impounded in order to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 15. McDonald v. State, 92 Ark. App. 1, 210 S.W.3d 915 (2005).

Police officer had authority consistent with Fourth Amendment to conduct inventory search of vehicle, which had expired registration, pursuant to his impound authorization under California law. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code §§ 4000, 22651(o)(1). U.S. v. McCartney, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (applying California law).

California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers' decision to impound defendant's automobile pursuant to the community caretaking function upon arresting him for driving under the influence and reckless driving was reasonable under all the circumstances, thus supporting admission of contraband discovered in an inventory search under Fourth Amendment, where officers removed the automobile based on their discretionary authority under the safekeeping provision of Vehicle

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Code, and officers' reason for doing so was to avoid leaving a new luxury car in a known high-crime area, absent evidence indicating a suspicion that the vehicle would contain evidence of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651(h). People v. Shafrir, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1238, 2010 WL 1189584 (1st Dist. 2010).

An officer who has validly taken a vehicle into custody may conduct an inventory search of the contents of the vehicle, which is intended to protect the owner's property and to protect the police from future claims concerning lost or damaged property and from dangerous instrumentalities. People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, (Jan. 9, 2006).

After validly impounding a vehicle, an officer may make an inventory search of its contents. People v. Milligan, 77 P.3d 771 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Apr. 24, 2003).

Gun found in defendant's car was admissible in evidence where after defendant had been arrested in store on stolen credit card charges keys to car had been found on his person and police established that car, which was parked in store lot, belonged to another person, impounded car as suspected stolen property, and, during routine inventory search at parking lot, saw partially exposed gun underneath driver's floor mat. Lively v State (1981, Del Sup) 427 A2d 882.

Under judicial rule obligating arresting officer to inform driver of his intention to impound car, and to inform driver that impoundment will not occur if arrestee can provide reasonable alternative, officer need not advise arrestee regarding standard, alternative choices to impoundment, but officer must only tell arrestee that there will be no impoundment if reasonable alternative is suggested by arrested driver. State v Miller (1981, Fla App D2) 404 So 2d 159.

See State v Dearden (1977, Fla App D2) 347 So 2d 462, § 7[a].

Contents of an impounded vehicle are routinely inventoried to protect the property of the owner, protect the officers against claims for lost or stolen property, and protect the police from potential danger. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Wright v. State, 579 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. 2003).

Police officers may inventory the contents of a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded without violating the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Shelton, 329 Ga. App. 582, 765 S.E.2d 732 (2014).

Police officers are sometimes permitted to impound a car, and when they do so, they may inventory its contents to protect the property of the owner and to protect the officers from potential danger and against claims for lost and stolen property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Tyre v. State, 747 S.E.2d 106 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle by police officers after his arrest was reasonably necessary, as required to justify inventory search of vehicle; police department had policy of waiting 20 minutes before towing a vehicle, policy was not unreasonable as a matter of law, only person available to pick up defendant's vehicle was more than one hour away, and officer believed that vehicle, which was parked in parking lot of convenience store, needed to be impounded to prevent theft or damage. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Carlisle v. State, 629 S.E.2d 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Whether meat clever that defendant used to cut victim was seized incident to defendant's arrest at hospital or during an inventory search of his vehicle which was impounded at hospital's request, it was admissible in aggravated assault prosecution. Robison v. State, 625 S.E.2d 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Police officers may perform an inventory search of a car in preparation for impounding it and may also search a car incident to a lawful arrest of its occupant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Draper v. Reynolds, 278 Ga. App. 401, 629 S.E.2d 476 (2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

The state may inventory the contents of a car that has been lawfully impounded; justification of an inventory search is thus premised upon the validity of the impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Wiley v. State, 274 Ga. App. 60, 616 S.E.2d 832 (2005).

The determinative inquiry in a challenge to an inventory search of an impounded vehicle is whether impoundment was reasonable, not whether it was absolutely necessary. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 1, Par. 13. Gaston v. State, 571 S.E.2d 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002), cert. denied, (Nov. 25, 2002).

Inventory search of automobile was proper following accident in which automobile ran into utility pole and came to rest in middle of intersection, where driver expressed no preference regarding towing companies and allowed police office to make towing arrangements; police exercised at least temporary dominion over vehicle, and it was reasonable for officer to inventory contents to protect against claims of lost or stolen property. Waggoner v. State, 228 Ga. App. 148, 491 S.E.2d 88 (1997), reconsideration denied, (Aug. 13, 1997) and cert. denied, (Jan. 5, 1998).

In prosecution for possession of firearm and trafficking in cocaine, inventory search was appropriate where defendant was stopped for operating motor vehicle with invalid license plate revalidation sticker and placed under arrest after failing to produce driver's license, and police officer called tow truck to impound car; inventory search is appropriate whenever police department selects towing vehicle in order to protect police against claims of lost or stolen property. Forston v State (1991) 201 Ga App 272, 410 SE2d 774, 102-187 Fulton County D R 14B and affd Fortson v State (192, Ga) 262 Ga 3, 412 SE2d 833, 103-35 Fulton County DR 21.

Police suspicion that plastic garbage bags inside vehicle, stopped for speeding, contained contraband, did not invalidate inventory search conducted in accordance with standard police practice. Bennett v State (1981) 160 Ga App 684, 288 SE2d 17.

"Inventory" search of automobile was unreasonable under Fourth Amendment where police officer arrived at scene of automobile accident and found defendant and his badly wrecked automobile, but where defendant was not under arrest at time officer proceeded to conduct inventory, where car had not been impounded by police, and where record failed to show that any impoundment was intended or that there was any necessity of police custody, inasmuch as defendant's car was being towed away by wrecking service of defendant's choice to destination of his choice and defendant was present and physically capable of making arrangements for safekeeping of his belongings. State v Travitz, 140 Ga App 351, 231 SE2d 127.

Police officers' seizure of arrestee's vehicle was objectively reasonable under Fourth Amendment due to existence of probable cause to believe that vehicle was used in commission of fleeing and eluding peace officer, an offense warranting civil forfeiture in Illinois, and thus, officers' subsequent inventory search of vehicle was also reasonable under Fourth Amendment; police officer gave arrestee visual signal by activating his emergency overhead lights and audible signal, calling out over his PA system for arrestee, by name, to stop his vehicle, and arrestee disobeyed these directives and drove onto lawn and into his garage, where officer arrested him. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; 720 ILCS § 5/36-1(a). Thompson v. Village of Monee, 110 F. Supp. 3d 826 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (applying Illinois law).

An inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle is a judicially created exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 272 Ill. Dec. 1, 786 N.E.2d 540 (2003).

Police officers' alleged subjective motives in causing vehicle to be impounded did not render subsequent inventory of contents of vehicle illegal, where officers' compliance with specific, standard police procedures was objectively reasonable. People v Ocon (1991, 2d Dist) 221 Ill App 3d 311, 163 Ill Dec 738, 581 NE2d 892.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Where seizure of automobile is proper, inventory search may be made for protection of police officers from potential dangers, for protection of owner's property, for protection against later claims that property has been lost or stolen, to respond to incidents of theft and vandalism and to determine whether vehicle has been stolen and otherwise abandoned. People v Ruffolo (1978) 64 Ill App 3d 151, 21 Ill Dec 28, 380 NE2d 1204.

A valid inventory search of a vehicle is an exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement since it serves an administrative, not investigatory, purpose, because when police lawfully impound a vehicle, they must also perform an administrative inventory search to document the vehicle's contents to preserve them for the owner and protect themselves against claims of lost or stolen property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371 (Ind. 2016).

Police impoundment and inventory of defendant's vehicle, which had just been in accident and was abandoned in the middle of motel parking lot, thereby creating traffic hazard, was conducted as part of police department's community care taking function, and thus, warrantless inventory search of impounded vehicle was proper; when police approached defendant's truck, he attempted to flee, but crashed into another car before he could get out of parking lot, truck was in parking lot obstructing traffic, and consistent with state police operating procedures, truck was removed to nearby police facility where inventory occurred. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Ratliff v. State, 770 N.E.2d 807 (Ind. 2002).

Under community caretaking exception to warrant requirement, which applies when police must conduct an inventory search because they are impounding a vehicle, the State is required to demonstrate that: the belief that the vehicle posed some threat or harm to the community or was itself imperiled was consistent with objective standards of sound policing, and the decision to combat that threat by impoundment was in keeping with established departmental routine or regulation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Osborne v. State, 54 N.E.3d 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

When determining the reasonableness of an inventory search of a vehicle, the propriety of the impoundment must be established, as the need for the inventory arises from the impoundment, and the scope of the inventory must be evaluated; where either is clearly unreasonable, the search will not be upheld. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Widduck v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Inventory exception to the warrant requirement allows police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a lawfully impounded automobile if the search is designed to produce an inventory of the vehicle's contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Combs v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Police officer's decision to impound vehicle, after making traffic stop and learning that driver had a suspended license, was reasonable, such that subsequent inventory search was proper; driver was an unqualified driver and could have quickly returned to drive his vehicle and again been in violation of law. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Taylor v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

The generally recognized exceptions to the search warrant requirement include: (1) consent; (2) search incident to a lawful arrest; (3) stop and frisk; (4) probable cause to search with exigent circumstances, an example of which is hot pursuit; (5) the emergency doctrine; (6) an inventory search; (7) plain view; and (8) an administrative search of a closely regulated business. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Vandevelde, 138 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).

Whether an inventory search is lawful is contingent on the propriety of the impoundment of the vehicle; the appropriateness of impoundment, in turn, is guided by a touchstone of reasonableness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Campbell, 475 Mass. 611, 59 N.E.3d 394 (2016).

A lawful inventory search is contingent on the propriety of the impoundment of the car. Com. v. Brinson, 440 Mass. 609, 800 N.E.2d 1032 (2003).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

The inventory exception to a warrantless search exists for three basic reasons: (1) the protection of the arrestee's property while in police custody; (2) the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and (3) the protection of the police from potential danger. Garrison v. State, 918 So. 2d 846 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Warrantless search of vehicle is permissible when the occupant of a motor vehicle is being arrested and, because of the location of the vehicle, it appears necessary to impound the vehicle to protect the vehicle and itemize its contents. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Ray v. State, 828 So. 2d 827 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002), cert. denied (Miss. Oct. 17, 2002).

Evidence was sufficient to support finding that police officer's explanations for impoundment and search of defendant's van, to secure property and remove van from area in which it could pose traffic hazard, were not pretextual; van was in remote area on curve parked partially on traveled portion of gravel roadway, and if officers had left it there while arresting defendant, it could have been subject to theft or false claims concerning what van contained or could pose traffic danger to public. State v. Joos, 966 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1998).

Although New Jersey did not have statute providing for police removal of vehicle from highway, police officer who observed motor vehicle operated on highway at night with studded snow tires in August and with inspection sticker indicating failure of inspection, and discovered that vehicle had not passed inspection because of defects in wheel alignment, directional signals, red rear light, stop light, studded tires, exhaust system, headlights, wiring and switching, and parking–brake handle, acted reasonably in deciding that vehicle must be removed from road, and having properly seized vehicle to have it removed from road, officer's entering vehicle to make inventory search was proper, and his discovery of white envelope found in plain view between seat and console of automobile did not violate occupants' constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure, and marijuana so found and seized would not be suppressed in prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana, even though vehicle occupants were not arrested until after discovery of marijuana. State v Jones, 122 NJ Super 585, 301 A2d 185 (opinion brings out that while operation of vehicle having studded snow tires during prohibited month of August would not alone have justified seizure of automobile, cumulative number of defects in vehicle, evidenced by certificate on second inspection, did justify seizure).

Where, after defendant's arrest for robbery of store and transportation to police station, officer found set of keys in defendant's pocket and, without obtaining warrant, returned to store, located defendant's car parked legally behind store, and conducted inventory search of contents finding map marked with escape route and checkbook showing negative balance, vehicle was related to crime as means of escape and was itself evidence of crime, excusing compliance with standard police procedure of offering operator of vehicle right to select wrecker of choice or release vehicle to qualified driver, and search was proper. State v Williams (1982) 97 NM 634, 642 P2d 1093, cert den (US) 74 L Ed 2d 91, 103 S Ct 101.

Following a lawful arrest of a driver of a vehicle that is required to be impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle; the search is designed to properly catalogue the contents of the item searched. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414 (2013), petition for cert. filed, 82 U.S.L.W. 3095 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2013).

Officers acted reasonably in seizing vehicle and making inventory search based upon reasonable belief that vehicle was stolen. People v Harrell (1990, 1st Dept) 160 App Div 2d 253, 553 NYS2d 361, app den 76 NY2d 789, 559 NYS2d 994, 559 NE2d 688.

See People v Castillo (1989, 3d Dept) 150 App Div 2d 957, 541 NYS2d 640, app den 74 NY2d 806, 546 NYS2d 564, 545 NE2d 878, § 7[a].

Where defendant was initially stopped for defective muffler, and subsequently taken into custodial detention for questioning concerning his proper identity based on possibility of outstanding warrant, police lawfully made inventory

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

search of car which led to discovery of evidence substantiating charges of burglary and possession of stolen property. People v Murphy (1981, 3d Dept) 83 App Div 2d 647, 442 NYS2d 190.

Inventory search of automobile is legal only if automobile is legally impounded and inventory search is not merely pretext for investigative search. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Rose, 118 Ohio App. 3d 864, 694 N.E.2d 156 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997).

Once vehicle is impounded, police may conduct inventory search provided it is done in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standardized procedures or established routine. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Taylor, 114 Ohio App. 3d 416, 683 N.E.2d 367 (2d Dist. Miami County 1996).

See Starks v State (1985, Okla Crim) 696 P2d 1041, § 7[a].

Impoundment of vehicle preparatory to inventory search must be valid in order for search to be legal; where police improperly impounded defendant's car for altered automobile license tag, inventory search was invalid and evidence of marijuana found in glove compartment during search should have been suppressed during subsequent prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana. Kelly v State (1980, Okla Crim) 607 P2d 706.

Evidence derived from inventory search was improperly admitted where arrest that was necessary prerequisite to impoundment was not shown to be lawful. Patrick v State (Okla Crim) 545 P2d 819.

City ordinance that authorizes police to impound a car may impliedly authorize police to conduct an inventory search of car's contents. Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Boone, 327 Or. 307, 959 P.2d 76 (1998).

One of the exceptions to search warrant requirement is an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Tschantre, 182 Or. App. 313, 50 P.3d 1174 (2002).

As a general rule, police may not search or seize private property unless authorized to do so by a valid warrant; one exception to the general rule is that police may inventory the contents of a lawfully impounded vehicle if a valid statute, ordinance, or policy authorizes them to do so. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Dillon, 182 Or. App. 308, 50 P.3d 1172 (2002).

Search of defendant's car pursuant to routine inventory of car's contents after it had been seized and impounded by police was not improper. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 8. Com. v. Funds in Merrill Lynch Account Owned by Peart, 777 A.2d 519 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).

Law enforcement authority in cases of incarceration extends to performing a detailed inventory search of all personal effects in the arrestee's possession, and possibly of the vehicle in which he was riding at the time of arrest if there is no reasonable alternative to seizure of the vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn. 1999).

A peace officer's inventory of the contents of an automobile is permissible if conducted pursuant to a lawful impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Hamilton v. State, 300 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2009), reh'g overruled, (Oct. 5, 2009).

The state bears the burden of proving that an impoundment of an automobile is lawful and may satisfy its burden by showing that (1) the driver was arrested, (2) no alternatives other than impoundment were available to insure the automobile's protection, (3) the impounding agency had an inventory policy, and (4) the policy was followed. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

An inventory of an automobile is permissible under both the Fourth Amendment and the State Constitution if conducted pursuant to a lawful impoundment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Lagaite v. State, 995 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1999), petition for discretionary review filed, (Aug. 3, 1999).

Inventory search of automobile is permissible under the federal and state constitutions if conducted pursuant to a lawful impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1998), petition for discretionary review refused, (May 12, 1999).

Under Washington law, police officers may conduct a good faith inventory search following a lawful impoundment of a vehicle without first obtaining a search warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's RCWA 46.55.113. U.S. v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying Washington law).

An inventory search of a vehicle cannot occur if there is no lawful basis for impounding the vehicle; police officers are not free to impound just any vehicle parked on the street or any vehicle they stop for traffic infractions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 302 P.3d 165 (Wash. 2013).

See State v Greenway, 15 Wash App 216, 547 P2d 1231, review den 87 Wash 2d 1009, § 8[a].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 6[b] Validity as based on lawful impoundment per se—Rule that lawful impoundment does not, per se, authorize inventory search

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following cases support the proposition that the mere fact that the police have authority to impound a vehicle does not necessarily give the police a resulting right to take an inventory of its contents.

US Williams v United States (1969, CA5 Fla) 412 F2d 729 Dodge v Turner (1967, DC Utah) 274 F Supp 285 Ariz Boulet v State (1972) 17 Ariz App 64, 495 P2d 504 Cal People v Burke (1964) 61 Cal 2d 575, 39 Cal Rptr 531, 394 P2d 67 Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84 People v Jackson (1967) 254 Cal App 2d 655, 62 Cal Rptr 208 People v Upton (1968) 257 Cal App 2d 677, 65 Cal Rptr 103 (recognizing rule) Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793 People v Denman (1971) 19 Cal App 3d 632, 97 Cal Rptr 23 People v Heredia (1971) 20 Cal App 3d 194, 97 Cal Rptr 488 For contrary California cases, see infra Fla For Florida cases, see § 6[a], supra Ky Wagner v Commonwealth (1979, Ky) 581 SW2d 352 Mo

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v. Wells, 33 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2000) NJ State v Mangold (1978) 164 NJ Super 74, 395 A2d 869 SD State v Catlette (SD) 221 NW2d 25 In People v Burke (1964) 61 Cal 2d 575, 39 Cal Rptr 531, 394 P2d 67, the court stated that although the police were authorized under a Vehicle and Traffic Code to remove a car from the highway under certain enumerated circumstances, to impound it, and to store it in a designated place, such Code did not purport to authorize the making of a search.

Overruling earlier decisions, 2 the court in Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84, rejected the view that an inventory search is valid whenever the police are authorized to remove and store vehicles. The testimony showed that the police removed an automobile which was blocking the roadway following an accident, and that during an inventory of its contents, they opened an unlocked suitcase and found therein a plastic bag containing marijuana. Taking note of the prosecution's contention that the justification for the search arose out of the custody and control of the automobile by the police as authorized by a state regulation, and also out of the necessity to protect the driver's personal property from loss or damage and to protect the police and the storage bailee from unfounded tort claims, the court held that such a contention was rebutted by recognition of the vehicle owner's countervailing interest in maintaining the privacy of his personal effects and preventing anyone, including the police, from searching suitcases and other closed containers and areas in his automobile at the time of its impoundment. The court conceded that the police may take note of any personal property in plain sight within an impounded automobile, but concluded that an inventory of contents not within plain sight is unreasonable.

See also People v Upton (1968) 257 Cal App 2d 677, 65 Cal Rptr 103, where a police officer, in an attempted justification of an inventory search, stated that normal procedure for impounding requires the officer to inventory all personal effects in the vehicle in order to protect the owner of the property, as well as the officers. Rejecting this viewpoint, the court ruled that the Constitution does not permit an otherwise unreasonable search of a car simply because the police have statutory authority to impound it. The court said that it was not unmindful of a number of cases which appear to hold that the police may always inventory the contents of a car prior to impounding it, regardless of the reason for the arrest, but the court went on to distinguish the majority of those cases. However, the court held that the search was lawful on other grounds.

In Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793, the court noted that there

was language in some cases from its own jurisdiction 3 suggesting that if there is a right to arrest the driver of a car and to take him before a magistrate, and a right to remove the driver's vehicle from the highway, then there is a right to take the car into custody, and a resulting right, in fact a duty, to inventory its contents. Disapproving of such a doctrine, the court stated that the Constitution does not permit an otherwise unreasonable search of a car simply because the police have statutory authority to arrest and take an accused before a magistrate, and also have the right to cause the car to be removed from the highway.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See United States v Hahn (1991, CA5 Tex) 922 F2d 243, § 14[b].

Although police cannot conduct inventory of automobile simply because it is in their custody, police custody alone does not invalidate warrantless search where police have probable cause to believe that automobile contains contraband or evidence of crime. People v Carter, 26 Cal App 3d 862, 103 Cal Rptr 327 (ruling that warrantless search of automobile

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

after observing burglary suspects transferring items from another automobile to it and after keeping it under surveillance for several hours during night until last of burglary suspects was arrested, was not unlawful search).

Although impoundment was lawful, inventory search of zippered bag in trunk of impounded vehicle was not reasonable where standard departmental procedure did not mandate opening such container in every impounded vehicle. Diaz v State (1990, Fla App D4) 555 So 2d 1306.

Both the location of the search and the primary responsibilities of the police officer conducting the search may be considered indicia of pretext which draw into question whether an inventory search was conducted in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Lucas, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Even the lawful custody of an impounded vehicle does not of itself dispense with the constitutional requirement of reasonableness in regard to the searches conducted thereafter. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Friend v. State, 858 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

See State v Carey (1986, La App 1st Cir) 499 So 2d 283, § 7[b].

See State v Hudson (1978, Me) 390 A2d 509, § 7[b].

The lawfulness of an inventory search turns on the threshold propriety of the vehicle's impoundment, and the commonwealth bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of both. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. 14. Commonwealth v. Ehiabhi, 478 Mass. 154, 84 N.E.3d 13 (2017).

Automobile exception to search warrant requirement did not apply to justify police officers' warrantless inventory search of defendant's automobile, as automobile had already been impounded when officers found metal box containing drug contraband and methamphetamine residue, and thus any exigency created by automobile's mobility had been extinguished. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Woodall, 181 Or. App. 213, 45 P.3d 484 (2002).

See State v Sterger (1991, Utah App) 808 P2d 122, 155 Utah Adv Rep 30, § 9[a].

Under the Washington Constitution, if there is no probable cause to seize a vehicle and a reasonable alternative to impoundment exists, then it is unreasonable to impound a citizen's vehicle. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 302 P.3d 165 (Wash. 2013).

Assuming that nighttime impoundment of truck parked in used car lot and belonging to suspected car thief was lawful, inventory search of truck's interior, including glove compartment which led to discovery of registration belonging to vehicle which suspect attempted to steal, was not lawful absent showing that police saw items of personal property in interior of truck warranting initiation of inventory search. State v Goff (1980, W Va) 272 SE2d 457.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

III. Particular circumstances of search as factor

A. Search of vehicle following arrest of driver or occupant

§ 6.5. Validity as depending on existence of standardized criteria

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

[Cumulative Supplement]

An inventory search of lawfully impounded motor vehicle is constitutional so long as search is conducted in accordance with standardized criteria:

US United States v Kimball (1993, DC Me) 813 F Supp 95, affd (CA1 Me) 25 F3d 1, summary op at (CA1 Me) 22 M.L.W. 1940, 15 R.I.L.W. 141 United States v Donnelly (1995, DC Mass) 885 F Supp 300 United States v Osorio (1994, DC Puerto Rico) 877 F Supp 771 United States v Thompson (1994, CA2 NY) 29 F3d 62 U.S. v. Palacios, 957 F. Supp. 50 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) U.S. v. Glover, 9 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2001) U.S. v. Hope, 102 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1996) U.S. v. Garner, 945 F. Supp. 990 (N.D. Tex. 1996), aff'd, 136 F.3d 138 (5th Cir. 1998) Schilling v Swick (1994, WD Mich) 868 F Supp 904 United States v Matthews (1994, CA7 Ill) 32 F3d 294 United States v Dudley (1994, SD Ind) 854 F Supp 570 United States v Seymour (1996, DC Ariz) 933 F Supp 867 Sammons v Taylor (1992, CA11 Ga) 967 F2d 1533 U.S. v. Skinner, 957 F. Supp. 228 (M.D. Ga. 1997) Ariz State v West (1993) 176 Ariz 432, 862 P2d 192, 149 Ariz Adv Rep 5, cert den (US) 128 L Ed 2d 358, 114 S Ct 1635 Ark Kirk v State (1992) 38 Ark App 159, 832 SW2d 271 Ga Staley v. State, 224 Ga. App. 806, 482 S.E.2d 459 (1997) Idaho State v Foster (1995, App) 127 Idaho 723, 905 P2d 1032 Ill People v Krueger (1994, 4th Dist) 268 Ill App 3d 190, 205 Ill Dec 581, 643 NE2d 872 Ind Moore v State (1994, Ind App) 637 NE2d 816, transfer den (Sep 14, 1994) Peete v. State, 678 N.E.2d 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), transfer denied, 683 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. 1997) Iowa State v. Aderholdt, 545 N.W.2d 559 (Iowa 1996) Mass Commonwealth v Alvarado (1995) 420 Mass 542, 651 NE2d 824 Mich People v Poole (1993) 199 Mich App 261, 501 NW2d 265 Mo State v Jones (1993, Mo) 865 SW2d 658 State v. Meza, 941 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997) Neb State v Flanagan (1996) 4 Neb App 853, 553 NW2d 167 NY People v. Salazar, 225 A.D.2d 804, 640 N.Y.S.2d 167 (2d Dep't 1996), appeal denied, 88 N.Y.2d 969, 647 N.Y.S.2d 723, 670 N.E.2d 1355 (1996)

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v. Ross, 228 A.D.2d 718, 644 N.Y.S.2d 336 (3d Dep't 1996), appeal denied, 88 N.Y.2d 993, 649 N.Y.S.2d 400, 672 N.E.2d 626 (1996) People v Rhodes (1994, App Div, 3d Dept) 614 NYS2d 641 People v Dolson (1995, App Div, 4th Dept) 625 NYS2d 110, app den 85 NY2d 972 Ohio State v Gordon (1994, Ohio App, Cuyahoga Co) 95 Ohio App 3d 334, 642 NE2d 440 State v Weinstein (1995, Mun) 69 Ohio Misc 2d 33, 649 NE2d 936 Or State v Cook (1995) 136 Or App 525, 901 P2d 911, review gr 322 Or 420 Tex State v Giles (1993, Tex App El Paso) 867 SW2d 105, petition for discretionary review ref (Apr 20, 1994) Nichols v State (1994, Tex App Houston (1st Dist)) 886 SW2d 324 Utah State v Gray (1993, Utah App) 851 P2d 1217, 211 Utah Adv Rep 40, cert den (Utah) 860 P2d 943 Va United States v Ford (1993, CA4 W Va) 986 F2d 57 Wyo Perry v. State, 927 P.2d 1158 (Wyo. 1996)

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Inventory search of defendant's improperly parked pickup truck, performed before vehicle was towed, was lawfully conducted in accordance with police procedure. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Gordon, 23 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Me. 1998).

Detective's inventory search of defendant's vehicle prior to having it impounded was conducted pursuant to standard procedures and for purpose other than suspicion of criminal activity, as required by the Fourth Amendment; detective conducted inventory after requesting impoundment, but before vehicle was removed, detective did not open closed containers, and he recorded contents on inventory form, which was noted in his police report. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Exume, 953 F. Supp. 2d 319 (D. Mass. 2013).

For warrantless inventory search of motor vehicle to be valid, police discretion must be exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Mensah, 796 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Mass. 2011).

An inventory search of an automobile is permitted where the police have lawfully impounded the automobile and the police have acted in accordance with reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying contents of the impounded vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Rivera, 465 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.P.R. 2006).

Warrantless search of automobile and seizure of box of cash from rear passenger area was reasonable inventory search even though search occurred after improper custodial interrogation in which defendant claimed ownership of cash in vehicle, absent evidence that search was conducted in bad faith or for purposes of unearthing incriminating information from defendants; defendants had already been placed under arrest, and agent conducted search pursuant to established inventory search procedures of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Fernandez Santana, 975 F. Supp. 135 (D.P.R. 1997).

Warrantless search of arrestee's automobile was pursuant to standardized inventory policy, and thus did not violate Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding that officer used general catch-all description for items of no substantial value,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

and that officers were motivated in part by expectation of finding criminal evidence in car, where officers testified that New York City Police Department had uniform standardized policy to do complete inventory search of contents when car was impounded. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008).

Police officers may exercise their discretion in deciding whether to impound vehicle, as long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Best, 415 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Conn. 2006).

If permitted by applicable procedure, police officers may search containers in suspect's vehicle during course of inventory search as long as they act in good faith pursuant to established routine. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Foreman, 993 F. Supp. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

City police department's vehicle stop and impoundment guidelines, which implemented impoundment provisions of state Vehicle Code, provided sufficiently standardized criteria regulating scope of permissible inventory search by officers of seized automobiles, including searches of closed containers found in automobiles, as required under Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding that policy did not mention opening of containers; standardized criteria or routine could adequately regulate opening of closed containers discovered during inventory searches without using words "closed container" or other equivalent terms, policy explicitly set out its objectives to protect owner's property and shield officers from claims of loss or damage, and sufficiently regulated scope of search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1301(a). U.S. v. Mundy, 621 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2010).

Police officers inventoried defendant's impounded vehicle in accordance with standardized method and policies found in township police department motor vehicle inventory procedures and lawfully discovered the contraband; it was impossible to follow procedure requiring that an arrestee be given possession of the valuable items in his or her vehicle before impoundment and inventory if the officers on the scene were able to do so, because by the time the inventory procedure had begun, defendant had been arrested, handcuffed and was on his way to hospital to gather evidence for use in a future driving under the influence (DUI) prosecution. U.S. v. Morris, 179 Fed. Appx. 825 (3d Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 14, 2006).

Warrantless inventory search of impounded motor vehicle is valid under Fourth Amendment if search is conducted in accordance with standardized criteria that limit police discretion in determining both whether to search vehicle and scope of search, since search conducted under such criteria properly balances government's interest in conducting search and individual's legitimate expectation of privacy. United States v Salmon (1991, CA3 Pa) 944 F2d 1106, cert den (US) 117 L Ed 2d 451, 112 S Ct 1213.

The requirement that, to be valid, inventory searches of a seized vehicle must be conducted according to standardized criteria or routine, strikes a balance between the government's legitimate interests in such searches and the owner's legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of the seized vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Lynch, 290 F. Supp. 2d 490 (M.D. Pa. 2003).

Virginia Department of State Police's inventory search policy and inventory search form signed by the law enforcement officer who conducted the inventory search of defendant's vehicle, which was completed in accordance with the inventory search policy, sufficiently established that search was conducted pursuant to standardized criteria, as required to establish applicability of inventory search exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Clarke, 842 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2016).

Warrantless inventory search of defendant's motor vehicle was performed in good faith according to standardized criteria, even if police officer believed when he began the search that there was contraband in vehicle's center console, where defendant was validly arrested, his vehicle was parked in a high-crime area in a manner that blocked traffic in

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

the parking lot, the vehicle was locked and its keys were plainly visible on the floorboard, and police department policy mandated an inventory search of all impounded vehicles. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Stitt, 382 Fed. Appx. 253 (4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 2010 WL 3907488 (U.S. 2010).

Sheriff's department policy requiring for complete inventory to be taken on all impounded and confiscated vehicles including interior, glove compartment, and trunk, although not explicitly using phrase "closed containers," sufficiently regulated opening of such containers to provide standardized criteria to justify deputy's search of bags in trunk of arrestee's vehicle, which contained drugs; only by opening all closed containers could deputy have effectively complied with requirement for "complete inventory," and fact that policy expressly permitted examination of glove boxes, which were closed containers, strongly suggested that "complete inventory" required opening of closed containers. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2009).

If motor vehicle is in lawful custody, police may inventory vehicle, if such inventories are routine and conducted pursuant to standard police procedures, as long as purpose of inventory is to secure vehicle or its contents and not to gather incriminating evidence against owner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009).

For a police department's uniform inventory-search policy to be valid, it must curtail the discretion of the searching officer so as to prevent searches from becoming a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence; nevertheless, an inventory-search policy may leave the inspecting officer sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or should not be opened in light of the nature of the search and characteristics of the container itself. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2007).

Inventory search that police officer conducted before vehicle that he had lawfully impounded was towed from scene was constitutionally proper, where search was conducted pursuant to constitutionally adequate policy that required officer to inventory all items in vehicle including any and all containers not secured by lock, and to complete a wrecker slip; by limiting types of containers that could be searched, police department's towing policy helped prevent inventory searches from becoming evidentiary expeditions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. McKinnon, 681 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2012).

An inventory search of a seized vehicle is reasonable and not violative of the Fourth Amendment if it is conducted pursuant to standardized regulations and procedures that are consistent with (1) protecting the property of the vehicle's owner, (2) protecting the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) protecting the police from danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Ochoa, 667 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2012).

Inventory search of seized vehicle is reasonable and not violative of Fourth Amendment if it is conducted pursuant to standardized regulations and procedures that are consistent with (1) protecting property of the vehicle's owner, (2) protecting police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) protecting police from danger. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 1999).

Inventory search is permitted and is deemed reasonable only if conducted according to standardized procedures. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Castro, 129 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 1997), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc granted, 143 F.3d 920 (5th Cir. 1998).

Inventory search is valid provided it is conducted under established police department inventory policy. United States v Seals (1993, CA5 La) 987 F2d 1102, petition for certiorari filed (Jun 18, 1993).

Discretion as to impoundment of a vehicle, as would allow a warrantless inventory search, is permissible so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officers' warrantless inventory search of vehicle following defendant's arrest for driving with suspended license did not violate Fourth Amendment; search was conducted pursuant to standardized procedures which complied with Fourth Amendment requirements for warrantless inventory search, and defendant failed to demonstrate that officers impounded and inventoried car in bad faith or for sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hughes, 420 Fed. Appx. 533 (6th Cir. 2011).

Inventory search of a vehicle performed by a police officer after both occupants of the vehicle were arrested complied with the Fourth Amendment, despite claim that the search was conducted for the purpose of investigation only; the officer testified that the police department had a standard procedure for conducting inventory searches that required vehicles to be searched before they were towed, and that such inventory searches were performed for the purpose of documenting the valuables in the car and the condition of the car when impounded for the protection of the car owner and the police department. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Player, 201 Fed. Appx. 331, 2006 FED App. 0764N (6th Cir. 2006).

Search of defendant's vehicle, during which officer found loaded firearm and ammunition, was lawful, where defendant, an occupant of vehicle, had been lawfully arrested for operating a vehicle without a driver's license, such that search was incident to arrest, and where search was also conducted pursuant to police policy requiring an inventory search of a vehicle being impounded for purpose of determining if there were weapons in vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Fleming, 201 F. Supp. 2d 760 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

Discretion as to impoundment of a vehicle is permissible, as would allow a warrantless inventory search, so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016).

Law enforcement officers may make warrantless inventory search of legitimately seized vehicle, provided that inventory is conducted according to standardized criteria or established routine. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. McGhee, 672 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D. Ohio 2009).

In order to be valid, inventory searches of vehicles must be conducted according to standard police procedures and may not be undertaken for the purposes of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Woodruff, 86 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1591 (W.D. Tenn. 2011).

Police officers followed standard procedure in conducting inventory search of defendant's car, supporting determination that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; defendant was prohibited by state's mandatory insurance law from driving car after the police discovered he lacked proof of insurance, and because car was located alongside the interstate, it presented a public safety hazard, and police were authorized by their written policy to order it towed to safe location. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Cherry, 436 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2006).

An inventory search of a motor vehicle following a valid traffic stop is permissible and acceptable police operating procedure if it is made in good faith compliance with reasonable police regulations. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Bass, 325 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2003).

The lack of a written policy is not dispositive of validity of inventory search of vehicle following arrest of operator; evidence of a well–honed police department routine may be sufficient to establish the standard procedures of an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lozano, 171 F.3d 1129 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 362 (U.S. 1999).

Searching closed containers as part of inventory search is permissible so long as standardized criteria or established routines exist regarding opening of closed containers. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Richardson, 121 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Standardized criteria or established routine must be followed in undertaking inventory searches to ensure that police procedure is not merely pretext for concealing an investigatory police motive. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Banks, 628 F. Supp. 2d 811 (N.D. Ill. 2009).

Warrantless search of motor vehicle after occupants were removed in felony traffic stop was not justified as inventory search, where vehicle's owner and authorized driver were not arrested, officers deviated from county's towing policies and procedures, and search was unreasonable in that it was conducted to find weapons, not to inventory contents of vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Reed, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (S.D. Ind. 2018).

Inventory searches conducted according to standardized police procedures, which vitiate concerns of an investigatory motive or excessive discretion, are reasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Baldenegro-Valdez, 703 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2013).

Police officer's warrantless inventory search of defendant's vehicle following his arrest substantially complied with state highway patrol policy on inventory searches, and therefore, did not violate Fourth Amendment, where policy stated officer was not to leave an arrestee's vehicle unattended, officer was to inventory contents of all vehicles impounded or taken into protective custody, inventory was to include all areas of vehicle, and no one was available to take custody of defendant's vehicle following his arrest so officer had to have vehicle towed, which required him to conduct an inventory. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Garreau, 658 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2011).

State trooper's impoundment of defendant's rented vehicle was conducted according to standardized procedures of state highway patrol, and thus, was reasonable under totality of circumstances; highway patrol policy manual provided for impoundment of vehicle that constituted a hazard and standardized criteria were listed to determine whether vehicle was hazard, trooper found vehicle overturned early in morning following blizzard, no accident had been reported to law enforcement and no one was present with vehicle, vehicle was forty feet from freeway, and trooper had legitimate concern that passing motorists would attempt to assist occupants of vehicle despite hazardous road conditions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kimhong Thi Le, 474 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2007).

Law enforcement officers may not raise the inventory-search banner in an after-the-fact attempt to justify a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, when it was purely and simply a search for incriminating evidence, but they are permitted to keep their eyes open for potentially incriminating items that they might discover in the course of an inventory search, as long as their sole purpose is not to investigate a crime. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).

In order to justify an inventory search of an automobile, the government must produce evidence that impoundment and inventory search procedures were in place and that law enforcement complied with those procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 2005).

Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle must be done pursuant to standard police procedures and for the purpose of protecting the car and its contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Betterton, 417 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005).

Inventory searches of impounded vehicles are reasonable when they are conducted according to standardized police procedures, although inventory searches are not necessarily unreasonable when standard procedures are not followed. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Mayfield, 161 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1348 (U.S. 1999).

Warrantless inventory search must be done pursuant to standard police procedures and for purpose of protecting vehicle and its contents. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223 (8th Cir. 1998).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

See United States v Marshall (1993, CA8 Mo) 986 F2d 1171, § 8[b].

Under the Fourth Amendment, an inventory search is reasonable and constitutional if it is conducted according to standardized police procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Barraza-Maldonado, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Minn. 2012).

Inventory searches of vehicles which have been impounded pursuant to standard police procedure do not require a search warrant; in the interests of public safety and as part of community caretaking functions, automobiles are frequently taken into police custody and, when they are, the police generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. May, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minn. 2006).

Inventory searches are reasonable when they are conducted according to standardized police procedures. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Quiroz, 57 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Minn. 1999).

The reasonableness of an inventory search of a vehicle is determined based upon the totality of the circumstances; those circumstances include whether the search was conducted according to standardized procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Ceruti, 2011 WL 5118970 (W.D. Mo. 2011).

During the course of an inventory search, law enforcement officers are permitted to open closed containers only if they are following standard police procedures that mandate the opening of such containers in every impounded vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Le, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D.N.D. 2005).

Local police department policies that give officers discretion to choose whether to impound a vehicle are not improper so long as police discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S. v. Cervantes, 678 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2012).

Warrantless inventory search of sealed envelopes found in defendant's impounded rental car, following defendant's request that his belongings be taken for safe-keeping, was conducted pursuant to police department's standard inventory policy, and thus search was reasonable under Fourth Amendment; policy required officers to search for contraband, narcotics, explosives, hazardous materials, perishable items, money and weapons, and policy, by its terms, necessarily involved looking within closed containers. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Unakalu, 455 Fed. Appx. 730 (9th Cir. 2011).

Warrantless inventory searches of vehicles are lawful only if conducted pursuant to standard police procedures that are aimed at protecting the owner's property and at protecting the police from the owner charging them with having stolen, lost, or damaged his property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008).

Lawfully seized vehicle may be validly searched according to standard inventory procedure. United States v Kim (1992, DC Hawaii) 803 F Supp 352.

Cellular telephone was lawfully seized from defendant's crashed vehicle as part of an inventory search before the vehicle was towed away, where police had a policy that required officers to collect any valuable items from a vehicle before it was towed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Davis, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Or. 2011), subsequent determination, 2011 WL 1655549 (D. Or. 2011).

Granting police discretion over whether to impound and inventory a vehicle is permissible under the Fourth Amendment so long as officers exercise that discretion according to standardized criteria, and not in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2010).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of lawfully stopped vehicle, and seizure therefrom of automatic rifle, were valid as part of inventory search pursuant to impounding vehicle, where search was conducted in accordance with standard operating procedure manual of police department responsible for stop and search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Cazares, 192 Fed. Appx. 807 (10th Cir. 2006).

Officers conducted valid inventory search after impounding vehicle for caretaking purposes following arrest of intoxicated driver, where they followed required county procedures, including searching car and listing of property found in containers and compartments, and tagging as evidence alcohol and weapon discovered during inventory. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Moraga, 76 Fed. Appx. 223 (10th Cir. 2003).

Though the search of defendant's vehicle upon its impoundment when defendant was arrested could not be justified as an inventory search, where the search did not conform to standard procedures, evidence obtained from the vehicle was admissible based on the inevitable discovery doctrine, since the impoundment was lawful. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Andas-Gallardo, 3 Fed. Appx. 959 (10th Cir. 2001).

See United States v Lugo (1992, CA10 Wyo) 978 F2d 631, § 7[b].

A warrantless inventory search is proper under the Fourth Amendment when the search is conducted pursuant to standard police procedures for the purpose of protecting the car and its contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Reyes-Vencomo, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D.N.M. 2012).

A warrantless inventory search of automobile is proper when the search is undertaken pursuant to standard police procedures as well as for the purpose of protecting the car and its contents; however, warrantless inventory search may not be used as a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jacquez, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D.N.M. 2005).

Routine inventory of contents of vehicle, which was performed according to procedures established by county sheriff, after driver was arrested and vehicle impounded, was proper. U.S. v. Williams, 980 F. Supp. 1225 (D. Utah 1997).

In order to establish that defendant's vehicle was impounded by police pursuant to standard criteria or established routine, as required to support warrantless inventory search of the vehicle, the government was not required to introduce a written police department impound policy, but was only required to demonstrate that an established routine or practice existed authorizing the impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Foskey, 455 Fed. Appx. 884 (11th Cir. 2012).

Police officers' failure to follow police department's standard procedure for impound and search of vehicles rendered their impoundment and inventory search of car defendant had been driving unreasonable, in violation of Fourth Amendment; after arresting defendant for driving under the influence, rather than contacting car's owner or parking car on the street, officers conducted inventory search at scene of arrest and called dispatch to have car towed to private impound lot, and police department's written impoundment and inventory search procedures stated that if a vehicle driven by an arrestee could not be classified as evidence, it should be disposed of in any lawful manner as directed by arrestee, and that a vehicle that was not taken to a police facility should not be inventoried. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Proctor, 489 F.3d 1348 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Condition precedent to inventory search is lawful possession of the vehicle; moreover, inventory search must be conducted according to standardized criteria to prevent it from becoming ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 763 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2011).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Under the Fourth Amendment, once a vehicle has been legally impounded, police may conduct an inventory search as long as it conforms to standard procedures of the local police department. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lustig, 3 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

In order for a search of a properly detained vehicle to fall within the inventory search exception to search warrant requirement, there must be standard operating procedures established by the law enforcement agency conducting the search, and procedures must be followed, and the inventory search must not be conducted solely for investigative purposes; in other words, the search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Kelley, 362 Ark. 636, 210 S.W.3d 93 (2005).

Police may impound vehicle and inventory its contents only if actions are taken in good faith and in accordance with standard police procedures or policies. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Rules Crim.Proc., Rule 12.6(b). Benson v. State, 342 Ark. 684, 30 S.W.3d 731 (2000).

Warrantless inventory search of vehicle being impounded may not be used by police as guise for general rummaging for incriminating evidence, and thus, police may impound vehicle and inventory its contents only if actions are taken in good faith and in accordance with standard police procedures or policies. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Thompson v. State, 333 Ark. 92, 966 S.W.2d 901 (1998).

In order for search of properly detained vehicle to fall within inventory search exception to search warrant requirement, there must be standard operating procedures established by law enforcement agency conducting search, and procedures must be followed, and inventory search must not be conducted solely for investigative purposes; there is no requirement that procedures for inventory search be in writing. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997).

The police may impound a vehicle and inventory its contents only if the actions are taken in good faith and in accordance with standard police procedures or policies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Boykin v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 274, 409 S.W.3d 321 (2012).

Police may impound a vehicle and inventory its contents only if the actions are taken in good faith and in accordance with standard police procedures or policies; an inventory may not be used as a guise for general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 15. McDonald v. State, 92 Ark. App. 1, 210 S.W.3d 915 (2005).

Rule that warrantless inventory search must adhere to preexisting policy or practice may require the prosecution to prove more than the existence of some general policy authorizing inventory searches, and when relevant, prosecution must also prove a policy or practice governing the opening of closed containers encountered during an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Williams, 20 Cal. 4th 119, 20 Cal. 4th 439a, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 275, 973 P.2d 52 (1999), as modified, (May 12, 1999).

Warrantless search of smartphone found in defendant's automobile after defendant's arrest was not shown to be valid as part of an inventory search, absent evidence that deputy's act of turning on the phone on to determine if it was functional and deputy's subsequent search of the phone were taken in accordance with any standardized policy or practice governing inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Nottoli, 2011 WL 4436188 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2011).

Warrantless searches of defendant's vehicle were not conducted pursuant to standardized criteria and thus were not justified as inventory searches; officer did not testify that the initial search of the vehicle was conducted pursuant to a standardized inventory procedure, and it was undisputed that the officers conducted the second search at the impound

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

yard in order to discover incriminating evidence, rather than as an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Evans, 200 Cal. App. 4th 735, 2011 WL 5252792 (2d Dist. 2011).

Under Fourth Amendment, police officers may exercise discretion in determining whether impounding a vehicle serves their community caretaking function, so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Torres, 188 Cal. App. 4th 775, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 (4th Dist. 2010), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 2010 WL 4140424 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010).

Search of defendant's car did not fall within inventory or impound search exception to search warrant requirement as there was no evidence of the purpose of the search, that the police had a policy regarding conducting such searches, or that they followed it. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Henry, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 2010 WL 2046574 (1st Dist. 2010).

Even assuming California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers' decision to impound defendant's automobile after his arrest pursuant to the community caretaking function was required to be governed by a reasonable, standard police procedure for contraband discovered in an inventory search of the automobile to be admissible under the Fourth Amendment, the discretionary safekeeping provision of Vehicle Code was such a standard procedure, where CHP manual advised officers to use the safekeeping provision after a custodial arrest when necessary "to provide for the safekeeping of vehicles and the property they may contain"; since both officers stated they impounded the automobile to protect it from damage or theft, it was not unreasonable to infer that both received standardized training as to such factors. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651(h). People v. Shafrir, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1238, 2010 WL 1189584 (1st Dist. 2010).

If officers are warranted in impounding a vehicle, a warrantless inventory search of the vehicle pursuant to a standardized procedure is constitutionally reasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651. People v. Williams, 145 Cal. App. 4th 756, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 (2d Dist. 2006).

County sheriff's department oral policy for inventory searches of vehicles, under which officers conducting an inventory search must check all valuables and property in the vehicle and record them on towing form in as much detail as possible, in order to prevent unverifiable theft and protect officer safety, and officers have discretion whether all property from the vehicle is seized or released to an individual, was sufficiently standardized to satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Needham, 79 Cal. App. 4th 260, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899 (5th Dist. 2000).

In order to insure that inventory searches of vehicles are properly motivated, and thus are reasonable for purposes of Fourth Amendment, such searches must be conducted consistent with a standardized inventory procedure. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. In re Arturo D., 77 Cal. App. 4th 160, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 152 (1st Dist. 1999).

Impounding of defendant's automobile was valid, since police officer stopped vehicle and determined that defendant, who was vehicle's sole occupant, had no valid driver's license or other form of identification, and state statute authorized impounding of motor vehicles when no occupant of vehicle possessed valid driver's license, so that impounding was pursuant to standardized criteria. People v Green (1996, 2nd Dist) 46 Cal App 4th 367, 54 Cal Rptr 2d 12, 96 CDOS 4228, 96 Daily Journal DAR 6753.

The validity of inventory searches of vehicles turns on the scope of the law enforcement agency's policies, rules, or procedures governing inventory searches prior to the impoundment of property; the Fourth Amendment concern that inventory searches not be used as a ruse to search in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion is, therefore, satisfied when the inventory search following a lawful stop and prior to impoundment of the vehicle or property is conducted in accordance with existing agency policies that are consistently applied. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, (Jan. 9, 2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

If departmental regulations give police discretion whether to impound a vehicle, decisions to impound will be upheld as long as that discretion has been exercised according to standard criteria. People v. Milligan, 77 P.3d 771 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Apr. 24, 2003).

Officers had authority to conduct inventory search pursuant to standard procedure when vehicle was going to be impounded; defendant did not provide any legal basis for distinguishing between situation in which police take vehicle into police custody or turn it over to private towing company for impounding, and defendant did not have driver's license and consequently was unable legally to drive vehicle, and vehicle was in high traffic area and needed to be towed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Whealton, 108 Conn. App. 172, 947 A.2d 965 (2008).

Warrantless search of defendant's car was not a reasonable inventory search since the State did not establish that police complied with standardized criteria. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Gardner, 72 So. 3d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2011).

Automobile-inventory-search exception to warrant requirement did not justify officers' post-arrest warrantless search of defendant's impounded vehicle and containers found therein, where there was no showing that inventory search was conducted in accordance with standardized criteria; although officer testified that it was standard policy to conduct an inventory search whenever a vehicle was towed, officer also testified that there were no standardized criteria for performing such a search, and there was no evidence that it was standard policy for officers to open closed containers found during the search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Kilburn v. State, 54 So. 3d 625 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2011).

In the absence of a search warrant, law enforcement may search a vehicle in three circumstances: (1) incident to a valid arrest of a recent occupant of the vehicle; (2) under the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement, which requires exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause; and (3) when a vehicle has been impounded, as part of a reasonable inventory search following standardized procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Waller, 918 So. 2d 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005).

When police take custody of a vehicle, they may conduct a reasonable inventory search of that vehicle as an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment; however, such an impoundment and inventory search must be conducted according to standardized criteria. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Patty v. State, 768 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2000).

Inventory search incident to lawful impoundment of defendant's car following his arrest was permissible, where standard operating procedures governing inventory searches existed and there was no evidence that police acted in bad faith or for sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Rodriguez v. State, 702 So. 2d 259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1997).

Inventories conducted by the police pursuant to standard police procedures are deemed to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Davis v. State, 769 S.E.2d 183 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Inventory search of locked van and duffel bags inside it, upon lawful impoundment of van and flatbed truck that was carrying it, following traffic stop and arrest, was unreasonable in the absence of evidence establishing that police department had a policy or procedures for conducting inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Capellan v. State, 729 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Inventories conducted by the police pursuant to standard police procedures are deemed to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Grizzle v. State, 310 Ga. App. 577, 713 S.E.2d 701 (2011).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Three criteria must be met for a valid warrantless inventory search of a vehicle: (1) the original impoundment of the vehicle must be lawful; (2) the purpose of the inventory search must be to protect the owner's property and the police from claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger; and (3) the inventory search must be conducted in good faith pursuant to reasonable standardized police procedures and not as a pretext for an investigatory stop. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Clark, 333 Ill. Dec. 315, 914 N.E.2d 734 (App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2009).

Police officer's inventory search of vehicle after he had ordered vehicle to be towed following traffic stop was invalid, as officer failed to investigate whether there was a licensed driver in vehicle prior to conducting search, as required by state police policy, and one of the passengers in the vehicle was a licensed driver. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Young, 300 Ill. Dec. 231, 843 N.E.2d 489 (App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2006).

In conducting an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle, the police must be acting pursuant to standard police procedures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 272 Ill. Dec. 1, 786 N.E.2d 540 (2003).

Inventory searches are another exception to the general prohibition against warrantless searches; in conducting an inventory search, officers must be acting pursuant to standard police procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Cregan, 961 N.E.2d 926 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2011).

Police procedures governing inventory searches of impounded automobiles need not be in writing if the police act according to standardized department procedures for conducting inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Nash, 947 N.E.2d 350 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2011).

When impoundment of a vehicle is not specifically directed by state law, the risk increases that a decision to tow will be motivated solely by the desire to conduct an investigatory search; accordingly, an officer's choice to impound must rest upon standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Berry v. State, 2012 WL 1553063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

To safeguard against a general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence, an inventory search must be conducted in conformity with standard police procedures that are rationally designed to meet the objectives that justify the search in the first place and that sufficiently limit the discretion of the searching officer. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. George v. State, 901 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Even if there is a lawful custodial impoundment of the vehicle, the constitutional requirement of reasonableness requires that the inventory search itself must be conducted pursuant to standard police procedures; this ensures that the inventory is not a pretext for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Jackson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

To insure that an inventory search is not a pretext for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence, state must establish that the search was conducted pursuant to standard police procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Lucas, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Search of defendant's vehicle was not a valid inventory search; search was not conducted pursuant to standard police procedures, as applicable procedure stated that an inventory was not necessary when the owner of the vehicle was present and was capable of taking custody of the property within the vehicle, which defendant in this case was, and officer admitted that he was not conducting an inventory, but was searching for contraband when discovered drug evidence in defendant's vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Friend v. State, 858 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of defendant's truck at the scene of his arrest, without evidence of the policies and provisions of police department's inventory searches, was not valid inventory search. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Inventory search of burglary defendant's van which yielded items previously stolen in another incident was conducted in accordance with standard police procedures, as evidenced by circumstances surrounding the search; arresting officer telephoned sheriff's department's records vehicle section and provided it with pertinent incident information, two other officers conducted inventory search in arresting officer's presence and inventoried and took into custody items previously stolen, and arresting officer took custody of remainder of recovered items. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

To establish that a challenged search comes within the inventory exception to warrant requirement, the state must do more than offer simply the statement of a police officer that the search was conducted as a routine inventory; state must establish that the search was conducted pursuant to police department standard operating procedures. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Bartruff v. State, 706 N.E.2d 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

Warrantless search of defendant's vehicle was not authorized under the inventory exception given lack of an established police policy allowing it. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Stevens v. State, 701 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

An inventory search of the contents of an impounded vehicle pursuant to standard police procedures is reasonable if the process is aimed at securing or protecting the vehicle and its contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Allensworth, 748 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2008).

An inventory search is an exception to the search warrant requirement, but only if it is conducted under standardized criteria or an established routine; that is, it will be valid if the police department has a policy regarding conducting such a search and if the policy is followed in the particular case. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Oram, 266 P.3d 1227 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

Vehicle that had been driven by defendant to a state police post was readily mobile when defendant's sister arrived at the post to pick up the vehicle one day after defendant's arrest, so as to support conclusions that detective could have searched the vehicle without a warrant at the time and thus did not act unreasonably by waiting a day and obtaining a warrant before searching the vehicle, even though the vehicle had been seized or constructively impounded by police, where defendant had driven the vehicle the day before, and the sister was there at the post to drive away in the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Hedgepath v. Com., 441 S.W.3d 119 (Ky. 2014).

Inventory search is an exception to warrant requirement for conducting a search, but inventory search must be conducted for purposes other than investigation, and based upon a standardized policy, which provides standardized criteria to restrict or eliminate an officer's discretion in deciding whether to search and what to search. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Gray v. Com., 28 S.W.3d 316 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).

Pursuant to the exception to the warrant requirement for inventory searches, a search of a vehicle for the purpose of itemizing the property therein is constitutional, so long as the vehicle is in lawful police custody at the time of the search and the search is carried out pursuant to standardized criteria or an established routine established by the law enforcement agency. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Briscoe v. State, 30 A.3d 870 (Md. 2011).

The purpose for requiring written procedures by which inventory searches of automobiles are to be conducted is to limit an officer's discretion to search at will, and so lessen the possibility that police will use inventory procedures as investigative searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Baptiste, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 511, 841 N.E.2d 734 (2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

For an inventory search to be legitimate, the search must follow a standard or routine procedure adopted and recognized by the police force, it may not extend beyond the custodial necessities which are its sole justification, and it may not become a cover or pretext for an investigative search. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Peters, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 717 N.E.2d 266 (1999).

Inventory searches are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement, and thus, an inventory search conducted pursuant to a standard police procedure prior to lawfully impounding an automobile is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).

Impoundment and inventory searches are permissible so long as there are standardized criteria that govern their performance. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 2000).

In order for an inventory search of an automobile to be lawful, the automobile must be lawfully in police custody, the inventory must be conducted pursuant to standard, routine police procedures, and there must be no suggestion that the standard procedures are a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive. Spicer v. State, 921 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 2006), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Mar. 2, 2006).

Evidence established that officer used reasonable degree of discretion in search, and thus inventory search of defendant's vehicle was not illegal, even though standardized policy was not in writing; officer testified that it was standard procedure to inventory contents of vehicle about to be impounded as policy was means of safeguarding vehicle and its contents and to protect officers from subsequent claims of theft or damage, which was sole reason officer performed search of vehicle while waiting for tow truck to arrive, and there was no evidence of bad faith on part of officer in conducting search or that search was ruse for rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.M.C. Const. Art. 3, § 23. O'Connell v. State, 933 So. 2d 306 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, 933 So. 2d 303 (Miss. 2006).

To ensure that the inventory search remains within the scope necessary to carry out the care-taking function of protecting the arrestee's vehicle, the officers must follow the standard departmental procedure set for inventory and impounding. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Garrison v. State, 918 So. 2d 846 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Evidence established that officer used reasonable degree of discretion in search, and thus inventory search of defendant's vehicle was not illegal, even though standardized policy was not in writing; officer testified that it was standard procedure to inventory contents of vehicle about to be impounded as policy was means of safeguarding vehicle and its contents and to protect officers from subsequent claims of theft or damage, which was sole reason officer performed search of vehicle while waiting for tow truck to arrive, and there was no evidence of bad faith on part of officer in conducting search or of evidence that search was ruse for rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Const. Art. 3, § 23. O'Connell v. State, 914 So. 2d 785 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

To ensure that the inventory search remains within the scope necessary to carry out the caretaking function of protecting the arrestee's vehicle, the officers must follow the standard departmental procedure set for inventory and impounding. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Ray v. State, 798 So. 2d 579 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), cert. denied, (Oct. 11, 2001).

Following traffic stop leading to driver's arrest, inventory search of vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even though, in apparent violation of written policy on impounded vehicles, evidence seized was omitted from the inventory sheet and there was no evidence report; errors on inventory sheet and the lack of an evidence report did not raise inference that the search was designed to discover incriminating evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Nunez, 299 Neb. 340, 907 N.W.2d 913 (2018).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

The state must prove that an inventory search of an automobile was conducted pursuant to standard operating procedures in order to comply with both federal and state constitutions. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Scovill, 9 Neb. App. 118, 608 N.W.2d 623 (2000).

Police officer's warrantless inventory search of locked cargo compartment of moving truck that had been rented by defendant was not conducted according to standardized procedures of police department, and, thus, it was not a valid inventory search; police department's inventory search policy for vehicles generally prohibited the search of locked areas, but allowed for the search of two specific locked areas, i.e., trunks and glove compartments, but truck's cargo compartment was not a "trunk," in that truck's cargo compartment was much larger than an average trunk and was intended to carry significantly more cargo, and unlike a trunk, the truck's cargo compartment was secured with a padlock and could be accessed only by opening the padlock. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 19. State v. Newcomb, 20 A.3d 881 (N.H. 2011).

Warrantless search of wallet seized from defendant's car was not justified under inventory exception to search warrant requirement, as police officer testified that he was not aware of any inventory policy that police department had at time search was conducted. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 19. State v. Denoncourt, 821 A.2d 997 (N.H. 2003).

The reasonableness of inventory search of an impounded vehicle is evaluated against standards such as the scope of the search, the procedure used, and the availability of less intrusive alternatives. State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird, 349 N.J. Super. 352, 793 A.2d 792 (App. Div. 2002).

An inventory search is generally found to be reasonable if it is made pursuant to established procedures and it furthers any of the three following purposes: (1) to protect the arrestee's property while it remains in police custody; (2) to protect the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; or (3) to protect the police from potential danger. State v. Nysus, 35 P.3d 993 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001), cert. denied (N.M. Nov. 19, 2001).

An inventory search of arrestee's vehicle must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence; to guard against this danger, the search must be conducted pursuant to an established procedure clearly limiting the conduct of individual officers that assures that the searches are carried out consistently and reasonably. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414 (2013), petition for cert. filed, 82 U.S.L.W. 3095 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2013).

When the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Walker, 20 N.Y.3d 122, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 (2012).

Although warrant based on probable cause is not required, inventory search must be conducted according to familiar routine procedure and that procedure must meet two standards of reasonableness. First, procedure must be rationally designed to meet objectives that justify search in first place. Second, procedure must limit discretion of officer in field. People v Galak (1993) 80 NY2d 715, 594 NYS2d 689, 610 NE2d 362.

The People failed to establish the lawfulness of inventory search of defendant's car conducted after he was stopped for having illegally tinted windows, as there was no testimony at suppression hearing about the content of any police department policy regarding the conduct of inventory searches, or the officer's compliance with it. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Bacquie, 154 A.D.3d 648, 62 N.Y.S.3d 425 (2d Dep't 2017).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officers' search of defendant's vehicle, which occurred at police district headquarters rather than at arrest location, was a legitimate inventory search; officers complied with inventory search guidelines requiring that valuables be removed and vouchered, even though list of removed items was not on an "inventory" form. People v. Lee, 143 A.D.3d 626, 40 N.Y.S.3d 80 (1st Dep't 2016).

When the driver of a vehicle is arrested, the police may impound the car, and conduct an inventory search, where they act pursuant to reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Tardi, 122 A.D.3d 1337, 996 N.Y.S.2d 832 (4th Dep't 2014).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle following stop for speeding and arrest on active warrant was not sufficiently standardized and designed to produce a meaningful inventory of the contents of defendant's vehicle so as to be reasonable, absent evidence establishing that police had a standardized procedure, that such procedure was reasonable, and that it was followed. People v. Leonard, 119 A.D.3d 1237, 991 N.Y.S.2d 159 (3d Dep't 2014).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle was performed pursuant to an established and standardized procedure which limited the discretion of the police, safeguarded the defendant's constitutional rights, and fulfilled the legitimate purposes of a valid inventory search; arresting officer testified that the procedure routinely followed was to use a "property clerk's invoice" form to record the items removed from a vehicle during an inventory, the search results were fully recorded in this manner by the officer, the lifting up of the middle seat of the back row of the vehicle, under which there was a metal, square storage area, was justified under the established police inventory procedure, and the search was conducted in accordance with a city police department patrol guide. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Taylor, 92 A.D.3d 961, 940 N.Y.S.2d 103 (2d Dep't 2012).

People failed to meet burden of establishing a valid inventory search of defendant's vehicle in connection with arrest following traffic stop, even though state trooper testified that protocols for conducting inventory searches existed, where People presented no evidence of the substance of such protocols or evidence establishing that trooper followed them. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Abdur-Rashid, 64 A.D.3d 1087, 883 N.Y.S.2d 644 (3d Dep't 2009).

Applicable order of the Rochester Police Department concerning inventory searches set forth a standard procedure that was rationally designed to meet the objective justifying the search of defendant's vehicle and that limited the discretion of the police in conducting the search, and thus suppression of drugs found during inventory search was not warranted. People v. Rivera, 60 A.D.3d 1390, 875 N.Y.S.2d 702 (4th Dep't 2009).

Gun was not recovered pursuant to a permissible inventory search of a vehicle following traffic stop where the search was not conducted pursuant to a standardized or established police agency procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Martin, 854 N.Y.S.2d 789 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).

An inventory search of a motor vehicle will be upheld when it follows a valid traffic stop and arrest and is conducted in accordance with standard police procedures which limit the discretion of the searching officers. People v. Banton, 813 N.Y.S.2d 509 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).

Search by officers, responding to a call of shots fired, of vehicle which they had observed speeding and going through a stop sign was not pursuant to procedures established in police department's patrol guide, and thus was not lawful inventory search; officer who conducted search never completed inventory search form and never made any entries in his memorandum book, as required by patrol guide, and search appeared to have been a pretext, under which police could search vehicle for evidence related to a reported shooting, without probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Elpenord, 24 A.D.3d 465, 806 N.Y.S.2d 675 (2d Dep't 2005).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officer's search of vehicle, as part of inventory search following driver's arrest, was valid. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Wilcox, 744 N.Y.S.2d 272 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2002).

Warrantless search of the impounded vehicle was proper, since it was conducted pursuant to a routine police procedure, which provided for a preliminary inventory search in order to secure valuables when the vehicle is initially left in an unsecured area; since the opening of the locked metal compartment comported with established routine, it was proper. People v. Lesane, 727 N.Y.S.2d 418 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2001).

For warrantless inventory search to be permissible, it must be both reasonable and conducted pursuant to "single familiar standard" or established police procedure, which must be rationally designed to meet objectives that justify search in first place, and must limit discretion of the officer in field. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Kearney, 288 A.D.2d 398, 733 N.Y.S.2d 460 (2d Dep't 2001).

Where the inventory search of an impounded vehicle is conducted according to standard departmental procedure that conforms to constitutional dictates concerning reasonableness, the search will be upheld. People v. Walker, 701 N.Y.S.2d 555 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 1999).

Inventory search of a vehicle resulting in discovery of a gun was proper; search was conducted in accordance with standard police procedure following defendant's lawful arrest and before transporting the vehicle to the precinct. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Velasquez, 700 N.Y.S.2d 126 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999).

Impoundment of automobile in which defendant was passenger and subsequent search of closed briefcase by police were accomplished in accordance with standard police inventory procedures; introduced into evidence at hearing were applicable police inventory search bulletins, and there was police testimony that demonstrated that automobile was properly impounded as evidence of crime and to determine its true owner. People v. White, 693 N.Y.S.2d 524 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999).

Search of defendant's vehicle was not valid inventory search where police failed to generate meaningful inventory of vehicle's contents and allowed officer conducting search undue discretion. People v Barton (1994, 4th Dept) 203 App Div 2d 911, 611 NYS2d 385.

Inventory search of impounded vehicle, following arrest of driver for license violation, leading to discovery of loaded handguns in unlocked glove compartment, was not conducted pursuant to established procedure clearly limiting conduct of individual officers that assured searches were carried out consistently and reasonably; police department policy allowing impoundment and inventory search of vehicle in the field whenever driver was arrested for driving with suspended license would permit, if not encourage, general rummaging for evidence and did not satisfy constitutional requirements. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Francis, 12 Misc. 3d 781, 819 N.Y.S.2d 393 (Sup 2006).

An inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle, conducted using reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith, is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, 615 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2000).

An inventory search of a compartment of a lawfully impounded vehicle does not contravene the federal or state Constitutions, where the search is administered in good faith and in accordance with reasonable police procedures or established routine. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 14. State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St. 3d 105, 717 N.E.2d 329 (1999).

Officers' decision to conduct warrantless inventory search of the vehicle, following tow and impoundment of the vehicle following traffic stop, was made in good faith and in accordance with city's standardized procedure regarding such searches, and thus there was no Fourth Amendment violation; officers conducted the inventory search of the

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

vehicle in a lawful and reasonable manner, complying with the department's established inventory procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Eason, 2016-Ohio-5516, 69 N.E.3d 1202 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2016).

Inventory of defendant's vehicle was conducted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standardized practices, and thus was lawful, as required under inventory search exception to warrant requirement; police department had standardized policy for performing inventory of impounded vehicles, vehicle was photographed to document all items present in it, vehicle was then secured in a building in accordance with department policy, and information gathered from inventory search was not used to obtain search warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Workman, 2015-Ohio-5049, 52 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Auglaize County 2015).

To satisfy the Fourth Amendment, an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle must be conducted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standardized procedures or established routine. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Howard, 146 Ohio App. 3d 335, 766 N.E.2d 179 (5th Dist. Muskingum County 2001).

Inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle comes within exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement; however, for search to be valid, it must be conducted in accordance with standard police procedure, and not as subterfuge for evidentiary search. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Semenchuk, 122 Ohio App. 3d 30, 701 N.E.2d 19 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997), appeal not allowed, 80 Ohio St. 3d 1425, 685 N.E.2d 238 (1997) and dismissed, appeal not allowed, 80 Ohio St. 3d 1446, 686 N.E.2d 274 (1997).

Administrative inventory policy for impounded vehicles adopted by police department satisfied requirement that it be "designed and systematically administered" to avoid exercise of discretion by law enforcement personnel where police department required police to conduct inventory using department inventory checklist whenever car was impounded. Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Boone, 327 Or. 307, 959 P.2d 76 (1998).

For an inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle to pass constitutional muster, the officers must lawfully impound the vehicle and conduct the inventory pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Keady, 236 Or. App. 530, 237 P.3d 885 (2010).

To comply with state constitutional provision governing unreasonable searches and seizures, an inventory of the contents of a car must meet certain requirements: first, the vehicle must be lawfully impounded, that is, it must be in lawful administrative custody, second, the inventory must be conducted pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory, and finally, the inventory must not deviate from the procedures established in the administrative program. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Bernabo, 224 Or. App. 379, 197 P.3d 610 (2008).

Drugs found in bag in car after arrest of driver for driving under influence were not product of valid inventory search of vehicle where prosecution failed to show, by preponderance of evidence, that inventory was conducted pursuant to properly authorized administrative program, so designed and administered that inventory involved no discretion by officer conducting it. State v Martin (1993) 124 Or App 459, 863 P2d 1276.

Inventory search of defendant's motorcycle, following defendant's arrest, was invalid, where the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that the inventory search was conducted pursuant to a reasonable, standardized policy for the inventorying of the contents of a seized vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6801, 6801(b). Com. v. West, 2007 PA Super 349, 937 A.2d 516 (2007).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

An inventory search of an automobile is permitted where: (1) the police have lawfully impounded the automobile; and (2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Chambers, 2007 PA Super 81, 920 A.2d 892 (2007).

An inventory search of an automobile is permitted where: (1) the police have lawfully impounded the automobile, and (2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Henley, 2006 PA Super 276, 909 A.2d 352 (2006).

Inventory search of automobile is permitted where the police have lawfully impounded automobile and police have acted in accordance with reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying contents of the impounded vehicle. Com. v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).

Requirement that standardized criteria or established routine must regulate the opening of containers found during inventory searches is based on the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Brown, 698 S.E.2d 811 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle after his arrest was performed according to standardized criteria, and thus was lawful, although defendant offered to pay for private firm to tow vehicle to defendant's residence after arrest, since finding of fact, that inventory search was necessary even if vehicle was released to towing company, was not clearly erroneous. United States v Privett (1995, CA5 Tex) 68 F3d 101 (applying Tex law).

Inventory search of automobile must be conducted in good faith and pursuant to reasonable, standardized police procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Cook, 389 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2012).

The vehicle inventory must be conducted in good faith pursuant to reasonable and standardized procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2010), petition for discretionary review filed, (May 14, 2010).

Inventory searches are valid when a vehicle is impounded by police and its contents are inventoried using a standardized procedure for the purposes of protecting (1) the owner's property while it remains in police custody, (2) the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) the police or the public from potential danger. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 296 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. El Paso 2009).

Inventories conducted pursuant to standard police procedures are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Stauder, 264 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App. Eastland 2008), petition for discretionary review filed, (Oct. 29, 2008).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle after he was arrested during traffic stop did not violate Fourth Amendment; search was performed in accordance with standard police department policy, and nothing indicated that search was mere pretext for investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Diltz v. State, 172 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005).

Fourth Amendment allows police officers to open closed, even locked, containers as part of the inventory of an automobile, as long as they do so in accordance with standardized police procedures and as long as the officers do not

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

act in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Rothenberg v. State, 176 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004), petition for discretionary review refused, (Dec. 8, 2004).

Inventories of the contents of automobiles pursuant to lawful impoundments must be conducted in good faith pursuant to reasonable standardized police procedures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004).

To be lawful, an inventory search of vehicle must not deviate from police department policy. Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1998), petition for discretionary review refused, (May 12, 1999).

For inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle to be reasonable under Fourth Amendment, officer conducting search must follow standardized procedures; state has burden of introducing evidence that such standardized, reasonable procedure exists and that challenged police activity was essentially in conformance with that procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Giron, 943 P.2d 1114 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

Officer opened film container in compliance with standardized departmental procedure. State v Sterger (1991, Utah App) 808 P2d 122, 155 Utah Adv Rep 30.

An inventory search of an impounded vehicle conducted in accordance with acceptable policies and procedures is reasonable, absent a suggestion that the search was a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Butler v. Com., 31 Va. App. 614, 525 S.E.2d 58 (2000).

Compliance with established police procedures for conducting inventory searches does not constitutionalize an illegal search and will not enable the police to search a locked trunk without a warrant. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7; West's RCWA 46.20.435 (Repealed). State v. White, 135 Wash. 2d 761, 958 P.2d 982 (1998), as amended, (July 17, 1998).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 7[a] Vehicle and traffic violations—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, an inventory search of a vehicle which the police impounded following the arrest of the driver or

occupant for a vehicle or traffic violation was held lawful. 4

US United States v McCambridge (CA1 Mass) 551 F2d 865 United States v Wade (1977, CA5 Ga) 564 F2d 676 United States v Piatt (1978, CA5 Tex) 576 F2d 659 United States v Brookins (1980, CA5 Ala) 614 F2d 1037 United States v Walker (1991, CA5 Tex) 931 F2d 1066 United States v Andrews (1994, CA5 Miss) 22 F3d 1328, cert den (US) 130 L Ed 2d 302, 115 S Ct 346 United States v Harvey (1994, CA6 Mich) 16 F3d 109, 1994 FED App 43P United States v Velarde (1990, CA7 Ill) 903 F2d 1163 United States v Roberson (1990, CA11 Ga) 897 F2d 1092, reh den, en banc (CA11 Ga) 907 F2d 1145 Ala Stone v State (1986, Ala App) 501 So 2d 562

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Ark Reeves v State (1987) 20 Ark App 17, 722 SW2d 880 Cal People v Scigliano (1987, 4th Dist) 196 Cal App 3d 26, 241 Cal Rptr 546 People v Steeley (1989, 5th Dist) 210 Cal App 3d 887, 258 Cal Rptr 699, review den (search pursuant to standardized, unwritten police procedure) People v Benites (1992, 5th Dist) 9 Cal App 4th 309, 11 Cal Rptr 2d 512, 92 CDOS 7633, 92 Daily Journal DAR 12319 DC Punch v. U. S., 377 A.2d 1353 (D.C. 1977) Hill v. U.S., 512 A.2d 269 (D.C. 1986) Fla Fields v State (1978, Fla App D1) 369 So 2d 603, cert den (Fla) 368 So 2d 1366 Rivera v State (1979, Fla App D3) 373 So 2d 64 Bond v State (1983, Fla App D2) 431 So 2d 343 Ga Highland v State (1978) 144 Ga App 594, 241 SE2d 477 Stoker v State (1980) 153 Ga App 871, 267 SE2d 295 Thompson v State (1980) 155 Ga App 101, 270 SE2d 313 Martasin v State (1980) 155 Ga App 396, 271 SE2d 2 Stanley v State (1989) 191 Ga App 603, 382 SE2d 686 Ill People v Clark, 65 Ill 2d 169, 2 Ill Dec 578, 357 NE2d 798 People v Drescher (1977) 51 Ill App 3d 904, 8 Ill Dec 578, 365 NE2d 964 Ind Griffin v State (1978, Ind App) 372 NE2d 497 Moore v State (1994, Ind App) 637 NE2d 816, transfer den (Sep 14, 1994) Iowa State v Roth (1981, Iowa) 305 NW2d 501 La State v Daniels (1993, La App 2d Cir) 614 So 2d 97, cert den (La) 619 So 2d 573 Mich People v Boutell (1977) 80 Mich App 216, 263 NW2d 36 Minn State v Marshall (1987, Minn App) 411 NW2d 276 Miss Robinson v State (1982, Miss) 418 So 2d 749 Mo State v Jones (1993, Mo) 865 SW2d 658 State v Gibeson (1981, Mo App) 614 SW2d 14 NJ State v Roberson (1978) 156 NJ Super 551, 384 A2d 195 NY People v Rhodes (1994, App Div, 3d Dept) 614 NYS2d 641 ND State v Muralt (1985, ND) 376 NW2d 25, cert den 479 US 1063, 93 L Ed 2d 997, 107 S Ct 947 Okla Crowder v State (1979, Okla Crim) 590 P2d 683 Chambers v State (1982, Okla Crim) 649 P2d 795 Fallon v State (1986, Okla Crim) 725 P2d 603

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Or State v Weeks (1977) 29 Or App 351, 563 P2d 760 Pa Commonwealth v Monosky (1987) 360 Pa Super 481, 520 A2d 1192 Commonwealth v Woody (1996) 451 Pa Super 324, 679 A2d 817 Commonwealth v Nineteen Hundred & Twenty Dollars United States Currency (1992, Pa Cmwlth) 612 A2d 614 Criswell v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 38 Pa. Commw. 444, 393 A.2d 1071 (1978) Tex United States v Fossler (1979, CA5 Tex) 597 F2d 478 (applying Tex law) Evers v State (1978, Tex Crim) 576 SW2d 46 Barrett v State (1986, Tex App Beaumont) 718 SW2d 888 Alston v State (1988, Tex App Beaumont) 763 SW2d 557 Weller v State (1989, Tex App Beaumont) 764 SW2d 582 Autran v State (1992, Tex App Beaumont) 830 SW2d 807, petition for discretionary review gr (Sep 30, 1992) State v Kibler (1994, Tex App Fort Worth) 874 SW2d 330 Yaws v. State, 38 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001), reh'g overruled, (Feb. 6, 2001) and petition for discretionary review filed, (Mar. 26, 2001) Wash State v Houser (1978) 21 Wash App 30, 584 P2d 410 A search of an automobile impounded by the police after the driver had been arrested for reckless driving was held lawful in United States v Pennington (1971, CA5 Fla) 441 F2d 249, cert den 404 US 854, 30 L Ed 2d 94, 92 S Ct 97, involving a prosecution for violating a statute prohibiting a person previously convicted of a felony from transporting firearms in interstate commerce, where the evidence showed that the search was conducted not for the purpose of looking for contraband, but to take an inventory of the vehicle's contents prior to storage. There was testimony to the effect that when a motorist is arrested and taken to the station to post collateral, his car is impounded, a wrecker is called from a rotating list of privately operated wreckers, and the contents of the car are inventoried in the presence of the owner. The list is then signed by the officer and the car with its contents turned over to the wrecker company, from which the operator can later retrieve it. The court noted that personal effects lawfully contained within lawfully impounded automobiles must be protected for the benefit of the owners, and that officers cannot entrust property into the custody of others without knowing what is due to be returned. The only reasonable method for the prevention of such an occurrence after a valid arrest necessitating the detention of the automobile, continued the court, is to inventory the contents and to take receipts from the person who is thereafter to be responsible. Affirming a conviction, the court concluded that this was clearly the real purpose of the inventory undertaken in the instant case.

In Kaufman v United States (1971, DC Mo) 323 F Supp 623, affd (CA8) 453 F2d 798, involving a prosecution for armed robbery, it was held that the discovery of a gun by the operator of a private towing service, during a check for personal belongings, was not the result of a search in the legal sense, and that even if it could be deemed a search, the fact that it was found by a private citizen acting on his own behalf removed the case from the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence indicated that a police officer had arrested the defendant motorist for a traffic violation and had called a tow truck to remove the automobile from the street. Having towed the car away, the operator of the privately owned garage, in accordance with his usual custom, proceeded to check the automobile for personal belongings which should be protected, and in so doing, he saw the gun, obviously visible, on the rear seat of the automobile. Noting that the operator of the towing service was not looking for evidence of a crime, and that it has long been settled that objects falling in plain view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence, the court observed that to the extent that the observation of the gun could be deemed a search, the fact that it was found by a private citizen acting on his own behalf precluded a Fourth Amendment contention. Accordingly, the court held that the gun was properly admitted in evidence.

In Cotton v United States (1967, CA9 Nev) 371 F2d 385, where a motorist was arrested and charged with transporting in interstate commerce a motor vehicle, knowing that it was stolen, the court held, inter alia, that the conduct of the

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

arresting officer in opening the left front door of the car and looking at the doorpost in order to insert, on a "tow slip," the serial number, make, and model of the car, did not amount to an unlawful search. The court ruled that the police have a duty to keep a record of property they impound so that, in due course, it can be returned to the suspect or to its owner. Affirming a conviction, the court further stated that it did not think that the mere opening of the car door for the purpose of making such a record was, under the circumstances, a search, but that if it was, the circumstances under which it was done would make such a search an entirely reasonable one.

Stating that the police have a duty to protect the contents of an impounded car by making sure that the windows are rolled up and the car is properly locked, and stating further that the practice of protecting whatever valuables may be found in an automobile by keeping them in an envelope inside the precinct is not only not unreasonable, but also in the public interest, where it is not utilized as a substitute for a search without a warrant, the court in United States v Fuller (1967, DC Dist Col) 277 F Supp 97, held that where a driver was arrested for operating a motor vehicle without "running lights" and without a valid driver's license, the procedure followed by the officer, in securing the vehicle of the driver, did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure proscribed by the Fourth Amendment. Pointing out that it was not unusual for items to disappear from parked vehicles in that particular locality, in spite of well–lit parking lots and locked car doors, the trial court found the driver guilty of a violation of narcotics laws.

In Fagundes v United States (1965, CA1, Mass) 340 F2d 673, involving a prosecution for bank robbery, it was held that where a police officer arrived at the scene of an automobile accident and arrested the driver of the automobile for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it was lawful for the officer, prior to towing the car away, to take an inventory of the contents of the car, particularly in view of testimony that the contents of the car needed protection from the weather since it was raining hard at the time and the back window was broken out or missing. The prosecution testified that the arresting officer returned to the scene of the accident to remove the automobile after taking the driver into custody, but found that he could not remove the vehicle, and, therefore, arranged for a wrecker to tow the car away. While he was waiting for the wrecker and in the course of the inventory, he observed a handbag, with bundles of United States currency in plain sight, lying open on its side on the back seat of the car. The officer then took into custody the currency, which turned out to be part of the proceeds of a bank robbery. Rejecting the contention that the search of the vehicle was illegal, the court noted that the arresting officer returned to the car not for the purpose of searching it for incriminating evidence, but to protect its contents.

In Jackson v State (1966, Fla App) 192 So 2d 78, involving a prosecution for the statutory offense of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property, it appeared that a police officer stopped a motorist for a traffic violation, and on discovering that he had no driver's license, arrested him, and called a tow truck to remove the automobile from the street. Affirming a conviction, the court held that evidence of two pillowcases stuffed with clothing, a hair dryer, and a canned ham, discovered by the arresting officer in the course of an inventory of the contents of the automobile before it was impounded, was not obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Relying on earlier decisions from its own jurisdiction and without much discussion of its own, the court rejected, as without merit, the motorist's contention that the goods were discovered by an illegal search and seizure.

In Roush v State (1967, Fla App) 203 So 2d 632, involving a prosecution for unlawfully possessing barbiturates, the court held that where the driver of an automobile was arrested for reckless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and where he informed the police that he had $1,200 in cash in his automobile, which was to be impounded, it was a normal and prudent action on the part of the police to search the automobile in order to protect the city, as well as the arrested party, from the effect of possible loss of the money, if in fact it was in his automobile. The court further held that the search of the car, which resulted in the discovery of the barbiturates, was not an unlawful search, since the search was impliedly, if not expressly, invited by statements made by the driver at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In Gagnon v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 337, the court held that where the driver of an automobile was arrested for committing two traffic violations, and where his car was impounded because he had no proof of ownership, an inventory of the contents of the automobile, taken before a wrecker arrived to tow the automobile into police custody, was not an unreasonable search, and that evidence of a brown paper sack containing credit cars was admissible at his trial for the offenses of forgery, uttering a forged instrument, and petit larceny by unlawfully using a credit card. Although the court's decision, that the evidence discovered was not the product of an unreasonable search, was based partly on other grounds, it appears that the court also impliedly rested its decision on the ground that the inventory of the automobile's contents did not constitute an unreasonable search. Accordingly, a conviction was affirmed.

In Knight v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 900, where police officers arrested the driver of an automobile for having an improperly licensed vehicle, and impounded the vehicle, the court impliedly held lawful an inventory of the contents of the vehicle by its ruling that a stolen jewelry box discovered in the course of the inventory, which was conducted prior to towing the car away, was admissible in evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling and for grand larceny.

In State v Ruggles (1971, Fla App) 245 So 2d 692, the court held that where a motorist was arrested for a traffic violation which required the posting of bonds, and was placed in a police car for transportation to the police station, it was lawful for the police, prior to impounding his vehicle, to make an inventory of its contents, and evidence of narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia discovered therein was admissible in evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed a judgment suppressing the incriminating evidence and remanded the case for further hearing.

In Urquhart v State (1971, Fla App) 261 So 2d 535, it was held that where the evidence indicated that police officers who had been following the defendant motorist for several hours stopped him when he exceeded the speed limit by about 15 m.p.h., and one of the officers testified that when he detected an odor of alcohol, he arrested the defendant, an inventory of the contents of the vehicle for the purpose of impounding it did not constitute an illegal search.

In Plitko v State (1971) 11 Md App 35, 272 A2d 669, a prosecution for carrying a shotgun in a motor vehicle, it was held that where a police officer arrested the defendant motorist for consuming alcoholic beverages in a motor vehicle on a public street, he did not act in violation of the motorist's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure when he took an inventory of the contents of the automobile prior to having the vehicle towed away. The arresting officer testified that the vehicle was illegally parked at the time of arrest, that the ignition key was stuck in the ignition and could not be removed, and that it was necessary, under these circumstances, not only to impound the car, but also to itemize and safeguard the contents. The court adopted the view that a routine police inventory of the contents of an automobile impounded by the police does not constitute a search in the constitutional sense, when the evidence clearly shows that the making of such inventory is not a substitute for conducting an exploratory search, but instead is a bona fide attempt to safeguard the owner of the inventoried property against loss. The court went on to point out that while it would be difficult sometimes to distinguish between a bona fide inventory and a mere subterfuge to search, the mere fact that abuses sometimes occur during the course of criminal investigations should not give a sinister coloration to procedures which are basically reasonable. Affirming a conviction, the court concluded that since the officers were left in possession of an illegally parked motor vehicle with the ignition keys stuck in the ignition, it could not say that the officers acted in violation of the driver's Fourth Amendment rights in taking an inventory of the contents of his automobile prior to having the vehicle towed away.

Stating that it is a salutary practice, whether required by rule or by common procedure, for police officers to take an inventory of the contents of an automobile to insure the return of all personal property found therein to the owner and to protect the police against false claim of loss while in the custody of law enforcement officers, the court held in State v Wallen (1970) 185 Neb 44, 173 NW2d 372, cert den 399 US 912, 26 L Ed 2d 568, 90 S Ct 2211, that where a highway patrolman found an intoxicated motorist standing by a stalled vehicle in a highway intersection, arrested him for intoxication, and lodged him in jail, the patrolman had a duty not only to clear the highway by removing the automobile,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

but also to protect the contents of the car for the benefit of the owner. During the course of the inventory, the officer found five pairs of dice and other gambling paraphernalia, and the driver was prosecuted for keeping gaming devices for illegal purposes. The court stated that it was clear from the evidence that the taking of the inventory was not done as a subterfuge for an unlawful search for incriminating evidence, and that, therefore, the patrolman was not making a search in the constitutional sense of the word. However, the court went on to hold that even if the taking of the inventory could be considered a search, it was not an unreasonable search and seizure within the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

In People v Robinson (1971) 36 App Div 2d 375, 320 NYS2d 665, where after the defendant's arrest, an automobile which he had been driving was impounded by the police because it was unregistered, uninsured, and uninspected, the court held that a "search" of the vehicle made solely for the purpose of compiling an inventory of its contents was not unreasonable, and that a loaded revolver discovered in the course of such search was admissible in evidence at the defendant's trial for possession of a revolver. Noting that the existence or nonexistence of a police regulation authorizing an inventory search cannot be used as a basis for determining the reasonableness of such search of a vehicle, the court ruled that a "search" of a lawfully impounded vehicle for the purpose of inventorying its contents is calculated to safeguard them for the benefit of the owner, as well as to protect the police against possible dishonest claims of misappropriation of the vehicle's contents, and that there would seem to be no valid reason for extending the constitutional limitation against unreasonable searches to a search not made in defiance of constitutional standards to obtain incriminating evidence, but rather made in furtherance of a wholly reasonable and legitimate purpose. Relying on previous decisions from its own jurisdiction, as well as other jurisdictions, which had validated inventory searches, the court reversed a judgment suppressing the loaded revolver as evidence.

For a case wherein the court upheld the validity of an inventory search of a vehicle, which search was conducted after the arrest of its occupant for driving while her license was under suspension, and which included inspection of a closed box, see State v Keller (1972, Or App) 497 P2d 868, infra § 14[a].

In State v Criscola (1968) 21 Utah 2d 272, 444 P2d 517, involving a prosecution for burglary and larceny, the court held that where a motorist was arrested for driving an automobile that did not belong to him and for driving without a valid driver's license, on two separate occasions, and where, on each occasion, the police took the car into custody, impounded it, and inventoried its contents, discovering stolen goods in the first instance, and burglary tools in the second, evidence of such goods and tools was admissible. The court reasoned that on each occasion when the officers took the car into possession and impounded it lawfully, they became responsible for the car and its contents, and it was in conformity with ordinary prudence and customary practice, for the protection of the car owner as well as the police, for the officers to inventory such contents. Accordingly, the court concluded that the evidence in question was not obtained by an unreasonable search, and affirmed a conviction.

In State v Olsen (1953) 43 Wash 2d 726, 263 P2d 824, where the prosecution witnesses testified that the defendant was arrested and incarcerated for negligent driving, and that while the police were removing the contents of his car for safekeeping, this being a routine procedure, they found a gun, burglary tools, a police badge, and a sack, the court held that these articles were properly admissible in evidence at his trial for unlawfully carrying an unlicensed pistol in a vehicle and for unlawfully having burglary tools in his possession. Affirming a conviction, the court noted that the police officers were performing a routine duty in checking the articles for safekeeping, when the items were found which implicated the defendant.

In State v Montague (1968) 73 Wash 2d 381, 438 P2d 571, where a driver was arrested for traffic infractions and then released on his personal recognizance, but was shortly afterwards taken again into custody on information that there was a warrant on file for his arrest, the court held that an inventory search conducted during his detention and preparatory to impoundment of the vehicle was lawful. The court stated that when the facts indicate a lawful arrest followed by an inventory of the contents of the automobile preparatory to or following the impoundment of the car, and there is found to

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

be reasonable and proper justification for such impoundment, and where the search is not made as a general exploratory search for the purpose of finding evidence of crime, but is made for the justifiable purpose of finding, listing, and securing from loss during the arrested person's detention, property belonging to him, then such inventory is reasonable and lawful, and evidence of crime found will not be suppressed. Affirming a conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana found in the automobile, the court noted that it is only unreasonable searches which are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and that while it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a reasonable and lawful inventory procedure and an unauthorized exploratory search, such a factual determination has to be made by the court in order to determine whether a particular search was reasonable.

The view that an inventory search is valid when made to protect both the owner of the car and the police from claims and loss of property was accepted in State v Jones (1970) 2 Wash App 627, 472 P2d 402, involving a prosecution for burglary. The evidence showed that after a state patrol officer had stopped a vehicle for speeding, the driver fled the scene and the defendant, together with two other occupants of the vehicle, opened the doors and started to leave. This led the officer to believe that the vehicle might have been stolen, or that some other crime aside from a traffic violation had occurred. He therefore arrested the defendant and made an immediate search of the car which disclosed a cigar box later identified as one taken in a recent burglary. Under these circumstances, the court held that the search was valid as an inventory search. The court accepted the testimony of the officer that he made a mental inventory of the contents of the vehicle preparatory to the time the vehicle was towed in, and that the items were removed and marked when the car was at the sheriff's garage. The court pointed out that the fact that the driver of a car was at large was an additional reason for making an inventory search, since the driver might return to the vehicle and attempt to remove it or its contents before it could be towed away. The court, therefore, affirmed a conviction.

In Warrix v State (1971) 50 Wis 2d 368, 184 NW2d 189, where the police observed a car which matched the description of one used in a burglary and followed and stopped the car after it went through a red light, the court held that an inventory of the car at the police station, while it was in police custody and shortly after the arrest of its occupants, was lawful. The court stated that the purpose and justification of a custodial search of a jailed person also applies to the accused's automobile which is taken into custody by the police for safekeeping while the accused is in jail custody. The court ruled that an inventory may be made of that personal property in a car which can be easily removed, in order to protect the police from the numerous claims made that personal property has disappeared from a car during police custody. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction for burglary.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Impoundment of defendant's van and subsequent inventory search were proper where police followed standardized departmental procedures and there was no showing of bad faith or motive to uncover evidence. Colorado v Bertine (1987) 479 US 367, 93 L Ed 2d 739, 107 S Ct 738.

See South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 49 L Ed 2d 1000, 96 S Ct 3092 on remand (SD) 247 NW2d 673, supra § 3[a].

Police officers' alleged investigatory motive for conducting inventory searches after impounding arrestee's vehicles from his employer's premises following his arrest for driving on a suspended license, namely that they sought evidence in connection with their investigation of arrestee's possession of child pornography on his work computer, did not render the searches invalid under the Fourth Amendment; arrestee did not argue that the officers' investigatory motive was the sole motivation behind the inventory search, and he did not contend the searches were not carried out in conformity with police department's inventory search policy. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Boudreau v. Lussier, 901 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2018).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of locked camper was lawful where vehicle was impounded following inability of out–of–state driver or two passengers to identify either themselves or who owned pickup truck camper; evidence of stolen furniture discovered pursuant to inventory search was properly admitted into evidence at prosecution for interstate transportation of stolen goods. United States v Dall (1979, CA1 Me) 608 F2d 910, cert den (US) 63 L Ed 2d 603, 100 S Ct 1280.

Police officers' warrantless search of vehicle in which defendant had been traveling as passenger was valid under the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement; the vehicle's driver had been arrested following traffic stop of vehicle and there was no one immediately on hand to take possession of the vehicle, the inventory was made pursuant to standard police procedures, and the officers had previously discovered a loaded firearm on the driver's person. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Matias-Maestres, 738 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.P.R. 2010).

Inventory search of defendant's motor vehicle, including a search of the hidden compartments, was reasonable, following valid traffic stop and lawful arrest of defendant; police officers impounded defendant's vehicle and followed established procedures in searching the entire vehicle, using the standard form to list the contents of the vehicle, the search was conducted in defendant's presence, defendant signed the form, and there was no showing that the officers acted in bad faith, for the sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Rivera, 465 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.P.R. 2006).

Police officers were justified in searching defendant's seized vehicle for keys to move vehicle which was parked in front a fire hydrant and which had a broken window, such that firearm, ammunition, and other tangible evidence would have inevitably been discovered during inventory search of defendant's vehicle, and thus were admissible under inevitable discovery rule in prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm, regardless of validity of search of vehicle at scene; decision to inventory vehicle after arresting its occupant was standard police procedure, defendant had a suspended license and could not have driven vehicle, and inventory search would have included searching for and vouchering every item found inside car. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 3551 et seq.; N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202. United States v. White, 298 F. Supp. 3d 451 (E.D. N.Y. 2018).

Even if search of suspect's vehicle following his arrest for making illegal u–turn violated Fourth Amendment, subsequent inventory search of vehicle conducted at police precinct was lawful and would have revealed cocaine in vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Foreman, 993 F. Supp. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

Wallet and numerous stolen identification and credit cards which were found by police after defendant had been arrested for receiving stolen vehicle and vehicle had been impounded were admissible as product of either reasonable search under Fourth Amendment of impounded car being held as evidence or as reasonable caretaking search of impounded car, particularly where, when locking car and leaving it on police lot, officer acted reasonably in removing wallet which was in plain sight. United States v Young (DC Del) 369 F Supp 540.

Police officer's inventory search of vehicle in connection with valid traffic stop was reasonable; officer acted in good faith when he made decision to impound and search vehicle, and search was performed in accordance with police department's standardized criteria. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Johnson, 492 Fed. Appx. 437 (4th Cir. 2012).

Warrantless search of vehicle in which defendant had been passenger came within inventory search exception to warrant requirement; police officer had stopped vehicle for equipment violation, and once officers determined that neither driver nor defendant had driver's license, officers complied in good faith with standardized police policy relating to towing and storage of vehicles, which required officer to take inventory of all valuables left in vehicle, while conducting search from left to right, and front to back, even if officer did not ask defendant to remove any valuables from vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Battle, 370 Fed. Appx. 426 (4th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 7, 2010).

Opening of cardboard box during inventory search of car impounded following owner's arrest for driving with suspended license constituted valid inventory search where police officer opened box because he did not know what it contained and

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

city police department procedures required that he list everything in compounded car; fact that DEA agents examined contents of box was irrelevant. United States v Gallo (1991, CA5 Tex) 927 F2d 815.

See Jackson v Alabama (CA5 Ala) 534 F2d 1136, § 8[a].

Where restaurant proprietor advised police that defendant had attempted to pass bogus money, and police, having discovered that there were four misdemeanor traffic warrants outstanding against defendant, arrested him at restaurant on basis of such warrants, and in searching defendant, discovered his possession of motor vehicle registration certificate for vehicle located on restaurant parking lot, and restaurant proprietor requested police have vehicle removed from lot, inventory search of such vehicle, conducted by police preparatory to having it towed away, in course of which counterfeit money was discovered, was lawful where done in compliance with standard inventory procedure for purpose of protecting defendant's property and safeguarding police from groundless claims for loss of possessions, and not as mere pretext for searching, even though finding of contraband was not unexpected. U. S. v Kelehar (CA5 Fla) 470 F2d 176.

Officers' decision to impound the vehicle after traffic stop, thereby allowing a warrantless inventory search, was reasonable; vehicle was pulled over on public street, information check revealed that driver was operating under suspended license and that passenger, who was the vehicle's owner, did not have a valid license, and a background check revealed that third occupant, who did have a license, had active warrants for her arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013).

Police officers conducted inventory search of defendant's vehicle in conformity with established policy and procedures, and thus search did not violate Fourth Amendment, despite defendant's contention that impound of his vehicle was unconstitutional because officers were granted total discretion in deciding whether to impound vehicle and that impound was unnecessary because it was in legal parking spot; after stopping defendant for failure to signal, officers discovered that defendant was subject to suspended license, under Ohio statute, for lacking insurance or financial responsibility, standard police department procedure required impound and inventory search of all vehicles found to be operated under license suspension for lacking insurance or financial responsibility, and decision to follow police department policy and impound vehicle was reasonable for safety and traffic purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Ohio R.C. § 4509.101(A). U.S. v. Ballard, 432 Fed. Appx. 553 (6th Cir. 2011).

Warrantless search of defendant's vehicle was pursuant to valid inventory following defendant's arrest for driving under influence (DUI). U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Perotti, 226 Fed. Appx. 516 (6th Cir. 2007).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle and its subsequent impoundment was valid as being in compliance with standard police procedure; defendant's car was parked on private property at apartment complex at time of his arrest for public intoxication, defendant did not live at the apartment complex, and he could not obtain permission from the property owner because the property manager's office was closed at the time of the arrest, and, under the police department's impoundment policy, defendant did not have the option of leaving the car where it was parked, nor did he have the option of turning the keys over to his wife, as she did not appear at the scene until after the police had concluded the inventory search, and, moreover, the car was not drivable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Pryor, 174 Fed. Appx. 317, 2006 FED App. 0221N (6th Cir. 2006).

Search of vehicle conducted pursuant to city vehicle inventory policy was an inventory search that fell within exception to Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement, where automobile was impounded after driver was stopped for license plate violation and arrested on an outstanding felony arrest warrant, driver's license of vehicle owner was suspended, and no driver was available to remove the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. West v. Duncan, 76 Fed. Appx. 686 (6th Cir. 2003).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Warrantless search of defendant's impounded van was proper under inventory search exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement; police had lawfully taken control of the van after co-defendant, who was driving the van at the time, was arrested for driving on a suspended license, defendant, the registered owner, was not present, police department's impoundment policy provided for impounding vehicle for safekeeping that when an arrest was made and also required an inventory search, this policy was reasonable, as it specifically delineated parameters of inventory searches and explicitly required officers to be diligent in the enforcement of the policy, and the search was not done solely for purpose of uncovering evidence of criminality, as police sought to secure items of monetary value they had been informed were in the van. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Dowl, 229 F. Supp. 3d 603 (E.D. Mich. 2017).

Inventory search of car impounded after driver was stopped and arrested for excessive speed and equipment violations was lawful, where impoundment was lawful because driver had been arrested and there was no licensed occupant to attend vehicle, officer had already uncovered evidence of criminal conduct when he arrested driver and found rock of crack cocaine during patdown search, and there was no evidence to suggest that officer's inventory search was "fishing expedition." United States v Harvey (1992, ED Mich) 788 F Supp 966.

Inventory search exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement was applicable to police officers' search of driver's vehicle following traffic stop; city police department directive permitted officers to impound any vehicle operated by person without operator's license, or during period of suspension, cancellation, or revocation of such license. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. McGhee, 672 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D. Ohio 2009).

Fact that van in which defendant was a passenger when it was stopped for a traffic violation was impounded and therefore immobile did not preclude a warrantless search of the van under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, so long as probable cause existed for the search. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Barragan, 88 Fed. Appx. 107 (7th Cir. 2004).

Denial of defendant's motion to suppress inventory search of defendant's motor vehicle in connection with defendant's arrest for driving with suspended license following traffic stop of defendant's vehicle was warranted, where police officer testified that defendant failed to signal prior to making turn, as required by applicable traffic laws. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Bass, 325 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2003).

After sheriff's deputies arrested motorist for failing to produce valid Illinois driver's license during roadside safety check, they were then permitted to impound his automobile to remove it from public roadway, and to conduct inventory search of its contents to guard against danger and protect themselves from claims of lost or vandalized property. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Wos v. Sheahan, 57 Fed. Appx. 694 (7th Cir. 2002).

Police officer's search of defendant's towed vehicle, after defendant was arrested on outstanding traffic warrant following stop for traffic violation, was conducted pursuant to police department's standardized procedure for conducting inventory searches, rather than for sole purpose of searching vehicle for incriminating evidence, and thus search was reasonable under Fourth Amendment, where defendant had been taken into lawful custody, vehicle would have been left unattended on private property if not towed, and there was no responsible person able to take immediate custody of vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Frasher, 632 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2011).

Officers were entitled to conduct inventory search of vehicle pursuant to departmental policy after defendant was arrested for driving with suspended license and owner of parking lot requested that vehicle be towed away. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Engler, 521 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2008).

Following valid traffic stop, search of engine compartment of defendant's truck was part of a reasonable inventory search, where police officers had a tip that defendant might be carrying a firearm, and they found a bullet in his pocket. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Pappas, 452 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Warrantless inventory search of motor vehicle was justified based on probable cause and as incident to driver's arrest; the lawfulness of driver's arrest was undisputed, law enforcement officers could search passenger compartment of vehicle incident to arrest, driver matched description of suspect who stole merchandise from store, and bag from that store was visible in back seat of vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).

Decision to impound defendant's vehicle was based on a legitimate concern for traffic safety and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore District Court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence found during the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle; vehicle was stopped in a traffic lane in a no-parking zone and would have been a hazard if left in that location, and officers could not allow defendant himself to drive it to a safer location because his license was suspended. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Betterton, 417 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005).

Search of defendant's motor vehicle was reasonable, under the Fourth Amendment, both as an inventory search and a search incident to arrest; defendant was arrested for driving without valid driver's license after valid traffic stop, so that defendant could not continue to operate vehicle, making it necessary for police to secure vehicle, and firearm inside vehicle became plainly visible when defendant exited it, prompting police to search for additional contraband. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Stephens, 350 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2003).

Even assuming that "plain view" doctrine did not apply to police officer's seizure of drugs that he had seen through window of vehicle driven by unlicensed motorist whom he had earlier observed departing from suspected crack house, vehicle was properly impounded, and this impoundment provided alternative basis for seizing drugs, where motorist admitted that he did not have insurance, and police dispatcher had confirmed that motorist did not have valid license. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Gillon, 348 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2003).

Warrantless inventory search of vehicle was reasonable and did not violate Fourth Amendment, despite arrestee's contention that search violated state patrol policy because officers failed to inventory items left in the car after evidence was removed; although inventory list started at the scene, before drugs were found and place of impoundment changed from private lot to state patrol's district office, was not completed as it should have been, the seized items were listed on an evidence form later, and trooper testified there were no other items of value in the car. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Mayfield, 161 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1348 (U.S. 1999).

Where vehicle of defendant, convicted of narcotics offenses, had been stopped for traffic offense, at which point police learned that defendant had suspended license, police search of vehicle at scene (where loaded handgun was found) and later inventory search at police station (where box of heroin was found hidden in engine compartment) were proper. Inventory exception to warrant requirement applied even though officers had "investigatory motive" in searching vehicle; since police conducted search according to standardized inventory procedures, their coexistent suspicions that incriminating evidence might be found did not invalidate search. United States v Lewis (1993, CA8 Mo) 3 F3d 252.

In prosecution for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, trial court properly considered evidence discovered during officer's inventory search of defendant's car after defendant was stopped for speeding and then arrested for driving without license and during which search officer discovered ammunition, stack of twenty–dollar bills and cocaine, where search served governmental interests by securing vehicle and property inside, and where officer conducted search in accordance with standard local police procedures and was not prompted by investigatory motive. United States v Davis (1989, CA8 Mo) 882 F2d 1334, cert den (US) 108 L Ed 2d 610, 110 S Ct 1472.

Search of defendant's vehicle was valid inventory search, where defendant had been driving and was arrested, defendant was not the owner, there was no own else present to take responsibility for the vehicle, and police department policy required vehicle be impounded and inventoried as police could not leave vehicle unattended on side of the road. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lara-Pantoja, 2011 WL 5191889 (N.D. Iowa 2011).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Defendant could not legally drive the rental vehicle he was in when he was stopped for a traffic violation, inasmuch as he was driving without a driver's license and was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement, and therefore police officer properly conducted an inventory search of the vehicle; search was a correct and routine procedure during a seizure of the vehicle in order to return it to the rental agency. U.S. v. Torres, 119 Fed. Appx. 874 (9th Cir. 2004).

Search of car driven by defendant was a lawful inventory search, even though officer who originally started the inventory did not finish it; officers reasonably chose to secure car and tow it after stopping defendant for traffic violations because he did not have a license, he did not own the car, and the alleged lessee lived hundreds of miles away, police department policy required officers to make an inventory once they towed the car so as to safeguard a defendant's property, and original officer only ceased his inventory search when the FBI took over the investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2010).

Driver was under arrest when he was informed by a police officer that he was driving with a suspended license, asked to step out of his car, patted down for weapons, and placed under guard at the curb, and therefore subsequent warrantless search of defendant's vehicle, including the opening of a locked toolbox, was a valid inventory search. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Davis, 87 Fed. Appx. 94 (10th Cir. 2004).

Defendant's vehicle was properly impounded, and thus inventory search of its trunk was proper; vehicle was blocking the pumps of a gas station, there was no safe place to put it and no one immediately available to move it to a safe location, defendant had a suspended license and so could not drive the vehicle home, and vehicle was in an area where it could have been subject to theft or vandalism. U.S. v. Walker, 81 Fed. Appx. 294 (10th Cir. 2003).

Validity of impounding vehicle for caretaking purposes, because occupants were unable to drive and vehicle was located in high–crime area, was not negated by indication on tow–in form that vehicle was held for "investigation," where impounding officers did not make that determination until their inventory search turned up alcohol and loaded handgun. U.S. v. Moraga, 76 Fed. Appx. 223 (10th Cir. 2003).

Police officer conducted inventory search of vehicle at scene of traffic stop in good faith, and thus it was valid search in conformance with Fourth Amendment, where vehicle was to be towed and officer had acted pursuant to standardized police department policy; although officers did not inquire whether anyone was available to take charge of vehicle and officer did not make post-search notation regarding decision to search, as required by policy, Fourth Amendment did not require that defendant driver be given opportunity to make alternative arrangements for his vehicle and post-search requirement was minor deviation from procedure that did not add to protections that Fourth Amendment sought to impose. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Reyes-Vencomo, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D.N.M. 2012).

Police officers had independent basis upon which to arrest defendant, impound his vehicle, and inventory vehicle pursuant to impound, which would have resulted in inevitable discovery of marijuana, where defendant attempted to flee and he assaulted police officer after routine traffic stop. U.S. v. Ivey, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D. Utah 2004).

Police validly impounded and searched vehicle at station where they had stopped vehicle for driving with illegal temporary license plates, had removed plates and seized them as evidence, and had impounded vehicle which could not legally be left on highway. United States v Hill (1978, DC Dist Col) 458 F Supp 31.

See Cannon v State (1992, Ala App) 601 So 2d 1112, § 6[a].

Officer's inventory search, following impounding of defendant's vehicle when records check revealed that defendant was driving on a suspended license, was reasonable and was not improperly pretextual; although officer had asked defendant if he could search his vehicle before he acquired facts mandating the impound, officer was statutorily required

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

to impound vehicle for thirty days, police department policy required that officers conduct an inventory search of vehicles they impound, and officer testified that he performed an inventory search and not a search for evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.R.S. § 28–3511(A)(1), (E). State v. Organ, 234 P.3d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010).

Inventory search was valid where it was necessary to remove and store vehicle after driver, taken into custody for reckless driving, eluded police, crashed his car into shed on private property, and left scene. State v Bradford (Ariz App) 544 P2d 1119.

Police officer followed police department policies regarding arresting individuals for driving with suspended licenses, towing vehicles of those arrested as such, and conducting inventory searches of those vehicles, and thus officer did not exceed the inventory search exception to the search warrant requirement when he searched motorist's car, inside of which controlled substances were discovered, while waiting for a tow truck after arresting motorist for driving with a suspended license; department policies called for arresting individuals driving with suspended licenses and having their vehicles towed following arrest, policies did not require officer to allow defendant to contact someone to drive his vehicle, and officer was required to inventory vehicle after arresting motorist. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Ark. R. Crim. P. 12.1(c), 12.6(b). Foster v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 630, 535 S.W.3d 291 (2017).

Search of vehicle of defendant, who was arrested for driving on a suspended driver's license, was justified under inventory search exception to search warrant requirement; vehicle of defendant, who was alone, was stopped on highway, and standard procedure of law enforcement, when individual was arrested for driving on a suspended license, was to transport individual to jail and tow vehicle if there was no one present to take possession of vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 15. Casey v. State, 97 Ark. App. 1, 242 S.W.3d 627 (2006).

Having impounded defendant's vehicle pursuant to state law because defendant had been arrested and the vehicle's registration had expired more than six months earlier, police officer had authority to conduct an inventory of the vehicle's contents aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651(h)(1), (o)(1). People v. Redd, 48 Cal. 4th 691, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192, 229 P.3d 101 (2010).

Officer's determination, based on records check upon traffic stop for upside down license plate, that driver had been driving on suspended license, provided justification for impoundment and inventory search of driver's vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 5201. People v. Duncan, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1014, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264 (4th Dist. 2008).

Where police officer, intending to cite defendant for driving with suspended license, began to inventory contents of auto prior to having it towed and found methamphetamine and hypodermic needles and syringes, search was valid inventory search even though defendant was then arrested for possession of methamphetamine and was not cited at that time for vehicle code violation and car was not towed but was left parked at side of road. People v Burch (1986, 5th Dist) 188 Cal App 3d 172, 232 Cal Rptr 502.

Police officer's search of automobile's glove box did not exceed permissible scope of inventory search following motorist's arrest for driving while intoxicated, and thus search did not violate Fourth Amendment; police department's policy was to tow, inventory, and impound cars when officers arrested drivers, and policy required officers to inventory contents of automobile prior to impoundment, including opening and documenting any items in automobile's glove box. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Vaughn, 2014 CO 71, 334 P.3d 226 (Colo. 2014).

Officers' search of defendant's vehicle following defendant's arrest for license and registration violations was justified by inventory search exception to warrant requirement, notwithstanding defendant's claim that police conducted the inventory search as a mere pretext for an investigatory search; although officers may have suspected that the car contained drugs, officers had ample probable cause to arrest defendant and acted reasonably in doing so, officers took

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

custody of vehicle parked on a busy avenue and blocking traffic, and officers inventoried vehicle contents pursuant to police department policies and procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's C.R.S.A. Const. Art. 2, § 7. Pineda v. People, 230 P.3d 1181 (Colo. 2010), as modified on denial of reh'g, (June 1, 2010).

Where anonymous tip reporting car strip in progress, corroborated by investigating officers' observations at scene, provided specific and articulable basis in fact that defendant committed crime, search of trunk of defendant's car subsequent to arrest, which search revealed parts stripped from nearby car, was proper as inventory search. People v Contreras (1989, Colo) 780 P2d 552.

Inventory search of defendant's impounded vehicle following traffic arrest, for purpose of protecting property in police custody, did not violate Fourth Amendment and narcotics and dangerous drugs seized from money bag on floor, glove compartment, coat on back seat, and trunk were properly admitted in evidence against defendant. People v Roddy (Colo) 532 P2d 958.

Evidence discovered during an inventory search in preparation for impounding defendant's vehicle following his arrest for minor traffic violations was admissible despite the fact that the subjective intent of the traffic officer in contacting and ultimately arresting defendant was not to enforce the traffic laws but to contrive a basis for searching the vehicle. People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, (Jan. 9, 2006).

See State v Gwinn (Del Supp) 301 A2d 291, § 14[b] (holding bona fide inventory search of automobile preparatory to reasonable impoundment thereof lawful but that officer's opening and examination of contents of closed satchel found in trunk of automobile was illegal search).

In prosecution for possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine, search at police station of glove compartment of motor scooter was lawful, where police officer did not know who owner of motor scooter was and his concern with protecting property of another provided probable cause to support impoundment. McMillan v United States (1987, Dist Col App) 527 A2d 739.

Search of defendant's vehicle, following his arrest for violating his restricted driver's license, was valid as an inventory search; defendant's vehicle obstructed the right of way, and deputy was not required to offer an alternative to impoundment before he had vehicle towed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Townsend, 40 So. 3d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2010).

Vehicle was properly impounded, and marijuana found during subsequent inventory search was admissible evidence, where driver was arrested for driving under influence after falling asleep at wheel on service station lot, where driver's extremely intoxicated condition precluded offer of alternatives to police custody of vehicle. State v. Burke, 531 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1988).

Where defendant was arrested for driving without valid license, where she had no other identification and, when given option of signing waiver and leaving vehicle parked, she did not sign waiver or give definite answer, and arresting officers then informed her that they had no other alternative but to impound vehicle and have it towed, to which she did not object, and where pursuant to routine police procedure, inventory search was made and located in plain view on visor were packets of heroin, seizure of heroin was not product of unreasonable search. Gordon v State (1979, Fla App D3) 368 So 2d 59.

Pistol found under front seat of vehicle by officer was fruit of proper inventory search where defendant had been arrested for speeding and driving without license, police could not locate owner of vehicle, vehicle was parked unattended after dark along rural road, and officer searched vehicle in preparation for having vehicle towed to impound lot. State v Broomfield (1978, Fla App D2) 364 So 2d 863.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of vehicle was lawful where defendant, after driving across grassed area while turning into parking lot, put vehicle in reverse and hit police cruiser, defendant was then arrested for drunk driving, and automobile was stopped in middle lane of traffic driveway in business area where it impeded traffic; circumstances did not demonstrate reasonable alternative to impoundment and police would not be required to advise silent arrestee of alternatives to impoundment of vehicle. State v Dearden (1977, Fla App D2) 347 So 2d 462.

Inventory search was reasonable and was not pretext for exploratory search where, though arrest was for minor traffic violations consisting of improper U–turn and driving without license, arresting officer had no suspicion car contained contraband, incident occurred at 3 a.m., defendant offered no alternative to securing vehicle other than impoundment and did not protest search, and registration of vehicle indicated that defendant was not registered owner. State v Jenkins (Fla App) 319 So 2d 91 (citing annotation).

Inventory search of vehicle impounded by police following arrest of felon for driving under influence and in possession of stolen license tag, leading to discovery of sawed–off shotgun concealed under passenger's side of front seat, was lawful and seizure was not invalid merely because sheriff made no written inventory of articles seized as required by statute. Carson v State (1978) 241 Ga 622, 247 SE2d 68.

Police officer was entitled to conduct inventory search of defendant's vehicle following car accident in preparation to impound car; defendant was initially detained, and ultimately arrested, for driving without a license and car was not drivable. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. McCloud, 810 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Seizure of items property in arrestee's vehicle, during inventory search prior to impoundment, and incident to lawful arrest for traffic violation and for subsequent obstruction of justice that involved defendant's refusal to provide the items at officer's request, was justified and did not constitute conversion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Draper v. Reynolds, 278 Ga. App. 401, 629 S.E.2d 476 (2006).

Deputy sheriff's impoundment of defendant's vehicle after he was arrested for not having proof of insurance and driving without a valid license was reasonable, and thus, inventory search was lawful; defendant was arrested on charges directly related to his car, which was disabled on side of public road, no evidence was presented showing that defendant actually had insurance, and sheriff's department manual provided that when driver of vehicle has been arrested, vehicle may be towed and impounded. West's Ga. Code Ann. § 40–6–206(d). State v. Howard, 592 S.E.2d 88 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Impoundment of automobile after driver was arrested for being unlicensed operator was lawful and, thus, inventory search was permissible; arrest was based on probable cause, driver was lone occupant of automobile, there was no evidence that anyone else was present and authorized to take possession, and there was no evidence that driver requested any alternative disposition to impoundment or identified any method of reaching automobile's owner. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Scott v. State, 232 Ga. App. 337, 501 S.E.2d 255 (1998), reconsideration denied, (Apr. 21, 1998) and cert. denied, (Sept. 18, 1998).

Inventory search of vehicle, which led to discovery of contraband, following arrest of driver for speeding was lawful where driver made no request that someone be called to retrieve vehicle, but rather voluntarily acquiesced to officer's driving automobile to police station where it was impounded. Kilgore v State (1981) 158 Ga App 55, 279 SE2d 239.

Assuming that watch commander's grant of "standing" approval to officer to tow and impound vehicles consistent with police department policy was inconsistent with police department policy permitting officers to impound vehicles under certain circumstances "with Watch Commander approval[,]" such inconsistency did not render impound and subsequent search of defendant's vehicle unreasonable under Fourth Amendment analysis, where decision to impound was otherwise

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

reasonable and officer's actions were not ruse to locate incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Stewart, 152 Idaho 868, 276 P.3d 740 (Ct. App. 2012), review denied, (May 22, 2012).

Where defendant was stopped by police for speeding and lacking taillights, officer saw defendant place something under seat before stopping and, when he inquired about it, was handed paper bag containing open bottle of liquor, officer searched front seat for more bottles, found marijuana, and placed defendant under arrest, inventory search of car performed before towing, using standard inventory form, pursuant to state police rules, was valid warrantless search. United States v McGuire (1992, CA7 Ill) 957 F2d 310 (applying Ill Law).

State Police officer's uncontradicted testimony that State Police department had standard policy of conducting an inventory search before towing the vehicle of a motorist arrested for driving on a revoked license established that the officer acted according to standardized department procedures when he searched trunk of motorist's vehicle, as element for constitutionally permissible warrantless inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle, though the department's written procedures were not introduced into evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 272 Ill. Dec. 1, 786 N.E.2d 540 (2003).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle in connection with the impoundment of the vehicle following defendant's arrest for driving with a suspended license and without proof of insurance was valid; impoundment was mandated by the Vehicle Code and police department guidelines, purpose of the inventory search was to protect defendant's property and protect police from claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and search was conducted in good faith and was not a pretext for an investigatory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4;S.H.A. 625 ILCS 5/3–707(b), 5/6–303(a, e), 5/7–601(a), 5/7–602. People v. Nash, 947 N.E.2d 350 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2011).

Warrantless search of vehicle that defendant had been driving, following his arrest for aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and aggravated driving while license revoked (DWR), was a reasonable inventory search of an impounded vehicle under the fourth amendment; though police officer was not looking for evidence relevant to the crimes defendant was arrested, state law prohibited the operation of an uninsured vehicle on a public highway, defendant had a revoked license and did not provide evidence of insurance, and search was based on standardized procedure to search a vehicle prior to being towed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4;S.H.A. 625 ILCS 5/7–601. People v. Mason, 935 N.E.2d 130 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2010).

See People v Kinney (1989, 4th Dist) 189 Ill App 3d 952, 137 Ill Dec 484, 546 NE2d 238, § 13[a].

Inventory search of car, in which defendant was a passenger, did not violate defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment, and under State Constitution, actions of police in conducting inventory search were reasonable despite the failure to fully follow police policy; license plate on car was expired and the controlling statute authorized, if not required, the police to impound the vehicle, towing of the car was authorized by statute and by police policy, inventory of vehicle was similarly authorized by established police policy, and although this policy was not thoroughly followed, this alone did not establish that inventory was a pretext, and reason listed on inventory sheet for tow, namely narcotics arrest, did not override officer's statement that car was towed because of expired plates. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4West's A.I.C. 9–18–2–43(a); West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Jackson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle after defendant could not produce a valid driver's license during a traffic stop was warranted as part of police community-caretaking function, for purpose of determining whether subsequent inventory search of vehicle was valid; vehicle was stopped on paved shoulder of a highway and thus posed a threat or harm to community, removal of vehicle was consistent with objective standards of sound policing, impoundment was in keeping with established department routine or regulation, and officer was not required to move vehicle himself or allow defendant to contact a friend or relative to move vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Jones v. State, 856 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Impoundment of defendant's truck was lawful under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of subsequent inventory search, where truck slowly came to a stop along a two-lane gravel road, officer believed that the stop was possibly caused by mechanical problems, there was no one else on the scene who could drive the truck away, and the truck would be subject to vandalism or theft if left abandoned on the side of the road with many items lying in its open bed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Abran v. State, 825 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Impoundment of defendant's motor vehicle was proper, and thus inventory search of vehicle was permissible, where registration which defendant gave police officer belonged to another vehicle and another person, and vehicle was improperly registered. West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11; West's A.I.C. 9–18–2–43(a), 9-22-1-5. Howard v. State, 818 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

Seizure of heroin inadvertently found in plain view by officer who was driving vehicle to impound lot after driver had been arrested for driving under influence of alcohol was properly admitted at trial, where after driver was arrested, vehicle could not be left where it was because it could not be locked and could easily have been stolen due to defeated steering column, where although defendant told officer that car could have been left with friend who lived nearby, defendant did not know friend's name or address, and therefore automobile was impounded to preserve it and its contents not as pretext to conduct warrantless search. State v Short (1991, La App 4th Cir) 588 So 2d 151.

Initial roadside search of automobile was valid inventory search incident to vehicle's necessarily being taken into custody where its driver had been arrested for driving while intoxicated and was on his way to sheriff's office for booking, where driver had no proof of ownership of vehicle and it was parked in irregular manner on edge of ditch, and where impoundment was thus necessary to remove car from place where it could interfere with traffic, could easily fall into ditch and be damaged or fall prey to thieves or vandals. However, subsequent search of vehicle after it had been impounded at garage and after police officers learned of driver's prior drug conviction, which disclosed cocaine between driver's seat and console, was not inventory search and was not lawful without warrant. State v Green (1986, La App 2d Cir) 482 So 2d 930.

Where officer stopped defendant late at night for speeding violation, where officer, fearing that car would be damaged if left on highway, arranged for wrecker to tow vehicle to station, and where officer conducted inventory search, resulting in discovery of cocaine on rear floorboard partially under driver's seat, court held that inventory search was reasonable since it was not conducted in intensive, evidence–searching fashion, but to locate defendant's valuables, and fact that defendant's consent to search was never sought by officers did not make inventory search defective. State v Joyner (1984, La App) 445 So 2d 179, cert den State v Joyner (1984, LA) 447 So 2d 1068.

Where vehicle was stopped for erratic driving, driver was arrested but escaped, and defendant, passenger and owner of car, was taken into custody for littering after attempting to dispose of liquor bottle only after scuffle necessitating use of mace and handcuffs, taking of car into possession of police and conducting of inventory search were proper despite defendant's request to be allowed to make other arrangements for possession of vehicle. State v White (1978, Me) 387 A2d 230.

Police were justified in impounding automobile following traffic stop and arrest of driver, and thus warrantless inventory search of automobile did not violate constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches; automobile's owner was not at scene of stop and could not express a preference of disposition of automobile, police chose not to contact owner because of early morning hour, action of police in stopping dictated automobile's location along the curb of a public street, driver was unable to operate automobile because he had been placed under arrest for operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, passenger had been drinking and was not known to be authorized to drive the automobile, and automobile's registration was not produced during stop. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102, 944 N.E.2d 153 (2011).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officer's search of defendant's vehicle was reasonable, where police moved defendant's vehicle after he was arrested for operating a vehicle without a license, as his vehicle was blocking the pumps at a gasoline station, and the incriminating objects found during the search would have been discovered during the inevitable inventory search conducted before police had the vehicle towed. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 6, 96 N.E.3d 719 (2018).

Sufficient specific evidence showed that vehicle would be at risk of theft or vandalism if left unattended following stop of vehicle and arrest of its occupants, and thus impoundment and inventory search of vehicle was reasonable and permissible under Fourth Amendment; vehicle was parked at the side of the road in a location dictated not by driver choice but by the circumstances of the stop, location of the stop was a high-crime area, stop was made late at night, driver had a suspended driver's license and would not have been able to move the car even if released, vehicle was owned by a third party, unknown to the officers, who was not present at the scene, and no one else at the scene was authorized to drive or move the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Eddington, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 173, 920 N.E.2d 883 (2010).

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle following traffic stop was justified, and thus, inventory search conducted pursuant to police policy was legal, where defendant's license had been suspended and driver was arrested on outstanding warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Bienvenu, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 828 N.E.2d 543 (2005).

Record supported conclusion that police officers contemplated impoundment of vehicle from beginning of stop for license-plate violation and that, therefore, inventory search was not conducted as impermissible pretext for investigatory search, even though defendant argued that officers decided to impound vehicle after gun was found inside, and officers might have suspected that inventory search could reveal more weapons, where officer testified that he intended to tow vehicle all along, as was standard practice for vehicles without valid plates, and the Commonwealth adduced similar testimony from another officer that it was standard practice to tow such vehicles. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Horton, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 571, 827 N.E.2d 1257 (2005).

Warrantless seizure from defendant's vehicle, which had been impounded following arrest for operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI), of bag containing a number of packs of cigarettes and another bag containing a few stacks of rolled coins, was permissible under automobile exception to warrant requirement; vehicle was inherently mobile through temporarily stationary, and statements by manager of restaurant concerning items that were missing after a break–in gave police probable cause to believe the bags in vehicle were evidence of a crime. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Nicholson, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 792 N.E.2d 124 (2003).

Inventory search of vehicle, which revealed marijuana and paraphernalia, was justified by arrest of driver for driving under influence of alcohol, where driver, responding to police vehicle, pulled into store parking lot at time of traffic stop and police thus properly impounded and inventory–searched vehicle left on private property to which arrestee had no connection. Commonwealth v Dunn (1993) 34 Mass App 702, 615 NE2d 597, summary op at (Mass App) 21 M.L.W. 3038.

Officers involved in search of defendant's car, who seized property lawfully discovered during course of inventories made at start and end of periods of impoundment, acted in conformity with Fourth Amendment principles where defendant, who had been involved in automobile accident, asked night police officer to go to his car and tow it for him, where, as towing was being completed, officer learned that defendant had been identified as assailant by victim of criminal sexual conduct, where officer, unsure of his authority to impound car, but believing he was responsible for its contents since defendant had asked him to take care of towing, opened door and reached in to remove keys so he could lock it pending determination by someone else whether to impound vehicle, and while so doing saw in plain sight, but did not seize, three items which tended to connect defendant to crime, and where later, highway patrol issued impoundment order

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

and official inventory was made by deputy sheriff, during which two items implicating defendant were seized. State v Waters (1979, Minn) 276 NW2d 34.

Marijuana seized by police was not fruit of illegal search where defendant was placed under arrest for driving without valid driver's license and driving at night without headlights and where, because defendant was to be taken to jail, officers impounded vehicle and conducted routine inventory of automobile. State v Turner (Minn) 239 NW2d 468.

Application of exclusionary rule was not appropriate as to evidence seized during impoundment inventory and warrant search following stop of vehicle for having excessively tinted automobile window glass, even assuming tinted–window statute violated Minnesota's equal protection provision, where conduct of officer was reasonable, prudent, and restrained and there was no hint of selective enforcement or discrimination, the tinted–window statute did not authorize a warrantless search, all parties assumed statute was valid and enforceable at time of stop and issuance of warrant, officer had probable cause to make an arrest during stop, and officer obtained a search warrant from a judicial officer. M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 2; M.S.A. § 169.71, subd. 4. State v. Smith, 652 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).

In prosecution for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, police properly seized baggy of cocaine from defendant's car, where car was towed from its position in snow bank and its contents were inventoried pursuant to routine police department practice. State v Marshall (1987, Minn App) 411 NW2d 276.

Inventory search of vehicle impounded when driver was arrested for intoxication was reasonable, where female occupant of car claimed to be unwilling companion to driver, and where possibly stolen articles were sitting on backseat. Black v State (1982, Miss) 418 So 2d 819.

Police chief's search of defendant's vehicle, after defendant was arrested during course of traffic stop, constituted a valid inventory search; defendant was placed under arrest based on an outstanding warrant for his arrest, police chief testified that the purpose of the purpose of the search was to determine whether there was anything valuable inside the vehicle, and that it was his normal practice to conduct an inventory search when he made an arrest in the course of a traffic stop. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Pinter v. State, 221 So. 3d 378 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).

Warrantless inventory search of defendant's vehicle following arrest for driving with suspended license was constitutionally permissible, where search was limited to areas of vehicle where defendant's property could reasonably be expected to be found and was conducted pursuant to standard police procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Melton v. State, 118 So. 3d 605 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), cert. denied, 117 So. 3d 330 (Miss. 2013).

Fact that the driver stopped for expired license plates did not have proof of insurance provided officer with a valid reason to arrest the driver and perform an inventory of the vehicle, even though officer did not follow through with investigation of the expired plates. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Hoyt, 75 S.W.3d 879 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2002).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle was legal, and contraband seized as result of search was properly admitted at trial of defendant on charge of possession of controlled substance, where, pursuant to standard police department procedures, defendant was placed under arrest for operating vehicle without valid driver's license, where also as part of standard procedure defendant was informed his car would be towed because there was no other licensed driver in car, and where officer began inventory of search as required by department regulation. Although defendant's girlfriend came out of her apartment outside of which arrest took place and offered to drive defendant's car, officer was required by procedures and regulations to impound vehicle since defendant was alone in car at time he was arrested. State v Allen (1991, Mo App) 817 SW2d 526.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Impounding and warrantless inventory search of vehicle following traffic stop were reasonable under Fourth Amendment; neither occupant was vehicle's registered owner or had a valid driver's license, and vehicle was parked in an unsecured location, obstructing traffic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Diomampo v. State, 185 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2008).

Inventory search of automobile was proper and trial court erred in suppressing loaded.22–caliber pen gun found in unlocked glove compartment where, after arresting defendant on outstanding warrant for driving while on revoked list, police officers, in accordance with established standard police procedure, impounded car and inventoried its contents. State v Slockbower, 145 NJ Super 480, 368 A2d 388.

Once defendant was lawfully arrested for driving with a revoked license, officers were entitled to search defendant's entire vehicle, including the center console and a cell phone case, as an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's NMSA Const. Art. 2, § 10. State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-127, 223 P.3d 361 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009), cert. denied, 2009- NMCERT-010 (N.M. 2009).

Search of motor vehicle incident to impoundment was proper where trooper found vehicle on side of highway missing one tire and rim and extending unlawfully into roadway, where persons accompanying vehicle had no valid drivers licenses and owner of vehicle was wanted for petit parceny, where trooper cited one of persons accompanying vehicle for third–degree unlicensed operation of vehicle, and where inventory search was conducted in compliance with troopers' Operations Guide and not for purpose of securing evidence. People v Davilla (1988) 141 Misc 2d 296, 532 NYS2d 1012.

Inventory search of initially unoccupied double–parked carat scene was proper where check with police records, prompted by expired registration sticker, revealed that license plate had been reported stolen, where police clearly had right to impound and conduct inventory search of apparently unregistered, uninspected, and uninsured vehicle, and where search at scene after arrest of driver was entirely appropriate since police were not required to remove vehicle to police station before executing inventory search inasmuch as such requirement would make little sense, expend additional enforcement time and energy without providing additional protection or benefit to defendant, and might expose innocent persons to greater unnecessary interferences in instances of lawful but unproductive searches. People v Nelson (1985) 127 Misc 2d 583, 486 NYS2d 979.

Evidence discovered by inventory search of vehicle impounded on highway when driver was arrested for traffic violation and intoxication would not be suppressed, where inventory search was conducted on scene prior to car's removal. People v Zollo (1982) 114 Misc 2d 1032, 453 NYS2d 332.

Inventory taken during search of vehicle following arrest of defendant for driving with revoked license was sufficient to meet constitutional minimum, although written policy that governed search was never produced, state trooper's description of policy was very vague, and descriptions of returned property on inventory form—"MISC ITEMS" and "PAPERWORK"—would be of limited usefulness in event car's owner claimed that property was missing. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Walker, 20 N.Y.3d 122, 957 N.Y.S.2d 272, 980 N.E.2d 937 (2012).

In prosecution for cocaine possession, inventory search of defendant's car made after defendant's arrest for driving with suspended license was reasonable and cocaine found inside paper bag suspended on wire from dash–board was properly admitted, since unusual location of bag, manner in which it was affixed to car, and apparent effort to conceal it supported finding that officers could reasonably conclude bag contained items requiring discovery and inventory. People v Gonzalez (1984) 62 NY2d 386, 477 NYS2d 103, 465 NE2d 823.

It was reasonable for police to impound defendant's car and conduct inventory search after arresting defendant for second-degree reckless endangerment, where search was conducted pursuant to standardized guidelines that were designed to safeguard defendant's property, protect police against claims of theft, and guard against dangerous instrumentalities. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Ramirez, 103 A.D.3d 444, 959 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1st Dep't 2013).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officer's search of codefendant's automobile, in which defendant was a passenger, could be sustained as a valid inventory search, even if codefendant did not consent to the search; police were justified in impounding vehicle following codefendant's arrest for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and search was conducted pursuant to an established procedure clearly limiting the conduct of individual officers that assured that the searches were carried out consistently and reasonably. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Washington, 50 A.D.3d 1539, 856 N.Y.S.2d 783 (4th Dep't 2008).

State troopers' testimony and inventory form they completed following their inventory search of impounded motor vehicle were sufficient to establish that the search was conducted, as required, pursuant to a police procedure which was rationally designed to meet the objectives justifying such a search and effectively limited the troopers' discretion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Banton, 813 N.Y.S.2d 509 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).

Contents of automobile's trunk, including murder victim's decomposing body, would have been discovered during an inventory search required by law and relevant police department guidelines, and thus contents were admissible pursuant to inevitable discovery doctrine even if initial search of trunk following traffic stop was unlawful. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Bradley, 794 N.Y.S.2d 201 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2005).

An inventory search will be upheld when it follows a valid traffic stop and arrest, and is conducted in accordance with standard police procedures which limit the discretion of the searching officer. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Elpenord, 24 A.D.3d 465, 806 N.Y.S.2d 675 (2d Dep't 2005).

Defendant's vehicle was destined for impoundment and a permissible inventory search under normal police procedures, having been left stuck in ditch and abandoned by its occupants during police chase, and thus evidence discovered as result of search of vehicle was admissible under inevitable discovery doctrine, despite invalid search warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Ladd, 16 A.D.3d 972, 792 N.Y.S.2d 246 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).

Police officer had probable cause to believe that vehicle might contain drugs, and thus search of vehicle was proper, regardless of whether there was a valid inventory search; after stopping vehicle for excessive speed and properly determining to impound vehicle because defendant did not have a valid license, the officer leaned into the vehicle to commence an inventory search and detected the odor of marijuana, justifying a search of the vehicle and its contents. People v. Figueroa, 6 A.D.3d 720, 776 N.Y.S.2d 574 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).

State trooper was authorized to impound vehicle and perform inventory search in accordance with standard police procedures where driver of lawfully stopped vehicle was arrested for violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law and passenger stated that he did not know vehicle's owner. People v. Buckmon, 742 N.Y.S.2d 69 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002).

State trooper was authorized to impound vehicle and conduct inventory search upon arresting driver for not having valid driver's license. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; McKinney's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509, subd. 1. People v. Irizarry, 282 A.D.2d 483, 730 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2d Dep't 2001), error coram nobis denied, 287 A.D.2d 467, 730 N.Y.S.2d 882 (2d Dep't 2001).

After arresting defendant and his girlfriend on public street for damaging each other's cars, police officers were entitled to impound defendant's car, and their inventory search of that car was not unconstitutional or unreasonable; officers were not required to explore alternatives to impoundment, and inventory search was conducted according to standard departmental procedure that conformed to constitutional dictates concerning reasonableness. People v. Walker, 701 N.Y.S.2d 555 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 1999).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Drug defendant who was stopped for speeding was not subjected to illegal search and seizure; testimony elicited at suppression hearing established that defendant's car was legitimately stopped for traffic infraction, and that trooper's actions thereafter, including his arrest of defendant for driving without valid license, the search performed incident to that arrest, the impounding and inventory search of car, and the more exhaustive search of defendant undertaken at police barracks, were in no respect improper. People v. Revander, 254 A.D.2d 625, 679 N.Y.S.2d 183 (3d Dep't 1998).

Inventory search of van in which drugs and drug paraphernalia were found was valid where driver had been stopped for speeding violation and was discovered to have expired license, and where license of other occupant of vehicle had 25 active suspensions; van had to be towed, and under these circumstances, police were justified in conducting inventory search pursuant to written manual issued by department of state police. People v Scott (1994, App Div, 4th Dept) 621 NYS2d 260.

Inventory search of car was not improper where, following impounding of vehicle after driver had been stopped for various violations of vehicle code and had been found, inter alia, to lack driver's license; police officer removed rear seat to gain access to locked trunk, where drugs were found; applicable procedure required inventory of all vehicle contents, including contents of trunk. People v Walker (1993, 3d Dept) 194 App Div 2d 92, 604 NYS2d 631, app den 83 NY2d 811.

Inventory search of car was valid where defendant was stopped for speeding and arrested for possession of noxious substance when police saw can of mace in plain view; glove that held clear plastic bag containing rock cocaine was not "closed container" and it was therefore reasonable for police to determine what was inside glove and note it in inventory. People v Burghart (1991, App Div, 3d Dept) 576 NYS2d 634.

Circumstances supported necessity of inventory search (which revealed cocaine) made pursuant to police procedure where stop of defendant's vehicle for speeding was justified; defendant was not authorized to drive because his license had been suspended, and he possessed only learner's permit and passenger did not qualify as supervisor who must accompany learner. Thus vehicle had to be impounded and inventory search conducted to ascertain exactly what property would be subject to state police control by impoundment of vehicle. It was reasonable for officers to search plastic bag and paper bag contained therein to inventory any and all items that such bags might contain to protect police from false claims for missing property. People v Castillo (1989, 3d Dept) 150 App Div 2d 957, 541 NYS2d 640, app den 74 NY2d 806, 546 NYS2d 564, 545 NE2d 878.

In prosecution for possession of cocaine, cocaine found in glove compartment of defendant's vehicle was admissible as product of inventory search where officers lawfully stopped defendant for speeding, arrested him on outstanding warrant, impounded vehicle due to threat of vandalism, and exhibited good faith in making limited inventory search rather than general exploratory search. State v Phifer (1979) 39 NC App 278, 250 SE2d 309, affd 297 NC 216, 254 SE2d 586.

Warrantless search of vehicle which was impounded after its driver was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) was valid as inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle; officer followed standard procedures in impounding vehicle after making arrest of driver and determining that passenger was equally intoxicated and in no condition to drive, and nothing indicated that stop of vehicle had been pretext for evidentiary search. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Semenchuk, 122 Ohio App. 3d 30, 701 N.E.2d 19 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997), appeal not allowed, 80 Ohio St. 3d 1425, 685 N.E.2d 238 (1997) and dismissed, appeal not allowed, 80 Ohio St. 3d 1446, 686 N.E.2d 274 (1997).

Search of vehicle, including trunk, conducted after its driver was arrested for driving without license and vehicle was towed, was lawful as inventory search, even though search was not witnessed by officer other than officer who conducted it, where arresting officer had reason to believe that vehicle had been stolen and inventory of towed vehicle was standard procedure. State v Crickon (1988, Sandusky Co) 43 Ohio App 3d 171, 540 NE2d 287, cause dismd 39 Ohio St 3d 718, 534 NE2d 95.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of automobile was proper where officer took defendant into custody after observing him drive in reverse at high rate of speed and after determining that he did not have driver's license and was unclear regarding his current address, where impoundment was accomplished under authority of local ordinance and where fact that defendant drove onto private property after officer turned on his emergency equipment did not preclude officer from pursuing his task of legal confrontation with defendant since to permit such interference with officer's duties would have been tantamount to providing easy escape for offender from responsibility. Starks v State (1985, Okla Crim) 696 P2d 1041.

Search of defendant's vehicle was reasonable where defendant, when asked to produce his license, voluntarily told officer that he did not have license, officer, with reasonable cause, placed defendant under arrest and made arrangements for vehicle to be impounded, and where inventory search made of vehicle was for protection of defendant and his property and was incidental to valid arrest. Brantly v State (Okla Crim App) 548 P2d 675.

Where two police officers stopped driver for lane–changing violation, arrested him for such violation and passenger for interfering with police officer, and after calling tow vehicle to move automobile for impounding and cruiser to transport defendants to police station, began inventory search of automobile, in which they found small bag of marijuana under carpet on passenger side of automobile and partially smoked cigarettes and residue of substance suspected to be marijuana in tin in glove compartment, impounding vehicle was warranted, and officer's good–faith inventory search incident thereto was justified and did not violate constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. Bennett v State (Okla Crim) 507 P2d 1252.

City ordinance that granted police authority to impound, tow and store any car when its operator did not have valid operator's license implicitly authorized inventory search of driver's car. Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Boone, 327 Or. 307, 959 P.2d 76 (1998).

Methamphetamine found in trunk of car stopped for investigation of traffic infraction was admissible under inevitable discovery doctrine, notwithstanding officer's unlawful stop of passenger who had exited car; once officer discovered that driver's license was suspended and decided to have car towed, officer was required to conduct inventory search, which necessarily included search of trunk, and search conducted on scene comported with limitations of inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Or.Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 809.720(1)(a), 810.410(3)(b). State v. Mastin, 203 Or. App. 366, 124 P.3d 1275 (2005).

Police were justified in conducting inventory search of parked vehicle that had been lawfully immobilized after police ascertained that driver's operator's license had been suspended, pursuant to statute authorizing immobilization, towing, and storage of vehicle for driving without operating privileges or registration, as owner of vehicle was not present when police immobilized it, there was no one authorized by the owner who could physically or legally take control of vehicle, and, thus, the inventory search protected owner's property while vehicle was in police custody, and protected the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6309.2. Com. v. Thompson, 2010 PA Super 126, 999 A.2d 616 (2010).

Following arrest of lone occupant of car for intoxicated driving, police officer lawfully discovered methamphetamine concealed in magnetic key box stuck to steering column when looking under seats with flashlight pursuant to inventory search. Boughton v State (1982, Tex App 2d Dist) 643 SW2d 147.

Where defendant was stopped for expired safety inspection sticker and plates and outstanding traffic warrant, where officers placed defendant under custodial arrest, impounded his vehicle, and brought it to airport police station, and where, during inventory search, marijuana was found inside unlocked glove compartment, court held that inventory search of vehicle was proper since, there being no apparent alternative and no one to remove vehicle from its location on public street, it was impounded within legitimate department policy as caretaking function for protection of department as well as vehicle and its contents. Backer v State (1983, Tex Crim) 656 SW2d 463.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of defendant's vehicle, and make-up case found therein, following arrest of defendant for driving without a valid license and for a seat belt violation, was justified under Fourth Amendment as inventory search incident to defendant's detention and arrest, where evidence indicated that impoundment was not merely ruse to search for contraband; vehicle was located at busy intersection, high traffic volume necessitated getting vehicle off road as quickly as possible, police department policy directed officers to perform complete inventory and check "everything," officer testified that in applying such policy, officers routinely checked closed compartments and containers, written inventory of vehicle's contents was made, and officer denied any motive to simply search for drugs. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Uballe v. State, 439 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2014), reh'g overruled, (June 19, 2014).

State established that police officer conducted valid inventory search of defendant's impounded vehicle in accordance with department policy, which required officers to impound vehicle after occupants had been arrested and conduct inventory search when there was no one to whom officers could release vehicle, where vehicle could not have been legally released and driven from scene due to expired registration, inspection sticker, and lack of proof of insurance, tow truck arrived after defendant's arrest and towed car to nearby parking lot for search due to department's prohibition on inventory searches on side of road, and officer performed search and filled out required form detailing items found in unlocked passenger compartment and trunk. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Moskey v. State, 333 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2010).

Impoundment of vehicle by police officers, leading to inventory search of its contents, was valid after traffic stop and arrest of driver based on an outstanding parole violation warrant, though driver pulled his vehicle into apartment complex parking lot at time of stop; there was no evidence establishing that driver lived at the apartment complex or that he parked near his own apartment following traffic stop. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 296 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App. El Paso 2009).

Warrantless search of vehicle in which defendant was passenger, and of defendant's purse inside vehicle, was valid inventory search after police officer arrested driver and then determined that defendant did not possess valid driver's license. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Ray v. State, 148 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2004).

Police inventory of contents of arrestee's vehicle, including contents of arrestee's wallet found in vehicle, did not violate Fourth Amendment, even though vehicle was not impounded by police; officers had the authority to impound arrestee's illegally parked vehicle and were engaged in the care–taking function of securing the vehicle pursuant to standard police procedures when the wallet was seized. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Perez v. State, 103 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003).

Inventory search of vehicle was legal, and contraband discovered in search was properly admitted against defendant at trial on charge of possession with intent to deliver controlled substance, where both adult occupants of vehicle were placed under arrest and vehicle was apparently illegally parked. Torres v State (1991, Tex App) 818 SW2d 141.

See Wooldridge v State (1985, Tex App San Antonio) 696 SW2d 252, § 14[a].

In prosecution for aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and theft, inventory search of defendant's vehicle, including search of trunk and under hood, was proper where defendant was arrested in vehicle while under influence of controlled substance, neither defendant nor his friends could have properly moved vehicle from motel parking lot where it was blocking traffic, and search was conducted in accordance with established departmental procedures, notwithstanding that defendant was stopped for using illegal hydraulic lifts on vehicle by officers on burglary detail. State v Johnson (1987) 60 Utah Adv Rep 30, 745 P2d 452.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Where, following defendant's arrest for speeding, officers went to impounded vehicle that morning with intent to investigate and prosecute for robbery and not to take inventory, Fourth Amendment's exception did not apply, seizure of evidence discovered in such search was unlawful, and defendant's confession to robbery was tainted thereby; however, afternoon search fell within automobile inventory exception to Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement, where at time officers conducted afternoon search defendant had confessed his involvement to robbery and there was no need to search for additional physical evidence of robbery nor were officers seeking evidence of other robbery in count, where officers conducted afternoon search in accordance with standard police procedures and prepared detailed list of every item they discovered. Reese v Commonwealth (1980, Va) 265 SE2d 746.

Defendant's operation of vehicle without an inspection sticker, and fact that vehicle lacked decal to lawfully park in private parking lot, provided officer with lawful grounds for impoundment and inventory search of vehicle because it might pose danger to other drivers, or be towed so as to potentially subject police department to civil liability; defendant admitted that he removed car's rejection sticker and continued to drive the car after receiving numerous violations for having no valid inspection, officer was unable to ascertain why vehicle had failed inspection, and there was no evidence that defendant requested officer to make other arrangements for vehicle to be removed. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; West's V.C.A. § 46.2–1163. Fisher v. Com., 42 Va. App. 395, 592 S.E.2d 377 (2004).

Inventory search of lawfully impounded car that defendant was driving at time he was stopped for speeding after defendant was arrested was non-pretextual and reasonable, as car was in dangerous locating on roadway, car's owner or other lawful driver was unavailable to move car, and there was expensive and unsecured stereo equipment in the car. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 269 P.3d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012).

Beer cans found on the back floorboard of defendant's vehicle during lawful inventory search, following the statutorily authorized impoundment of defendant's vehicle, were admissible in driving under the influence (DUI) and vehicular assault prosecution; officer lawfully impounded defendant's vehicle because he had arrested defendant for DUI, and he had probable cause to believe that the vehicle had been used in the commission of a felony, vehicular assault, and was, therefore, evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's RCWA 46.55.113(1). State v. Morales, 154 Wash. App. 26, 225 P.3d 311 (Div. 2 2010).

Where intoxicated driver and intoxicated and lewd passenger of van were arrested by police, police officer who subsequently secured van which was parked in public parking place lawfully observed marijuana pipe on dashboard and clear plastic bag containing green vegetable matter under front seat. State v Alexander (1982) 33 Wash App 271, 653 P2d 1367.

Where officer stopped vehicle for traffic violation and observed that defendant passenger's hands were held together under blanket in such fashion that officer believed he was holding gun, it was discovered that there was outstanding felony warrant for driver and that driver had two rounds of ammunition on him, and after arrest of driver defendant was about to take control of vehicle and remove it from highway, officers had reasonable and exigent reasons to search vehicle for gun. State v Wisumerski (1982) 106 Wis 2d 722, 317 NW2d 484.

Reasonable suspicion or probable cause was not required to justify an inventory search of items in vehicle, which was being impounded at the request of car rental company after police officer, who had stopped defendant for speeding, learned that defendant was not an authorized driver of rental car; the inventory search was conducted pursuant to a highway patrol policy that required a trooper to inventory the contents of a vehicle, including closed and sealed containers, whenever the trooper took charge of a vehicle for any reason, the inventory search was an administrative, care-taking function, and it was not part of an investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Johnson v. State, 2006 WY 79, 137 P.3d 903 (Wyo. 2006).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 7[b] Vehicle and traffic violations—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, an inventory search of a vehicle which the police impounded following the arrest of the driver for a vehicle or traffic violation was held unlawful.

In Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793, involving a prosecution for the cultivation and possession of marijuana, the court held that a driver's arrest for reckless driving entitled the officers to take the driver before a magistrate and to remove the driver's automobile from the highway as provided under a state statute, but it did not entitle them to take the car into custody, and that, therefore, an inventory of the contents of the car was unnecessary, improper, and in violation of the driver's Fourth Amendment rights. The court noted that there was a definite split of authority, one line of cases taking the view that where there is a right to arrest the driver of the car and to take him before a magistrate, and a right to remove the driver's vehicle from the highway, then there is also a right to take the car into custody, and a resulting right, in fact a duty, to inventory the contents of the vehicle. The other line of cases, observed the court, took the view that custodial possession of an automobile is not an inevitable concomitant of an arrest of the driver. While apparently following the latter line of authority, the court stated that it was prepared to go further and to hold that the Constitution does not permit an otherwise unreasonable search of a car simply because the police have statutory authority to arrest and take an accused before a magistrate, and also have the right to cause the car to be removed from the highway. Reviewing all the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the custody of the vehicle, the court observed that the arrest, for a traffic violation, could not alone have justified a search of the car, for such search could have had no relation to the traffic violation; that the traffic violation did not involve any seizure or forfeiture of the automobile; and that there was nothing suspicious in the conduct of the driver which otherwise would have justified the search. The court further pointed out that no reason appeared on the record why the driver's friends who were passengers in the car could not have taken charge of the vehicle, and that the officers did not consult the driver's wishes or the willingness of his companions to drive the car to a place of safety. The court concluded that in view of the fact that the driver protested the search, police custodial care of the car was not required, and absent such custody, no inventory was necessary or proper. The court granted a peremptory writ of prohibition restraining the trial court from any further proceedings.

Affirming a judgment dismissing an information for possession of marijuana discovered during the course of an inventory of the defendant's automobile, the court in People v Denman (1971) 19 Cal App 3d 632, 97 Cal Rptr 23, held that by its nature, the routine inventory search conducted by the police involved a random search of articles left in the automobile taken into police custody, since the police were looking for nothing in particular and everything in general, and that such random search is the precise invasion of privacy which the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit. The driver had been arrested and taken into custody for driving without having a driver's license in his possession, and while taking an inventory of the contents of the vehicle prior to impounding it, the arresting officer discovered a plastic bag containing marijuana. Stating that the police are not exempt from the requirements of reasonableness set down in the Fourth Amendment merely because they are not searching for incriminating evidence, the court concluded that under these circumstances there was no justification for the search of the vehicle without a warrant.

For another case in which the court held, without much discussion, that the search of a motorist's car, following an arrest for a traffic violation, could not be validated on the theory of an inventory, see Carpio v Superior Court of County of Santa Barbara (1971) 19 Cal App 3d 790, 97 Cal Rptr 186.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Reversing a conviction for possession of marijuana, the California Supreme Court in People v Heredia (1971) 20 Cal App 3d 194, 97 Cal Rptr 488, held that it was following its own decision which had held that the police procedure of inventorying a vehicle to be impounded involved a substantial invasion of the privacy of the vehicle owner and was a search governed by Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness. The evidence showed that the defendant motorist was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle upon the highway, and that the arresting officer, prior to taking the defendant into custody, impounded the car and proceeded to take an inventory of the contents of the car for valuables, over the objection of the defendant, who requested that the car be left at the parking lot where he was arrested or that he be allowed to arrange for a friend to drive the car home. Under these circumstances, the court held, without much discussion, that the inventory of the car constituted an unreasonable search.

In Mayfield v United States (1971, Dist Col App) 276 A2d 123, involving a prosecution for unlawful possession of narcotics, the court, although it did not question the propriety of a police regulation requiring police officers, after impounding an automobile which had been stolen, abandoned, or left unattended, to make an inventory of the contents of the car, to remove any valuables for safekeeping, and to put the car in a place where it was not likely to be vandalized or pilfered before being claimed by the owner, even though compliance with such a regulation necessarily involved some search and seizure, held that evidence of marijuana found under the seat of the automobile in the course of a certain inventory was not admissible as a normal incident of the impoundment procedure. The testimony showed that the inventory of the contents of the automobile was made outside the station while the driver was being charged with a traffic offense inside, and that the arresting officer had observed the driver slip a brown envelope under the front seat, which envelope contained the marijuana. The court pointed out that it had consistently held that in situations where the search was conducted in an area near the police station while the driver of the vehicle was inside the station being charged with a traffic offense, resorts to impoundment procedure would not make admissible, at least for the prosecution of wholly different offenses, evidence uncovered during such search, which would otherwise be inadmissible as violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. The court, therefore, reversed a conviction.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), § 5[c].

Warrantless search of motor vehicle was for investigatory rather than protective administrative purposes and, thus, fell outside inventory exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement; driver was focus of massive effort by numerous federal and local drug enforcement agents to uncover evidence of illegal drug activity, agents contacted local deputy sheriff and instructed him to "create his own probable cause," driver was ostensibly arrested for seat belt violation, but no ticket was issued and no traffic charges were filed, and drug dog was summoned before any further search occurred. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Castro, 129 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 1997), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc granted, 143 F.3d 920 (5th Cir. 1998).

In prosecution for conspiracy to possess cocaine, trial court did not err in suppressing evidence obtained from inventory search of defendant's automobile after police department impounded defendant's car, where police officer stopped vehicle for speeding violation and arrested driver, who lacked driver's license and proof of insurance and impounded vehicle pursuant to police department's standard procedure. Fact that police officer did not inform defendant, who was passenger in vehicle, that arrested driver could designate driver to car as option other than impoundment was reasonable; officer did not have affirmative duty to avoid taking car in custody, and there was no policy in police department requiring officer to inform occupants of options other than impoundment. Furthermore, testimony of officers regarding police department's standard operating procedure regarding impoundment and inventories was sufficient evidence at trial of department's policy and prosecution was not required to produce written copies of regulations confirming policies. United States v Skillern (1991, CA5 Tex) 947 F2d 1268, cert den (US) 117 L Ed 2d 646.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Assuming that police officers had some discretion as to whether to tow vehicle after traffic stop, officers' exercise of that discretion was wholly improper, where officers' decided to impound vehicle as pretext merely to gain access to vehicle based on their suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016).

Community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement did not justify impoundment and subsequent inventory search of defendant's vehicle; when stopped in residential neighborhood, defendant appropriately pulled over to curb, and his vehicle was not parked illegally, did not pose a safety hazard, and was not vulnerable to vandalism or theft. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2012).

Search under vehicle's hood, following arrest of driver, was not a valid inventory search, where there was no showing that officers were searching engine compartment for driver's personal property that needed to be accounted for, or that they were searching to ensure their own safety. U.S. v. Walker, 81 Fed. Appx. 294 (10th Cir. 2003).

Police officer's search behind panel of defendant's vehicle's door, after defendant had been taken into custody due to inability to post bond for vehicular offense, was not valid inventory search since scope of search was not authorized by standard police procedure and was not necessary to protect vehicle and its contents. United States v Lugo (1992, CA10 Wyo) 978 F2d 631.

Inventory search conducted after impoundment of car stopped for traffic infractions was unreasonable and in violation of Fourth Amendment where impoundment of vehicle was not prompted by reasonable necessity and was clearly unlawful. There was no evidence that vehicle was stolen or was being driven without owner's consent; driver was not arrested for minor offense of driving without license, but was allowed to post bond to secure court appearance; statute did not permit police to seize vehicle when driver is without license; despite officer's concern that vehicle parked on curve in interstate could have caused accident, there was no evidence that office made attempt to move vehicle from shoulder of highway, and no evidence that such move could not have been made; and less intrusive alternative to impoundment was available where driver was capable of making arrangements for safeguard of his property through private towing service of his choice. United States v Ibarra (1989, DC Wyo) 725 F Supp 1195, reconsideration den (DC Wyo) 731 F Supp 1037 and app dismd (CA10 Wyo) 920 F2d 702, vacated (US) 116 L Ed 2d 1, 112 S Ct 4, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12656 (vacating judgt and ruling that 30–day period of limitation began to run on date not to reconsider was denied).

See State v Daniel (1979, Alaska) 589 P2d 408, § 14[b].

Police officers' inventory search of defendant's truck was unlawful under Fourth Amendment, since the search was a pretextual inventory search conducted as a ruse for a criminal investigation, even though deputy's traffic stop of defendant was valid and defendant had no driver's license, where deputy's purpose in impounding the truck was to permit an inventory search for narcotics, deputy did not offer any standardized policy to impound all vehicles of unlicensed drivers, and deputy did not offer any community caretaking function served by impounding defendant's truck. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 14602.6. People v. Torres, 188 Cal. App. 4th 775, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 (4th Dist. 2010), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 2010 WL 4140424 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010).

Where defendant was alone in his car when stopped by police because taillight was not operating and was then arrested because of outstanding traffic warrant against him, warrantless search of automobile, made at arrest scene by police, by

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

which drugs, bullets, and firearms were found, was unlawful search where defendant had turned from boulevard onto side street where he stopped, there being no necessity for police custodial care of vehicle under circumstances, and police had no probable cause to believe vehicle contained contraband or firearms. People v Landa, 30 Cal App 3d 487, 106 Cal Rptr 329.

Following arrest of defendant for driving with suspended permit, impoundment of vehicle and subsequent inventory search were improper where there was no evidence that defendant consented to impoundment and where defendant was fully available to make other arrangements for vehicle's disposition. Arrington v United States (1978, Dist Col App) 382 A2d 14.

In prosecution for possession of controlled substance in which police officer stopped defendant for speeding, subsequently arrested him for driving while intoxicated and opened closed luggage found during inventory search of trunk which revealed large quantity of marijuana, trial court erred in failing to suppress marijuana, where record revealed no mandatory police department policy which would require opening of closed containers during legitimate inventory searches; officer acting alone did not have discretion to open closed containers during inventory search in absence of standard police procedure mandating their opening. State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989), judgment aff'd, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990).

Following stop of defendant's vehicle for failure to properly display license plate, officer improperly decided to impound vehicle and conduct inventory search without consulting with defendant as to alternatives to impoundment even though officer suspected vehicle had been stolen, defendant had supplied false information as to his identity, and license plate on vehicle belonged to another vehicle, where officer's investigation had revealed that neither vehicle had been reported. McClendon v. State, 476 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1985).

Although police officers were entitled to question and arrest defendant who was found asleep in car on beach, based upon officers' discovery that warrant was outstanding for defendant, and to impound car for safekeeping since defendant's companion did not have valid driver's license, subsequent inventory search of car could not be upheld where, under state law, officers were required to give owner of vehicle about to be impounded opportunity to seek reasonable alternative for safekeeping, and where officers failed to do so. Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1985).

See Jones v State (1977, Fla App D4) 345 So 2d 809, § 12[b].

Where driver of automobile was arrested approximately one block from his home after he lost control of his automobile as result of slight accident following high speed chase by police and where driver desired and had ability to have his car removed by someone without intervention of police, warrantless, nonconsensual inventory search of automobile was unjustified. Altman v State (Fla App D2) 335 So 2d 626 (citing annotation).

Inventory search of automobile was unreasonable and therefore violative of defendant's rights under Fourth Amendment where, after defendant had been arrested for traffic violations, officer advised defendant that he would be taken to police station and that his car would have to be towed because it would not be safe on street, defendant requested that tow truck from his automobile club be called so that he could save towing charges, and officer acceded to this request, but where, before tow truck could arrive, two more officers arrived at scene and after deciding that they could or would wait no longer for tow truck, officers simply proceeded with search without further consulting defendant as to other alternatives. Chuze v State (Fla App D4) 330 So 2d 166.

Evidence discovered during inventory search of automobile was inadmissible where there was no necessity for impounding vehicle and police did so contrary to usual procedure followed in traffic cases. State v Volk (Fla App) 291 So 2d 643 (citing annotation).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Impound inventory search of vehicle was invalid, where, although defendant was arrested for a traffic offense, his car was legally parked in a shopping center parking lot and was not creating a hazard, at least one friend who was present at the scene may have been capable of removing the vehicle, but police never asked, and police never allowed defendant to make alternative arrangements for the removal of his car. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Canino v. State, 314 Ga. App. 633, 725 S.E.2d 782 (2012).

Where, after arresting non–owner driver of van for driving without license, licensed passenger was allowed to drive van to police station, impoundment and inventory search were not shown to have been reasonably necessary. Reed v State (1990) 195 Ga App 821, 395 SE2d 294.

See State v Thomason (1980) 153 Ga App 345, 265 SE2d 312, § 5[a].

Where arresting state trooper testified that standard procedure when he arrested someone for traffic violation was to issue driver standard citation and offer him choice of leaving his driver's license with state trooper in lieu of bond or proceeding to sheriff's office to make cash bond, and in neither case would offender's automobile be impounded, and where state trooper stated unequivocally that he deviated from normal procedure, retaining defendant in custody and impounding his automobile solely because of lookout which had been broadcast regarding defendant's automobile, search of defendant's automobile was clearly pursuant to investigatory motive and was not constitutionally reasonable routine inventory search. Rohrig v State (1979) 148 Ga App 869, 253 SE2d 253.

Police acted unreasonably in impounding automobile and conducting inventory search where driver of automobile was arrested for traffic violations, police located owner of automobile, and someone was available to deliver automobile to premises where owner was waiting. State v Ludvicek (1978) 147 Ga App 784, 250 SE2d 503.

Police did not have authority to impound defendant's vehicle pursuant to community caretaker function, and thus, no cognizable reason for impoundment was shown to justify subsequent search conducted pursuant to it; although defendant's vehicle was curbed by officer and his partners on a residential city street after defendant committed traffic offense and failed to produce a valid license, there was no evidence that vehicle was illegally parked, impeding traffic, or threatening public safety or convenience. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Clark, 333 Ill. Dec. 315, 914 N.E.2d 734 (App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2009).

Defendant's vehicle, which was towed for a parking violation following his arrest, could not be subjected to an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Wells, 934 N.E.2d 1015 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2010).

Trial court properly suppressed evidence (drugs) found in glove compartment of car stopped for routine traffic violation, where officer custodially arrested driver for reckless driving and second officer searched car at roadside during administration of field sobriety tests, but facts of driver's operation of vehicle did not support probable cause to arrest for reckless driving, and arrest and impoundment of vehicle thus were illegal. People v Paarlberg (1993, 3d Dist) 243 Ill App 3d 731, 183 Ill Dec 849, 612 NE2d 106.

See People v Alewelt (1991, 3d Dist) 217 Ill App 3d 578, 160 Ill Dec 484, 577 NE2d 809, § 12[b].

Search of car was unlawful as inventory search where no showing was made that defendant consented to police taking custody of his car, that defendant's companion who was released could not have driven vehicle, or that defendant was kept in custody after being arrested for driving without license. People v Velleff (1981) 94 Ill App 3d 820, 50 Ill Dec 222, 419 NE2d 89.

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle after traffic stop was not justified as exercise of police community-caretaking function on ground that defendant's driving permit was suspended, for purpose of determining whether subsequent

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

inventory search of vehicle was valid, even though defendant could not be permitted to move vehicle after he parked; police officer's best information, at time that he decided to impound vehicle, was that defendant had committed an infraction, and, given that officer had no authority to arrest defendant for an infraction, defendant could and should have been afforded opportunity to telephone a responsible friend or relative to retrieve vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11; West's A.I.C. 34–28–5–1, 35–33–1–1(a)(4), 35–33–1–5. Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).

State failed to establish that impoundment of defendant's vehicle was consistent with standard police department procedures, as required to support finding that warrantless inventory search of vehicle which yielded contraband was valid; officer testified that he chose to impound vehicle because defendant "didn't have a valid license and he didn't have proof of insurance for the vehicle[,]" but record was silent as to police department policy on impoundment, containing only conclusory statement that officer's testimony described the "primary operating procedure prior to towing a vehicle[.]" U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Berry v. State, 2012 WL 1553063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

An inventory search of a defendant's car following her arrest for obstruction after a routine traffic stop could not be justified as an exception to the search warrant requirement, where state failed to establish any standardized or routine procedure for an inventory search, sheriff's deputies failed, sheriff's deputies failed to document any items found in the alleged inventory search, deputies gave conflicting testimony about whether they intended to conduct an inventory search or an investigatory search, and trial court later determined that officers intended to conduct an investigatory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Oram, 266 P.3d 1227 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

See City of Danville v Dawson (Ky) 528 SW2d 687, supra § 5[a].

Items found in car glove compartment and elsewhere in car after routine traffic stop and subsequent arrest of driver were not admissible as result of inventory search where there was no evidence of standardized policy governing such searches. Clark v Commonwealth (1993, Ky App) 868 SW2d 101.

Daylight search of vehicle following arrest of driver on warrant charging contempt of court, which led to discovery of marijuana concealed under front seat, could not be justified as inventory search where vehicle could have been safely parked short distance from arrest, where policy of police department that only family members could take possession of an arrestee's vehicle was deemed overly restrictive, and where defendant was not asked if he consented to search or whether he would waive an inventory search, and motion to suppress should have been granted. State v Crosby (1981, La) 403 So 2d 1217.

Inventory search of vehicle without warrant following arrest of defendant for driving while intoxicated and driving without license was unlawful where search was conducted "in the field" rather than upon impoundment, where vehicle owner was not asked if his car contained valuables or if he could make arrangements to have someone pick up vehicle, and where he was not allowed to leave vehicle locked and parked on side of road, as he stated he preferred to do, because it was against police policy, nor did arresting officer testify that tow truck was called before search was made. Fact that impoundment procedures were followed and that standard inventory form was filled out was not sufficient to overcome state's heavy burden of proving there legitimately existed inventory search exception to warrant requirement. State v La Rue (1979, La) 368 So 2d 1048.

Where officers arrested defendant for driving with suspended license, called tow truck without attempting to make other arrangements for defendant's automobile, searched passenger's purse and defendant's shoulder bag and found marijuana, failed to ask defendant's consent to search car, were informed by defendant that he had removed all valuables from car, and search of trunk was made at location of stop rather than at place of impoundment, search was beyond scope of justifiable inventory search and marijuana found in trunk was therefore illegally seized. State v Hatfield (1978, La) 364 So 2d 578.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Shining of flashlight into vehicle and discovery of plastic bag of marijuana partially under rear floormat, following arrest of driver for drunk driving and removal of passengers from vehicle, could not be justified as proper inventory search where ownership of vehicle had not been ascertained, no permission to search had been asked, and tow truck had not yet been called. State v Schmidt (1978, La) 359 So 2d 133.

Warrantless "inventory" search of automobile whose driver had been stopped and arrested for driving while intoxicated was unreasonable and represented unconstitutional invasion of individual right, notwithstanding allegation that search was conducted pursuant to standard policy of state police, where driver did not consent to search, and where driver had first requested that trooper turn car over to his passenger and then requested that automobile be left where it was, parked out of way of traffic. State v Gaut (1978, La) 357 So 2d 513.

Search of vehicle following arrest of defendant for driving while intoxicated was unlawful where police did not request permission of defendant before making search and where police did not ask defendant whether he could make other arrangements for vehicle; fact that officer opened innocuous closed containers, two aluminum packets found in console area of front seat, to discover whether contents violated drug laws indicated that search was not reasonably restricted in scope so as to constitute true inventory search. State v Rome (1978, La) 354 So 2d 504.

See State v Jewell (La) 338 So 2d 633 (citing annotation), infra § 17.

Inventory search of vehicle was lawful, where driver was arrested for driving under influence of alcohol and passenger did not possess valid driver's license. State v Knippers (1988, La App 3d Cir) 535 So 2d 403.

Although state may have shown necessity for moving defendant's automobile where he was arrested on shoulder of interstate highway for speeding and driving without license, there was no showing of necessity for inventory of contents of trunk. State v Carey (1986, La App 1st Cir) 499 So 2d 283.

While initial search of interior of vehicle upon impoundment was lawful incident to arrest of defendant for driving while intoxicated, subsequent search of vehicle after learning defendant had history of drug offenses could not be justified as inventory search. State v Green (1986, La App 2d Cir) 482 So 2d 930.

Motion to suppress eight grams of marijuana found in console of car should have been granted where impoundment and inventory search of speeding driver's vehicle could not be justified following his arrest since driver had pulled his car off street and parked it in J. C. Penny parking lot while repeatedly requesting that arresting officer not disturb his vehicle. State v Osbon (1983, La App) 426 So 2d 323.

Inventory search of vehicle which police impounded following arrest of driver for traffic violation was not lawful absent evidence that police had standard practice or policy of conducting inventory searches in circumstances involved. State v Hudson (1978, Me) 390 A2d 509.

Police officers lacked discretion to open bag from donut shop and nylon laundry bag found in defendant's vehicle during inventory search of vehicle following defendant's arrest for license violation and impoundment of vehicle, as police department's inventory procedure did not authorize opening of closed but unlocked containers at all. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Muckle, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 678, 814 N.E.2d 7 (2004).

Where police had no valid reason to impound legally parked private automobile following arrest of vehicle's owner on traffic warrants, trial court erred by denying defense motion to suppress billy club and marijuana which were fruits of warrantless search. People v Siegel (1980) 95 Mich App 594, 291 NW2d 134.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of a motor vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the police improperly impounded the vehicle of a driver who was cited but not arrested for two misdemeanor traffic offenses when the only justification for impoundment was protection of property, and the driver had requested permission to make reasonable alternative arrangements for the disposition of the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).

Inventory search of motor vehicle impounded by police was unlawful where driver, suspected of possessing narcotics, was subjected to pretext arrest for traffic violation. State v Hoven (1978, Minn) 269 NW2d 849.

See State v Goodrich (1977, Minn) 256 NW2d 506, § 5[a].

See State v Sawyer (1977, Mont) 571 P2d 1131, § 15[b].

Trial court in prosecution for possession of weapon and LSD properly granted motion to suppress evidence seized from saddlebags of motorcycle whose rider had been arrested for reckless driving, where officer's failure to produce, under guidelines, proper inventory of all items found, and officer's obviously pointed effort to discover contraband in minutely detailed, partial–disassembly search of motorcycle and saddlebags, including opening zippered toilet case in which LSD was found, prevented sustaining search as valid inventory of seized vehicle. State v Greenwald (1993, Nev) 858 P2d 36.

Police officers could not impound and search passenger's vehicle incident to unlicensed driver's arrest; because the passenger produced valid credentials indicating ownership of the vehicle, the police officer had no reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle had been stolen, and the passenger could have retained custody. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Lark, 163 N.J. 294, 748 A.2d 1103 (2000).

If vehicle is lawfully impounded and its owner or permissive user is present, that person must be given option of either consenting to inventory or making his own arrangements for safekeeping of property contained in vehicle; absent consent or alternative security provisions, inventory may be not undertaken and in such cases vehicle owner or user will be presumed to have assumed risk for any claims of property loss or theft arising from impoundment. State v Mangold (1980) 82 NJ 575, 414 A2d 1312.

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle and subsequent inventory search of its contents constituted unconstitutional invasion of defendant driver's zone of privacy, where he was arrested on outstanding warrant for driving vehicle, registered to his wife, while on revoked list, where no impounded vehicle report was filled out until after vehicle was taken to precinct station and second search conducted, where reason for impoundment listed on police report was "pen gun found in auto," and where there was no indication that defendant could not have lawfully parked vehicle and arranged to have it picked up by his wife or someone else; furthermore, there was substantial credible evidence to support findings of motion judge that such search was not pursuant to impoundment but prior to it and that purported impoundment was pretextual. State v Slockbower (1979) 79 NJ 1, 397 A2d 1050 (citing annotation).

See State v McDaniel (1978) 156 NJ Super 347, 383 A2d 1174, § 5[a].

Where at time of initial stop, arrest and search of defendant police officer had no reason to believe that defendant may have committed any crimes other than exhibition driving, driving while intoxicated and possession of contraband, and there was no reason to suspect defendant of having evidence relating to burglary or homicide until he was taken to police station, warrantless stationhouse searches of car could not be justified as inventory searches since they were undertaken for purpose of finding evidence relating to murder investigation; additionally, speakers discovered as result of second search should not have been admitted into evidence as plain view exception to warrant requirement since, at time they were first seen, their incriminating nature was not apparent and, at time they were seized, discovery was no longer inadvertent. State v Luna (1980) 93 NM 773, 606 P2d 183.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of automobile pulled over after patrol officer recognized driver as one whose license was suspended, and which led to discovery of cocaine under console, could not be justified as valid inventory search incident to lawful impoundment, where, after cursory inventory revealed no contraband, officers used drug–sniffing dog to pinpoint location of cocaine, and use of canine was not part of requisite standard procedures for inventory searches. State v Ramzy (1993, NM App) 867 P2d 418, cert den (NM) 867 P2d 1183.

Prosecution failed to establish that inventory search of defendant's motor vehicle following his arrest for driving with a suspended license was valid; prosecution did not present evidence of any police policy regarding inventory searches, and arresting officer did not in fact make a meaningful inventory list, but rather stopped search once he found handgun in glove compartment. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Johnson, 1 N.Y.3d 252, 771 N.Y.S.2d 64, 803 N.E.2d 385 (N.Y. 2003).

Inventory search of vehicle impounded after driver was stopped for speeding and arrested on outstanding warrant was illegal, where search, which revealed cocaine in paper bag in trunk as well as concealed in door panel, was not conducted according to standardized procedure. People v Colon (1994, App Div, 3d Dept) 608 NYS2d 351.

Even assuming that traffic stop was supported by probable cause, warrantless search of defendant's vehicle following discovery of marijuana on defendant's person was not permissible inventory search; officer's failure to list all of vehicle's contents on inventory list, together with search under hood, suggested that search was improper fishing expedition for evidence of another crime. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Woods, 2012-Ohio-5509, 982 N.E.2d 1305 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2012).

Detailed inventory search of vehicle, following defendant's arrest for traffic violation, was not justified by police duty to safeguard owner's property while in their custody, and it was error to allow admission as evidence of hallucinogen found in trunk and not in plain view. State v Bradshaw, 41 Ohio App 2d 48, 70 Ohio Ops 2d 52, 322 NE2d 311.

See Kelly v State (1980, Okla Crim) 607 P2d 706, § 6[a].

Sheriff deputies' inventory of motor vehicle after vehicle was impounded during traffic stop deviated from procedures established in county's administrative program and thus violated state constitutional provision governing unreasonable searches and seizures; program required deputy to ask owner or operator of vehicle to remove any valuables from vehicle before contents of vehicle were inventoried, and deputies performed inventory before asking motorist to remove valuables. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Bernabo, 224 Or. App. 379, 197 P.3d 610 (2008).

Later inventory search of vehicle driven by defendant who was arrested for driving with suspended license was invalid, where search was not conducted pursuant to properly authorized administrative program, and state did not identify source of extra–executive authorization, such as statute or ordinance, which would allow law enforcement officers to inventory vehicles under circumstances presented, and which delineated purpose and limits of officers' authority. State v Custer (1994) 126 Or App 431, 868 P2d 1363.

See State v Martin (1993) 124 Or App 459, 863 P2d 1276, § 6.5.

Where driver was lawfully arrested for operating automobile while license was suspended, and driver allowed officer to enter his vehicle for purposes of moving from no–parking zone, officer had no authority under "community caretaking" function or otherwise to conduct warrantless search of vehicle by lifting folded–down back seat, and contraband and weapon thereby disclosed was properly suppressed as fruit of illegal search. State v Fleming (1983) 63 Or App 661, 665 P2d 1235.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of car after arrest of driver for drunk driving was unreasonable where defendant requested that his passenger be permitted to drive car away; passenger was not intoxicated; she was capable of operating car and there was no reasonable cause to take defendant's vehicle into custody. Drinkard v State (1979, Tenn) 584 SW2d 650.

See State v Shamblin (1988, Utah App) 763 P2d 425, 94 Utah Adv Rep 31, § 14[b].

See Reese v Commonwealth (1980, Va) 265 SE2d 746, § 7[a].

In prosecution for drug offenses, trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence discovered during inventory search of vehicles after drivers were arrested for driving without licenses, where federal law required that inventory searches be conducted in accordance with local official procedures, where Washington law required officer to request consent of owner before conducting inventory search so as to afford owner opportunity to reject protection inventory search provided and take chance that no loss would occur, and where officers did not request vehicle owner's permission prior to conducting search. United States v Wanless (1989, CA9 Wash) 882 F2d 1459 (applying Wash law).

In prosecution for possession of cocaine found in console of automobile during warrantless inventory search, trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence of cocaine, where state conceded that warrantless inventory search pursuant to impound was improper, and where arresting officer had no reasonable grounds to impound defendant's vehicle after arresting him for failure to produce valid driver's license, and officer failed to pursue reasonable alternatives to impoundment. State v Stortroen (1989) 53 Wash App 654, 769 P2d 321.

Inventory search of automobile which was parked in private retail merchant's parking lot after defendant was stopped and arrested for drunk driving was unlawful where state failed to prove that impoundment was conducted for valid purpose and that no reasonable alternatives existed, where officer knew defendant and knew that family lived nearby, and where there was no indication officer asked defendant whether someone might be readily available to come pick up car or thought of moving vehicle to corner of parking lot, locking it, with idea that it could be later towed if it became nuisance to business before defendant could make arrangements to move it. State v Hardman (1977) 17 Wash App 910, 567 P2d 238.

State failed to establish reasonable basis for impoundment of defendant's vehicle prior to inventory search and, thus, evidence discovered during search was properly supressed where, although defendant had been arrested on traffic warrant for speeding, it was reasonable to believe that defendant's presence at police station to post bail called for but temporary absence, where, although vehicle was illegally parked, it could have easily been moved short distance to legal parking area and temporarily secured against theft, and where, although defendant indicated that friend could arrive within few minutes to pick up vehicle and officer wrote down friend's name and telephone number, officer did not contact him. State v Bales, 15 Wash App 834, 552 P2d 688.

See State v Singleton, 9 Wash App 327, 511 P2d 1396, § 5[a].

Police officer's primary motivation for impounding vehicle was because he suspected defendant had engaged in criminal activity, rather than because vehicle was obstructing traffic, and thus inventory search of vehicle was unlawful; police officer admitted that he suspected defendant engaged in criminal activity because defendant lied about having his license and was from different state, and officer testified that any obstruction of traffic could have been corrected by parking vehicle closer to curb. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. York, 203 W. Va. 103, 506 S.E.2d 358 (1998).

Officer's failure to permit motorist arrested for operating vehicle without driver's license to make alternative disposition of his car prior to its impoundment made impoundment and subsequent inventory search invalid where arresting officer did not have probable cause to believe car had been stolen, but apparently impounded car because it was department policy to impound car when driver is arrested for traffic violation. State v Perry (1984, W Va) 324 SE2d 354.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 8[a] Other offenses—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, an inventory search of a vehicle which the police impounded following the arrest of the driver or

occupant for an offense other than a vehicle or traffic violation 5 was held lawful.

US United States v McCoy (1992, CA1 NH) 977 F2d 706 United States v Barnes (DC NY) 443 F Supp 137, 2 Fed Rules Evid Serv 779, affd (CA2 NY) 604 F2d 121, cert den 446 US 907, 64 L Ed 2d 260, 100 S Ct 1833, habeas corpus proceeding (CA2 NY) 814 F2d 888 (defendant arrested by state police for criminal impersonation) United States v Taft (1991, DC Vt) 769 F Supp 1295 United States v Hall (1978, CA5 Tex) 565 F2d 917 United States v Ullrich (1978, CA5 Fla) 580 F2d 765, reh den (CA5 Fla) 589 F2d 1114 United States v Massey (1977, DC Fla) 437 F Supp 843 United States v Smith (1989, ND Tex) 714 F Supp 1393 United States v Agofsky (1994, CA8) 20 F3d 866 and cert den (US) 130 L Ed 2d 196, 115 S Ct 280 United States v Martin (1977, CA10 Okla) 566 F2d 1143 United States v Johnston (1978, DC Okla) 452 F Supp 160 Ala Lippold v State (1978, Ala App) 365 So 2d 1015, cert den (Ala) 365 So 2d 1022 Ark Snell v State (1986) 290 Ark 503, 721 SW2d 628, reh den 290 Ark 503, 723 SW2d 1 and cert den (US) 98 L Ed 2d 153, 108 S Ct 202 Cal People v Superior Court (Moraza) (1989, 6th Dist) 210 Cal App 3d 592, 258 Cal Rptr 499, review den (spousal abuse) Colo People v Meeks (1977, Colo) 570 P2d 835 Conn State v Nelson (1989) 17 Conn App 556, 555 A2d 426 DC Lewis v United States (1977, Dist Col App) 379 A2d 1168 Fla Kokal v. State, 492 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1986) Ga Gildea v State (1987) 184 Ga App 105, 360 SE2d 657 State v Sparks (1992) 205 Ga App 438, 422 SE2d 293, 92 Fulton County D R 2111 Keating v State, 141 Ga App 377, 233 SE2d 456 (defendant arrested for possession of marijuana) Ind Thurman v State (1992, Ind App) 602 NE2d 548, transfer den (Dec 29, 1992) Ky Helm v Commonwealth (1991, Ky) 813 SW2d 816 La

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

State v McCabe (1980, La) 383 So 2d 380 State v Scott (1981, La) 395 So 2d 714 State v Moak (1983, La App) 427 So 2d 1233 State v Washington (1989, La App 1st Cir) 540 So 2d 502 Mass Commonwealth v Matchett (1982) 386 Mass 492, 436 NE2d 400 Commonwealth v Seminara (1985) 20 Mass App 789, 483 NE2d 92 Mich People v Castle (1983) 126 Mich App 203, 337 NW2d 48 Mo State v Valentine (1979, Mo) 584 SW2d 92 State v Wells (1985, Mo App) 701 SW2d 554 State v Cone (1988, Mo App) 744 SW2d 860 State v. Wells, 33 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2000) Neb State v Stalder (1989) 231 Neb 896, 438 NW2d 498 (vehicle not officially impounded) NY People v Lowe (1983, 3d Dept) 91 App Div 2d 1100, 458 NYS2d 357 People v Bute (1991, 2d Dept) 172 App Div 2d 550, 567 NYS2d 877 People v Plunkett, 56 App Div 2d 878, 392 NYS2d 321 (defendant arrested as suspect in robbery) People v Prator, 93 Misc 2d 303, 402 NYS2d 739 (defendant arrested for disorderly conduct; vehicle parked in "tow- away" zone) Okla Bowen v State (1980, Okla Crim) 606 P2d 589 Pa Commonwealth v Smagala (1989) 383 Pa Super 466, 557 A2d 347, app den (Pa) 571 A2d 382 Tex Gary v State (1982, Tex Crim) 647 SW2d 646 Holt v State (1987, Tex App San Antonio) 724 SW2d 914 Starlling v State (1988, Tex App Fort Worth) 743 SW2d 767 Bass v State (1992, Tex App Beaumont) 835 SW2d 815 Martinez v State (1982, Tex App 4th Dist) 644 SW2d 104 Campbell v State (1989, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 775 SW2d 419, petition for discretionary review ref Gandy v State (1992, Tex App Houston (1st Dist)) 835 SW2d 238, petition for discretionary review ref (Nov 25, 1992) and motion for rehearing on PDR denied (Jan 27, 1993) In United States v Lipscomb (1970, CA5 Ala) 435 F2d 795, cert den 401 US 980, 28 L Ed 2d 331, 91 S Ct 1213, reh den 402 US 966, 29 L Ed 2d 131, 91 S Ct 1635, the police arrested the defendant motorist for forgery in connection with the use of a stolen credit card, impounded his car, which the motorist later admitted was stolen, and took an inventory of the contents in order to safeguard the owner's personal belongings. Rejecting the contention that the action of the police in inventorying the contents of the car constituted an illegal search, the court stated that an inventory is necessary both to preserve the property of the accused while he is in jail and to forestall the possibility that the accused may later claim that some item has not been returned to him. The court further pointed out that ordinarily no search warrant would be required for such a procedure, for the reason that it is most reasonable and desirable that personal effects contained within impounded automobiles be protected for the benefit of the owners. The court, therefore, affirmed a judgment convicting the driver of transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen.

Affirming a conviction for transporting, and causing to be transported, forged money orders, the court in United States v Boyd (1971, CA5 Ala) 436 F2d 1203, held that an inventory search of an impounded vehicle at a municipal building, following the arrest of one of its occupants for possession of forged money orders, was lawful. Although the court pointed

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

out that the arresting officer had probable cause to search the car for contraband, the court nevertheless accepted the testimony of the officer that the search at the municipal building was conducted as part of a routine police procedure to inventory articles in an impounded vehicle, and the court went on to hold that evidence obtained as a result of a routine inventory conducted to itemize the property of an arrested person is admissible in evidence. The court noted that the vehicle had been completely demolished as a result of a collision which occurred when its occupants had attempted to escape from the police, that the car's only remaining occupant was seriously injured and had to be removed to a hospital, and that the car could not be locked or left on the streets. Under these circumstances, continued the court, once the officers had removed the car to police headquarters, they were under a duty to itemize the property and to store it for safekeeping.

An inventory of the contents of an automobile impounded by the police after the driver of the vehicle had been arrested on suspicion of burglary was held lawful in People v Williams (1967) 67 Cal 2d 226, 60 Cal Rptr 472, 430 P2d 30, on the ground that in view of the totality of circumstances present, the inventory was a continuation of a search lawfully begun at the scene of the arrest. The arresting officer received a radio call to the effect that a burglary was being committed at a store, and on proceeding toward the location, he observed the defendant's car, which was the only one on the street at that time of the morning, proceeding in the opposite direction. The officer followed the car, and a high speed chase ensued which only ended when the defendant's vehicle went out of control and he fled on foot, abandoning the car. The officer then searched the unlocked trunk of the car, and shortly afterward the driver was arrested and taken into custody. His car was then taken to a police storage garage where its contents were inventoried, and where a large number of stolen items were discovered in the trunk. Under these circumstances, the court held that an arrest of the driver was justified, that the initial search of the vehicle conducted at the scene was also justified as an incident to the arrest, that the subsequent inventory which took place at the police storage garage was only a continuation of the search lawfully begun at the scene of the arrest, and that the entire search process was incident to that arrest and not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

In People v Prochnau (1967) 251 Cal App 2d 22, 59 Cal Rptr 265, involving a prosecution for possession of, inter alia, a pistol, where a driver was arrested for violation of parole, his automobile was impounded and removed to the police impound area, and the arresting officer testified that he noticed that the entire back seat was covered with clothing, the court held that under the circumstances, it would appear to have been reasonable for the officer to make suitable provision for safeguarding the vehicle and its contents. However, the court reversed a conviction on other grounds.

Stating that the relevant test is whether, under all of the circumstances, a search was reasonable, the court in St. Clair v State (1967) 1 Md App 605, 232 A2d 565, involving a prosecution for, inter alia, grand larceny, held that where a motorist was arrested as a fugitive from another state, and where his car was impounded and he was incarcerated until he could post the requisite bond to secure his release, a search of the car by the police for the alleged purpose of listing and safeguarding the contents of the car was reasonable and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The prosecution witnesses testified that the police, at the time of the search, did not know that the goods were stolen, that they subsequently removed the goods from the sheriff's office, putting them back into the car, and that when, 12 days after the arrest, a broadcast of the description of the articles revealed that they were stolen, the police then retook the goods from the car and placed them in the storage room of the police station. Rejecting the contention that the search was an exploration for incriminating evidence, the court stated that the crucial time for determining the constitutionality of the search was at the time when the police initially made their entry into the car, and that the fact that the police subsequently removed the stolen articles from the sheriff's office, putting them back into the car, or that at a later date, the police made a broadcast of the description of the articles in question, did not alter the conclusion that the search, when made, was reasonable. Recognizing that it would sometimes be difficult to distinguish a bona fide inventory from a mere subterfuge to search, the court stated that the fact that abuses sometimes occur during the course of criminal investigations should not impair the propriety of basically reasonable procedures. Affirming a conviction, the court concluded that under the circumstances of the case, the guaranties of the Fourth Amendment were not violated by the action of the police in removing the contents of the vehicle.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Affirming a conviction for larceny, the court in Mackall v State (1969) 7 Md App 246, 255 A2d 98, held that where the defendant and another entered a motel parking lot and the other "rummaged" cars on the parking lot, police officers were justified in arresting them for tampering with a motor vehicle, and that on discovering that the vehicle in which they arrived did not belong to either of them, it was lawful for the police to take an inventory of the contents of the vehicle so as to safeguard the vehicle and its contents for the true owner. The court noted testimony to the effect that at the time of the inventory, the police did not know that any of the goods removed from the car were stolen. Under these circumstances, the court held that the action of the police in inventorying the contents of the vehicle did not constitute a prohibited search in the constitutional sense, but was a bona fide attempt to safeguard the owner of the inventoried property against loss, and not a subterfuge for conducting an exploratory search.

In State v Armstrong (1967) 149 Mont 470, 428 P2d 611, involving a prosecution for petit larceny, the court held that where police officers had probable cause to arrest the occupants of a pickup truck for larceny of copper telephone wire, and where their investigation revealed that the truck did not belong to the occupants, it was their duty not only to impound the pickup truck from the public highway for its own protection, but also to inventory the contents so that they would be safeguarded for the owner. Accordingly, the court rejected an assignment of error based on the admission of incriminating evidence discovered during the course of such an inventory, and affirmed a conviction.

Affirming a conviction for burglary, the court in Heffley v State (1967) 83 Nev 100, 423 P2d 666, held that where a driver was arrested at a stoplight for unlawful possession of a pistol on information previously received by the arresting officer that the driver was attempting to sell guns to pawnshops, an inventory search of his automobile prior to its impoundment was lawful. The court noted that an exception to the constitutional rule that a search warrant must be obtained before a search is conducted, existed where the search is done for the purposes of an inventory of personal effects and is not exploratory. The court observed that when there is just cause, a police officer has a duty not only to impound a car from the public highway for its own protection, but also to inventory the contents so that they may be safeguarded for the owner. Such practice, declared the court, is deemed necessary to defeat dishonest claims of theft of the car's contents and to protect the temporary storage bailee against false charges. In conclusion, the court stated that the inventory procedure used by the police could be justified on the basis of the historical difference in the treatment accorded searches of buildings and that accorded searches of automobiles, since the fundamental right of privacy connected with a man's home is in greater need of protection, whereas in the case of an automobile, the police and other people using the public highway, as well as the owner of the vehicle, have an interest which must be protected.

Ruling that a search may be lawful where it is reasonably related to a duty separately imposed by law to hold a car, the relation between the search and the duty to hold the car is bona fide, the court in People v Kern (1971) 67 Misc 2d 495, 324 NYS2d 442, held that where a motorist sitting in his car was legally arrested on charges other than possession of stolen property, an inventory of the vehicle's contents taken at the station house while he was being booked, and conducted pursuant to a departmental regulation requiring the police to hold the car and "voucher" its contents in order to safeguard them, was lawful. The court observed that the police could not arrest the driver and leave his car unattended on the street, and that the search of the car was reasonably related to compliance with the departmental regulation. The court, therefore, rejected a motion to suppress evidence of stolen property discovered during the inventory search.

In State v Raiford (1971, Or App) 490 P2d 1036, the court held that a stolen credit card which was discovered in the defendant's automobile after he had been arrested for larceny, and during the course of an inventory search preparatory to an impoundment of the automobile, was not the product of an illegal search and seizure. The evidence showed that the motorist was stopped by a police patrol car because his automobile had no license plate light as required by law, and that after he was arrested on an outstanding warrant for larceny, the arresting officer placed him in the police car and proceeded to take an inventory of the car's contents. The court pointed out that police operating procedure required that the automobile of a person arrested while operating such vehicle alone on a public road be towed by a private towing company to a garage for the protection of the driver's property, and the court declared that an inventory was required and

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

necessary to hold the tow–car operator accountable for the vehicle and its contents. Accordingly, the court ruled that the credit card was properly received in evidence because it was the duty of the police officer to protect the driver's property when he arrested and detained him. The court affirmed a conviction for receiving and concealing a stolen credit card.

In Cabbler v Commonwealth (1971) 212 Va 520, 184 SE2d 781, cert den 405 US 1073, 31 L Ed 2d 807, 92 S Ct 1501, the defendant was arrested for shooting into an occupied dwelling, his car was impounded, and an inventory of its contents was made pursuant to a routine police department procedure. Affirming a conviction for larceny of the goods discovered during the inventory search, the court ruled that the police procedure of removing a person's vehicle to a city garage, and inventorying and storing the contents of the vehicle, whenever such person is arrested away from his home, while driving his automobile, was reasonable and not in violation of the arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights. The court noted that the policy of removing, inventorying, and separately storing, the contents of the vehicle, was only instituted after complaints were made, and claims for reimbursement filed, by the owners of vehicles who claimed property was lost or stolen while their cars were in police custody. Stating that such a policy was in accord with the public policy of the Commonwealth, and that it served the best interest of the property owner by protecting and safeguarding the property in his possession at the time of his arrest, the court observed that the Fourth Amendment does not preclude the states from developing workable rules governing arrests, searches, and seizures, to meet the practical demands of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement in the states, provided that those rules do not violate the constitutional proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures and the concomitant command that evidence illegally seized is inadmissible.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Motorist's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when, following his arrest on suspicion of being involved in disappearance of ten-year-old boy, and with no one on hand to move car from parking spot in which it would soon be illegally parked if not moved, police officers decided to impound vehicle and to conduct inventory search thereof. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Jaynes v. Mitchell, 824 F.3d 187 (1st Cir. 2016).

Police officers could search vehicle under both the search-incident-to-arrest and the inventory-search exceptions to warrantless searches, where officers had arrested the passengers after seeing a bag of suspected heroin in the vehicle's interior. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Acosta-Colon, 741 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 2013).

Officers properly conducted inventory search of vehicle registered to defendant's girlfriend pursuant to police department policy, after defendant and his girlfriend, the vehicle's only occupants, were arrested, even if the search revealed items of an investigatory nature; officers reasonably decided to tow the vehicle out of concern that a firearm might be in the vehicle in light of defendant's criminal history, firearm might have caused danger to public safety as vehicle was parked in high crime area, department policy required inventory search prior to the tow, girlfriend falsely stated there was pitbull dog in the car in possible attempt to dissuade the police from looking in the vehicle, and she stated there was no one to assume control of the dog. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jeffreys, 111 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D. Mass. 2015).

Search of defendant's vehicle at police department, following defendant's arrest for possession of marihuana, was an inventory search validly done pursuant to local police department regulations, where, after defendant had been arrested, there was no one immediately on hand to take possession of the vehicle, defendant was present during the inventory search of his vehicle, officer noticed that the configuration of the vehicle was unusual, officer called over a K-9 to search, the K-9 positively marked the vehicle for the presence of firearms, and officers partially disassembled the rear of the vehicle, finding five long weapons, ammunition, and some plastic bags. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. González- Seda, 224 F. Supp. 3d 128 (D.P.R. 2016).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of vehicle, conducted on police department premises after driver was arrested on weapons charge following lawful Terry stop, comported with Fourth Amendment; search conformed with established procedures and standardized criteria and was performed in driver's presence, and there was no showing that officers who conducted search acted in bad faith for sole purpose of investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Gomez-Vega, 519 F. Supp. 2d 241 (D.P.R. 2007).

Inventory search conducted by police after defendant's car was ordered impounded incident to his arrest was reasonable and comported with Fourth Amendment, even though weapon and ammunition, for possession of which defendant was subsequently prosecuted, were not listed on inventory search form completed by officers; weapon and ammunition were removed during search, obviating need to list them, and form was complete in other respects. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). U.S. v. Best, 415 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Conn. 2006).

Police could properly conduct inventory search of vehicle impounded after driver's arrest where vehicle was used in commission of crime, vehicle had transported dangerous weapon—a gravity knife—and vehicle had bogus registration certification giving police probable cause to believe it was stolen. United States v Ochs (1978, SD NY) 461 F Supp 1.

District court did not err in declining to suppress evidence found after defendant's arrest and during valid inventory search of his car, with respect to prosecution for possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute and related firearms charges; car had been validly impounded, and there was no evidence indicating that police conducted search in unreasonable fashion or for any other improper purpose. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Farrish, 297 Fed. Appx. 162 (3d Cir. 2008).

Inventory search was properly made of arrestee's rental car following his arrest for interstate flight to avoid prosecution on securities–fraud charges, where, in addition to compliance by officers with all applicable procedures for searching seized vehicles, arrestee made specific request that his personal property be removed from vehicle and returned to his family. United States v Frank (1988, CA3 Pa) 864 F2d 992, cert den (US) 104 L Ed 2d 998, 109 S Ct 2442.

Search of impounded vehicle was valid as inventory search; vehicle was properly seized as instrument of and evidence of at least one crime, police department had standardized procedure for dealing with inventory searches, which removed any discretion in determining whether to search and scope of search, and there was no evidence, other than fact that search was not conducted immediately, that officers failed to follow procedure. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Lynch, 290 F. Supp. 2d 490 (M.D. Pa. 2003).

Warrantless search of defendant's vehicle following defendant's arrest was a valid inventory search, and thus search did not violate Fourth Amendment, since officers reasonably concluded that his car should be impounded and acted pursuant to department policy in conducting an inventory of the vehicle prior to having it towed; arresting officer called for a tow truck to impound defendant's vehicle because it was blocking traffic on a busy highway and could not be released to defendant's passenger as he had a suspended driver's license, and officer performed the inventory pursuant to established departmental policy without any suspicion of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Motton, 452 Fed. Appx. 502 (5th Cir. 2011).

Discovery by police of two pistols contained in map pocket on back of passenger's seat of truck driven by defendant who had been arrested was result of valid inventory search pursuant to planned impoundment of vehicle, where, inter alia, defendant did not claim ownership of truck and did not protest inventory search. United States v Young (1987, CA5 Tex) 825 F2d 60, cert den (US) 99 L Ed 2d 711, 108 S Ct 1483.

In heroin possession prosecution, inventory search of defendant's car subsequent to his lawful arrest during execution of search warrant in another's residence was valid and furthermore, even if defendant's arrest was not proper, officers had probable cause to conduct warrantless search of defendant's car after they discovered methadone on passenger waiting

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

in defendant's car and thus, defendant's conviction would be affirmed. United States v Maldonado (1984, CA5 Tex) 735 F2d 809.

Inventory search of vehicle lawfully parked in parking mall of shopping center, following arrest of driver and passenger for passing counterfeit $20 bills, was lawful where taking custody of car was legitimate exercise of arresting officer's community caretaking function, where once officers took custody of car, they were required by police department regulations to inventory its contents, and where record did not support argument that inventory procedure utilized by police was mere pretext for investigatory search for evidence. United States v Staller (1980, CA5 Fla) 616 F2d 1284.

Where automobile was seized pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. § 782 following arrest of occupant for possession of counterfeit currency, inventory search of vehicle following seizure was lawful under authority of such statute. United States v Sink (1978, CA5 Fla) 586 F2d 1041.

There was probable cause to make arrests for reckless driving and disorderly conduct and, arrests being valid, police, under circumstances, were justified in having car removed to headquarters and conducting inventory search where: police officer heard report on car involved in mugging, saw car, and, as he followed it, car accelerated to reckless speed; officer gave chase until car came to stop in private driveway; as driver got out, officer arrested him for reckless driving; defendant, who was passenger in car, began to shout, using loud and abusive language and was, therefore, arrested for disorderly conduct; and, since car was in private driveway not belonging to car's occupants and large crowd had gathered, officer had car towed to police headquarters, where inventory search was conducted and almost $2,000 was found. Jackson v Alabama (CA5 Ala) 534 F2d 1136.

In prosecution for passing counterfeit $20 bill, counterfeit notes and medicine bottles bearing defendant's name which were found in inventory searches of car driven by codefendant were properly admitted where sole reason for search of car was to inventory its contents, car was from out of state and was not registered to driver, and police did not feel that car, which was packed with clothing and other articles, should have been left unattended in shopping center parking lot. United States v Ducker (CA5 Fla) 491 F2d 1190.

Where Florida officers arrested defendant and his two brothers who were traveling in strange town and officers expected to turn men over to Georgia authorities in few days, and where car key and motel room key found on one brother led officers to car in motel parking lot, warrantless search of car, after impoundment, during which officers looked into trunk and glove compartment and under seats, was not unreasonable search within meaning of Fourth Amendment. United States v Gravitt (CA5 Fla) 484 F2d 375, cert den 414 US 1135, 38 L Ed 2d 761, 94 S Ct 879.

Where key that fit automobile on motel parking lot was found in search of one of two suspects arrested at motel after manager informed detectives that firearm had been discharged in motel room, and where detective, after having automobile towed to public parking facility, made routine inventory of its contents, jointly with representative of parking establishment, and found two sets of stolen license plates therein, there was no unlawful search of vehicle, and defendant's motion to suppress license tags as evidence in prosecution for interstate transportation of stolen automobile was correctly denied. U. S. v Rosenberg (CA5 Fla) 458 F2d 1183, cert den 409 US 868, 34 L Ed 2d 117, 93 S Ct 166.

In prosecution for drug offenses, drug enforcement agents properly conducted inventory search of defendant's vehicle following his arrest for negotiating purchase of 600 pounds of marijuana, where agents had administrative or safety motivation to conduct search in addition to or as opposed to evidentiary motivation, and where agents had probable cause to seize vehicle as forfeitable asset so that they had right to impound vehicle. United States v Mourning (1989, WD Tex) 716 F Supp 279.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Upon defendant's arrest at mail facility, his vehicle was subject to inventory search in accordance with written police policy, and therefore contents of the vehicle were admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 2004 FED App. 0415P (6th Cir. 2004).

Inventory search of vehicle impounded after driver's arrest upon arrival at remote cabin at which conspirators planned to manufacture amphetamines was lawful, notwithstanding lapse of 1 week between arrest and search. United States v Decker (1994, CA6 Mich) 19 F3d 287, 1994 FED App 90P.

Search of vehicle conducted pursuant to city vehicle inventory policy was an inventory search that fell within exception to Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement, where automobile was impounded after driver was arrested on an outstanding felony arrest warrant, driver's license of vehicle owner was suspended, and no driver was available to remove the vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. West v. Duncan, 179 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ohio 2001).

Police officers acted in accordance with a city ordinance in having the defendant's vehicle towed after the officers stopped the vehicle, arrested the defendant, who was a passenger in the vehicle, on an outstanding warrant, and issued a ticket to the driver for driving with a suspended license, and thus, the officers' warrantless inventory search of the vehicle did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; the ordinance authorized the towing of a vehicle whenever the driver or the person in charge of the vehicle was taken into custody under circumstances that left the vehicle unattended, the defendant was in charge of the vehicle as its owner, and the driver could not drive the vehicle away because her license was suspended. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Abrams, 494 F. Supp. 2d 657 (S.D. Ohio 2005).

Police officer's search of car following valid traffic stop fell within inventory search exception to warrant requirement for vehicle searches; once motorist was under arrest for possession of firearm discovered during pat-down, officer's reasonable decision to impound car gave officer justification to conduct thorough inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Martin, 360 Fed. Appx. 686 (7th Cir. 2010).

Search of defendant's automobile following his arrest for engaging in fraudulent credit card transaction was valid as routine postarrest "inventory search," where items recovered in search were placed in bag, conveyed to police station in policy custody, inventoried, and reviewed later that evening as part of investigation into defendant's credit card fraud. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Sholola, 124 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 1997).

Inventory search of suspect's vehicle following his arrest for participating in a controlled drug buy was reasonable, where search was correctly performed pursuant to police department policy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Baldenegro- Valdez, 703 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2013).

Fact that defendant's vehicle was taken to police station rather than being immediately searched when defendant was arrested did not preclude search from being valid under automobile exception. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Castaneda, 438 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2006).

Impoundment of rental car was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore guns found during inventory search of vehicle were admissible in prosecution of vehicle's renter on weapons charges, despite officer's investigatory motive; police department had a standard policy on impoundment, renter had been arrested, there was no one to take charge of vehicle, vehicle would otherwise be left unattended late at night in an area known for narcotics and prostitution, and vehicle was owned by rental car company, not by arrestee. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2004).

See United States v One 1976 Lincoln Continental Mark IV (1978, CA8 Minn) 584 F2d 266, § 10.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Warrantless inventory search of a van following defendant's arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment, despite defendant's claim that police failed to follow standard police procedures in conducting the search; it was logical for law enforcement officers to infer that defendant was the driver of the van, his defendant's driving privileges were revoked, he was on probation for past offenses, and an officer testified that the police department had a standard policy regarding inventory searches, that the policy was in writing, and that the search of the van was conducted in accordance with that policy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. May, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minn. 2006).

Police officers were entitled to conduct inventory search of defendant's vehicle after placing him in custody for his allegedly unruly behavior at a federal building; according to city's tow policy for towing illegally parked vehicles, officers had authority to tow the car, and thus conduct inventory search, since defendant's car was parked in an emergency- vehicle-only parking spot in front of the federal building, car was not an emergency vehicle, and registration information showed that a female owed the car and that she was not in the vicinity. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Everett, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (W.D. Mo. 2017).

State had probable cause to conduct inventory search of defendant's vehicle, where police had probable cause to arrest defendant based upon his failure, as ex-convict, to register his current residence, as required by state law. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's NRSA 179C.110. Rowell v. Palmer, 605 Fed. Appx. 620 (9th Cir. 2015).

Inventory search of defendant's truck and camper that were impounded was reasonable and supported by probable cause, under the Fourth Amendment, where initial valid search of truck eight days earlier uncovered an incendiary device, and although inventory search was delayed for eight days, search was conducted when lead investigator returned from his vacation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Noster, 573 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2009).

Evidence from search of defendant's vehicle was properly admitted, in prosecution on drug– and firearms–related charges, regardless of actual motivations of individual officers; probable cause existed, inasmuch as officers had a warrant for defendant's arrest, and inventory search of vehicle defendant occupied was permitted. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Dela Pena, 62 Fed. Appx. 754 (9th Cir. 2003).

Information that victim gave police after they approached defendant's car gave them probable cause for search of it, and thus evidence obtained was admissible, even though officers searched car after they seized it, and victim lied about being kidnapped by defendant, where victim told police officers name and age and said that defendant had kidnapped her and forced her to work as prostitute, later she admitted that she had not been kidnapped but that she had lied to protect herself, defendant was arrested for kidnapping and taken to police station, victim then handed one of officers some cocaine that defendant had asked her to hide, defendant told officer that defendant had shown her gun, which might still be in car, and victim informed officer that there was marijuana in car. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2423(a). U.S. v. Starks, 17 Fed. Appx. 530 (9th Cir. 2001).

Informant's tip provided police officers with probable cause to arrest defendant and other occupant of defendant's vehicle for human trafficking and pimping, and thus police could thereafter impound and perform inventory search of vehicle without warrant; informant used 911 emergency system and stated that he was with frightened woman who was a prostitute, informant made self-inculpatory statement indicating that he had hired woman for sexual services, informant provided his observations that two men were waiting for woman in car contemporaneously as events unfolded, informant identified himself to police, informant observed events firsthand, and detective corroborated much of information provided in 911 call, including woman's frightened demeanor and that informant had hired woman as a prostitute. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-3-504(1)(a), 18-7-206. United States v. Fykes, 2017 WL 460975 (10th Cir. 2017).

Inevitable discovery rule applied to preclude suppression of items found in trunk of defendant's vehicle during allegedly unlawful search, given district court's findings, which were not clearly erroneous, that police officers would have

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

impounded vehicle following defendant's arrest and conducted inventory search had they not immediately searched trunk, that inventory search was authorized by police department's impoundment procedures, which applied to entirety of vehicle, including trunk, and that inventory search would not have been mere cover for general rummaging, but rather was justified because vehicle would have presented hazard if left at scene of defendant's arrest, might have contained valuables, and could not reasonably be picked up by someone else due to hour. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Baskin, 120 Fed. Appx. 223 (10th Cir. 2004).

Steps taken by police officers, following their arrest of defendant, to determine if there was another responsible person to take custody of his vehicle, were reasonable and in accordance with standardized police policy, in light of all the circumstances, and therefore impoundment and subsequent inventory search of vehicle did not violate Fourth Amendment; defendant had engaged in highly unusual behavior, vehicle was parked, without permission, in a private driveway where it blocked homeowner's access to the road, and it was late at night. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Sandos, 78 Fed. Appx. 706 (10th Cir. 2003).

Government was not required to establish regulated inventory search as alternative justification for search of defendant's vehicle after it was impounded, where all searching was supported by probable cause after one of the passengers handed the officer what appeared to be a large quantity of methamphetamine, to which trained drug dog alerted. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998).

Motorist was effectively under arrest when she was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, such that impoundment of her vehicle would, under Kansas law, have required an inventory search, and therefore methamphetamine subsequently found hidden in her vehicle was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. U.S. v. White, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Kan. 2004).

Inventory search of lawfully stopped vehicle, including the search of a fanny pack found inside, was lawful, following arrest of driver on outstanding warrant and for driving with suspended license; inventory search was undertaken pursuant to standard police procedures for purposes of protecting the police from later accusations of theft, as well as to safeguard the owner's items, and was not used as a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jacquez, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (D.N.M. 2005).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle was justified when efforts to contact someone to come and retrieve the truck were unsuccessful, because initial encounter by police with defendant had been consensual and continued detention and pat–down search were justified under the standards outlined in Terry. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Mikulski, 139 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Utah 2001).

Question regarding ownership of vehicle driven by defendant arrested for obstruction of a police officer, which arose from police bulletin stating that the vehicle was registered under a fraudulently obtained driver's license and that it was unknown who the true owner might be, supported impound and inventory, since police procedure manual allowed for an impound when ownership was unclear. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Akinlade, 519 Fed. Appx. 529 (11th Cir. 2013), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 20, 2013).

Whether the physical evidence that was the subject of defendant's motion to suppress was in defendant's vehicle or discovered near his person, the warrantless search that resulted in discovery of that evidence was proper; to the extent evidence was discovered on or near defendant's person, it occurred incident to a lawful arrest, and to the extent evidence was discovered in his vehicle, it was discovered during a lawful inventory search of the impounded vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kalu, 485 Fed. Appx. 366 (11th Cir. 2012).

Officers' warrantless search of defendant's vehicle constituted lawful inventory search, regardless of fact that narcotics unit took control of investigation after officers found money and drugs in vehicle, where officers conducted search

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

pursuant to their decision to impound vehicle following defendant's arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Caudle, 430 Fed. Appx. 809 (11th Cir. 2011).

Warrantless search of defendant's vehicle fell within both exigent circumstances and inventory search exceptions to warrant requirement, where agents had probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence would be found in defendant's vehicle, vehicle was mobile, and impoundment and search of vehicle were conducted pursuant to stated policy of making inventory of an arrestee's personal property; defendant, who believed that he was meeting woman and her minor daughter for purpose of having sex with the daughter had stated that he would bring lubricant to their meeting. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Grossman, 233 Fed. Appx. 963, 73 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 716 (11th Cir. 2007).

See United States v Bosby (1982, CA11 Ala) 675 F2d 1174, § 14[b].

Inventory search of car after defendant's arrest was proper where car was impounded at night and officers had duty to protect contents against theft, where officers had had probable cause to arrest defendant for robbery, though defendant's arrest was actually for disorderly conduct and that of his companion for reckless driving, and where large crowd had gathered at place of arrest, making contemporaneous search for stolen money inadvisable. Jackson v State (Ala Crim) 315 So 2d 131, cert den 315 So 2d 137.

See Ringer v State (1986, Ala App) 489 So 2d 646, § 6[a].

See State v Scarborough, 110 Ariz 1, 514 P2d 997 cert den 415 US 1000, 39 L Ed 2d 892, 94 S Ct 1598, infra § 15[a].

Inventory search of car after defendant's arrest for stealing it was justified where arrest had occurred at church which had recently had numerous burglaries, and where search was closely related to reason defendant was arrested, reason his car was impounded, and reason it was being retained. Lewis v State (Ark) 523 SW2d 920.

Search of vehicle of defendant whom police had arrested after discovering contraband in defendant's jacket pocket was lawful inventory search, despite fact that vehicle was legally parked at time defendant was arrested and possibly could have been protected without being taken into custody, where police took defendant's vehicle into custody in order to tow it to storage, and inventory search was standard procedure designed to protect defendant's property and to avoid liability. Folly v State (1989) 28 Ark App 98, 771 SW2d 306.

See People v Trusty (Colo) 516 P2d 423 (citing annotation).

Initial warrantless search of automobile at time of defendant's arrest, when contraband was seen but not removed, was legal search pursuant to arrest and was necessary for inventory incident to impoundment of defendant's automobile. Getty v State (1978, Fla App D3) 362 So 2d 322.

Impoundment and inventory search of defendant's rental vehicle were reasonable, where defendant was the sole occupant of an out-of-state rental vehicle in which he was suspected of attempting to flee the country, there was a lookout for him in connection with a double homicide in a state hundreds of miles away, he had been arrested and taken into custody after an extended high-speed chase through multiple jurisdictions, and vehicle was unsafe to drive, illegally and dangerously parked, and a hazard to traffic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 694 S.E.2d 316 (2010).

Evidence that defendant's vehicle was not secure in its location on federal air base, and finding that defendant's arrest was lawful, was sufficient to support finding that it was reasonable for police to impound vehicle in order to prevent tampering, at defendant's trial for murder, and conspiracy to sell a controlled substance. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Devega v. State, 286 Ga. 448, 689 S.E.2d 293 (2010).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Immediate impoundment, transfer, and inventory of defendant's vehicle at time of defendant's arrest was not unreasonable within meaning of Fourth Amendment; although vehicle was parked, it was at the home of defendant's friend with whom defendant had planned to leave the State, officers had every reason to expect that detention of defendant would last for some time, and officers had been specifically told to be on the lookout for vehicle, and knew that it was wanted in an investigation in another county. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Wright v. State, 579 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. 2003).

Police officers were entitled to conduct an inventory search of defendant's vehicle; defendant was arrested, as was her companion, and no one remained to take custody of defendant's vehicle and remove it from the shoulder of exit ramp. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Scott v. State, 729 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Police officers had right to impound arrestee's car and conduct inventory search, where the vehicle was in public parking lot near the close of business with several items in plain view; the impoundment and inventory protected the police from potential liability. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. King, 237 Ga. App. 729, 516 S.E.2d 580 (1999).

In prosecution for armed robbery, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during inventory search of defendant's vehicle after impoundment. Vehicle, which had been parked at defendant's leased premises was properly impounded when, after defendant's arrest, lessor expressed his desire to have vehicle removed from premises and, in fact, actually assisted in its removal. Considering circumstances of defendant's arrest, lessor's request to police to remove car, and police department's policy regarding removal of property for safekeeping, trial court's finding of lawful impoundment was supported by evidence. Moulder v State (1993) 207 Ga App 335, 427 SE2d 793, 93 Fulton County D R 431.

Inventory search was valid where police impounded defendant's car to remove it from K–Mart parking lot at request of K–Mart employee after defendant was arrested for attempting to film under victim's dress with camcorder; police seizure and inventory was not dependent for its validity upon absolute necessity for police to take charge of property to preserve it. Fitzgerald v State (1991) 201 Ga App 361, 411 SE2d 102, 102-200 Fulton County D R 15B.

Trial court properly ruled that state could not justify warrantless seizure of contraband from drug suspect's vehicle under inventory search principles where search occurred several hours after suspect's arrest at location miles from where his vehicle was lawfully and properly parked, and where trial court properly concluded impoundment was not lawful based on evidence that police were acting not out of desire to protect lawfully parked car, but in hopes of finding fruits of defendant's suspected crime. State v Padgett (1981) 159 Ga App 204, 283 SE2d 36.

Inventory search of motor vehicle following arrest of passenger on outstanding warrant, which led to discovery of heroin concealed under front passenger seat, was lawful where arresting officer checked glove compartment, thereby discovering information indicating that automobile belonged to passenger, despite passenger's protestations to contrary. Arnold v State (1980) 155 Ga App 581, 271 SE2d 714.

Where, after defendant's arrest for attempted larceny, inventory search of automobile revealed in envelope in "cutaway part" of instrument panel, search was not unreasonable, did not violate defendant's right of privacy, and was not proscribed by constitutional provisions, since officers were not looking for drugs but found them incidentally in making authorized inspection. Denson v State, 128 Ga App 456, 197 SE2d 156.

Inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle, which was conducted after defendant was arrested for unlawful use of weapon and produced sawed–off shotgun, was lawful, where search was conducted pursuant to standard procedures and, although no policy had been articulated concerning search of containers, officer had substantial reason to believe that bag contained weapon after he felt trigger–guard and butt of shotgun. People v Walker (1992, 1st Dist) 228 Ill App 3d 76, 169 Ill Dec 514, 592 NE2d 1.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

See People v Babic, 7 Ill App 3d 36, 287 NE2d 24 (handgun discovered on front seat of automobile), § 11[a].

Inventory search of vehicle in which defendant was found and arrested was reasonable, as element in test for determining validity of such search; while search was conducted at scene of arrest and not at impoundment lot, arresting officer testified that this was in accordance with standard police department policies, and formal inventory sheets were completed and pictures taken to make accurate record of all of vehicle's contents, not just incriminating evidence. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Vehorn v. State, 717 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 1999).

See Freeman v State (1989, Ind) 541 NE2d 533, § 17.

Impoundment of vehicle of defendant arrested for weapons charge was reasonable and lawful, as condition precedent to lawful inventory search thereof; officer testified that he impounded defendant's vehicle because neither defendant or his passenger had a valid driver's license, and because the license plates did not belong on the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. 9–18–2–43(a). Faust v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

Search of impounded vehicle at police station following arrest of defendant on outstanding warrants was lawful inventory search based on impoundment of vehicle. Isom v State (1992, Ind App) 589 NE2d 245, transfer den (Apr 16, 1992).

See State v Undorf, 210 Kan 1, 499 P2d 1105 (holding search of closed suitcase lying on back seat of arrestee's automobile not unlawful search), § 14[a].

Warrantless search of defendant's vehicle was proper under inventory search exception to warrant requirement; officers intended to tow defendant's car even before they saw the weapons due to the nature of the charges, it was the policy of the police department to conduct an inventory search any time that a vehicle was seized, and there was ample cause to seize the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Hinchey v. Com., 432 S.W.3d 710 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014).

Inventory search exception to search warrant requirement applied with respect to police officers' inventory search of defendant's vehicle at scene of defendant's arrest after vehicle was impounded; police officer testified as to police department's standard protocol for conducting an inventory search of a vehicle, and stated that it was standard procedure to perform inventory search when impounding vehicle and to do so before it was towed away to insure police department against liability in event property from vehicle went missing, vehicle was impounded because defendant was a known suspect in a shooting that occurred the previous day, and vehicle was believed to have been used in commission of that offense, and fact that search was done at the scene did not negate its validity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; LSA–Const. Art. 1, § 5. State v. Chatman, 981 So. 2d 260 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008).

Where vehicle did not belong to defendant and had been damaged during defendant's attempt to evade arrest, inventory search prior to towing was proper inventory search. State v Nixon (1990, La App 1st Cir) 572 So 2d 1172, cert den (La) 576 So 2d 47.

In prosecution for armed robbery, trial court properly admitted into evidence gun seized during warrantless inventory search of impounded van defendant was in at time of arrest, where police officer had probable cause to believe that gun used in armed robbery would be in van. State v Jackson (1987, La App 5th Cir) 517 So 2d 366.

Where, after determining vehicle occupied by defendant had been stolen, officers arrested defendant and impounded vehicle, inventory search of contents of vehicle was proper. State v Labuzan (1987, La App 4th Cir) 501 So 2d 1088.

Automobile search characterized by police as "inventory" was constitutional where, because police had probable cause to believe auto had been used in burglary for which defendant had been arrested and because of auto's mobility, it could have been searched without warrant at scene of arrest, where transfer of auto to station was made under police escort,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

and where search was made immediately after administrative processing of parties, while mobility of auto and probable cause still existed. State v Cress (Me) 344 A2d 57 (citing annotation).

See Duncan v State (1977) 281 Md 247, 378 A2d 1108, § 9[a].

Where appellant drove car off roadway, resulting in damage to vehicle and severe injury to appellant, where officer impounded vehicle, where officer conducted inventory search pursuant to standardized department rules, and where, while searching briefcase found in car, discovered cocaine, court held that cocaine was admissible since inventory search was executed in good faith. Ciriago v State (1984) 57 Md App 563, 471 A2d 320, cert den 300 Md 152, 476 A2d 721.

Police could lawfully impound robbery defendant's car and conduct inventory search, where defendant was not accompanied by his wife or any other person who might have taken custody of his car when he was arrested outside market, and defendant's car was parked in a private parking lot that was posted with signs limiting parking to business customers of the laundromat and other nearby businesses, and private towing was real possibility if police did not impound car. Com. v. Delong, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 528, 803 N.E.2d 1274 (2004).

Inventory search of robbery defendant's vehicle was proper, where vehicle was impounded at time of arrest because there was no one with defendant who could remove vehicle from private lot where it was parked, vehicle was searched for inventory purposes pursuant to written policy, and search was not a pretext. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV. Com. v. Delong, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 122, 799 N.E.2d 1267 (2003).

Inventory search of vehicle was lawful where police, after receiving notice of robbery, observed car making several suspicious stops in high crime area, approached vehicle and arrested driver and passenger–defendant after determining that there were warrants outstanding against them, where police acted reasonably in having vehicle towed as it was double–parked and obstructing traffic in congested area of city at busy time of day, and where search was conducted pursuant to routine police procedure to make inventory search of vehicle before permitting it to be towed in order to secure items of value; fact that searching officer might have harbored suspicion that evidence of criminal activity might be uncovered as result of search would not vitiate officer's obligation to conduct inventory. Commonwealth v Tisserand (1977) 5 Mass App 383, 363 NE2d 530.

Inventory search of vehicle after arrest of defendant driver was proper where decision to impound vehicle was soundly based on desire of police to avoid abandoning vehicle parked on side of busy street, and where police adhered to standard operating procedure in conducting inventory search. Second subsequent inventory search of automobile occupied by codefendant was also reasonable under circumstances where codefendant had been arrested and police adhered to standard operating procedures in impounding vehicle. Thus trial court did not have to suppress evidence of stolen property discovered during inventory searches. People v Tucker (1989) 181 Mich App 246, 448 NW2d 811.

Warrantless search of trunk of impounded vehicle that revealed marijuana was legal, where two occupants of car were seen earlier firing guns and entering car, and where only one gun was found on persons of four occupants of vehicle at scene of defendant's arrest; police had probable cause to search vehicle for second gun previously observed in possession of occupant. People v Wade (1987) 157 Mich App 481, 403 NW2d 578.

Search of defendant's impounded vehicle after defendant had been arrested at motel on charge of theft of service from innkeeper was legal, as it had been inventoried according to police department's administrative procedure, and information obtained therefrom was legal. Cabello v State (1985, Miss) 471 So 2d 332, cert den 476 US 1164, 90 L Ed 2d 732, 106 S Ct 2291, post-conviction proceeding, en banc (Miss) 524 So 2d 313, substituted op, reh, en banc, den (Miss) 592 So 2d 114.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Circumstances required defendant's car to be impounded such that warrantless inventory search of the car, which was conducted pursuant to routine police procedure while car was impounded, was warranted; defendant was alone in the car when he was stopped and subsequently arrested. Logan v. State, 987 So. 2d 1027 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Search of defendant's vehicle was an inventory search, rather than a search incident to arrest, and thus, officers did not exceed scope of search when they found guns and drugs in the vehicle, even though the inventory search took place immediately after defendant was placed under arrest; no one was readily available to remove vehicle from roadside after defendant's arrest and officers followed standard department procedure by conducting inventory search to protect defendant's property from threat of loss or damage and protect themselves from danger. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Ray v. State, 798 So. 2d 579 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), cert. denied, (Oct. 11, 2001).

Where detectives had information that defendant was in apartment of owner during owner's absence and that witness had heard strange noises and smelled smoke and observed furniture, clothing, rugs, and appliances being thrown out of windows, and officers contacted defendant in early evening of same day and arrested him for carrying concealed weapon, search of defendant's van which had been towed to police impound yard was proper, except for opening of defendant's briefcase found in van. Obermeyer v State (1981, Nev) 625 P2d 95.

Where defendant's car was impounded subsequent to custodial arrest on assault charges, discovery during inventory of brown paper bag in trunk which was found to contain twenty–one packages of marijuana did not constitute unreasonable search and seizure. State v Vigil (App) 86 NM 388, 524 P2d 1004 (citing annotation), cert den 86 NM 372, 524 P2d 988, cert den 420 US 955, 43 L Ed 2d 432, 95 S Ct 1339.

Items found during inventory search were admissible where defendant's car was impounded following his arrest for homicide and where search was not pretextual. People v Allen (1990) 146 Misc 2d 701, 550 NYS2d 997.

Police officers' decision to tow defendant's vehicle, which was parked in store's parking lot, in which lot defendant was arrested for shoplifting, was properly made in accordance with standard criteria set forth in police department's written policy, as required for community caretaking function, for purposes of warrantless inventory search after impoundment; department's criteria limited an officer's discretion to tow a vehicle upon a driver's arrest to situations in which such action was necessary to ensure the safety of the vehicle and its contents and where releasing the vehicle to an owner or designee was not otherwise appropriate, the parking lot had a history of vandalism, and the store asked police remove the vehicle from its private parking lot. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Tardi, 28 N.Y.3d 1077, 44 N.Y.S.3d 366, 66 N.E.3d 1084 (2016).

Inventory search of impounded vehicle which defendant had driven during high-speed chase was valid, even though reporting officer listed contents of vehicle in wrong section of form and failed to obtain supervisor's signature; vehicle was inoperable and creating hazardous situation, and thus, pursuant to police department policy, officers were obligated to have vehicle impounded and to conduct inventory of vehicle to safeguard owner's property, and search was properly conducted pursuant to established procedures, including completion of vehicle tow report, which included sections to record condition of vehicle and personal property and valuables in vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Edwards, 163 A.D.3d 712, 79 N.Y.S.3d 293 (2d Dep't 2018).

State trooper's determination to impound defendant's vehicle was proper, where defendant, who was vehicle's sole occupant, was placed under arrest after trooper discovered that he had outstanding warrant, and thus was unable to drive vehicle. People v. Morman, 145 A.D.3d 1435, 43 N.Y.S.3d 619 (4th Dep't 2016).

Inventory search of defendant's car which led to recovery of second pistol was proper, where search was undertaken after police learned that during incident resulting in defendant's otherwise proper warrantless arrest defendant and his

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

companions had produced first pistol from defendant's car. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Hutson, 704 N.Y.S.2d 50 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000).

Officer's decision to impound defendant's vehicle upon his arrest was reasonable, and subsequent inventory search revealing cocaine, marijuana, and cocaine–cutting agent was proper, where police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for attempted assault after defendant swung with both fists at officer, and, having arrested defendant on public street, officers were thereafter entitled to impound vehicle. Police may search impounded vehicle to inventory contents to protect individual's property and to protect police from false claims for missing property. Search may lawfully extend to closed containers such as cigarette box containing cocaine that was found in glove compartment of defendant's vehicle. People v Gallego (1989, 2d Dept) 155 App Div 2d 687, 548 NYS2d 62, app den 75 NY2d 919, 555 NYS2d 37, 554 NE2d 74.

After legal arrest of defendant, officers were required to impound vehicle pursuant to police department procedure and had right to inventory its contents; therefore, upon discovering paper bag containing heroin during inventory, police could properly seize it. People v Dixon (1987, 2d Dept) 130 App Div 2d 680, 516 NYS2d 16.

Impoundment and inventory of automobiles subsequent to valid arrest of driver and passenger for possession of narcotics was lawful and seizure of revolvers found behind back seat and their admission into evidence was permissible. People v Hassele, 53 App Div 2d 699, 385 NYS2d 113.

Drugs and a drug scale found in defendant's vehicle were products of a lawful search; inventory search of the vehicle was conducted in accordance with police procedures after defendant had been arrested and his vehicle brought to the station. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Blankymsee, 196 Misc. 2d 240, 764 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Sup 2003).

Impoundment and warrantless search of vehicle following motorist's arrest for allegedly having fraudulent license was a permissible inventory search; vehicle was on left side of highway, and officer testified that officers followed police department policy in conducting search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Lumbus, 2016-Ohio-380, 59 N.E.3d 580 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2016), appeal not allowed, 145 Ohio St. 3d 1472, 2016-Ohio-3028, 49 N.E.3d 1314 (2016).

Arrest of driver of and passenger in lawfully stopped vehicle, following discovery of incriminating evidence in plain view in vehicle, justified tow of vehicle and search of vehicle incident thereto. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Foxx, 2014- Ohio-235, 7 N.E.3d 615 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Greene County 2014).

In prosecution for unlawfully carrying firearm by convicted felon, search of defendant's pick–up truck was permissible, where defendant's rent had not been paid for two days, motel manager requested police officers to remove all of defendant's possessions from premises, and officers subsequently impounded truck and conducted inventory of its contents. Hoover v State (1987, Okla Crim) 738 P2d 943.

Where vehicle was legally stopped for offense of speeding, concealed weapon was discovered while police officer was attempting to rectify conflicting statements of occupants as to ownership of vehicle, and defendant and driver were then placed under arrest and vehicle was inventoried prior to arrival of wrecker, circumstances warranted impoundment of vehicle and good faith inventory search incident thereto was justified. Cooks v State (Okla Crim App) 560 P2d 1019.

Search of stolen vehicle that was in defendant's possession at time he was arrested for murder and robbery was proper inventory search of vehicle's contents before its return to its owner. State v Buchholz (1989) 97 Or App 221, 775 P2d 896, review gr 308 Or 465, 781 P2d 1214.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In homicide prosecution, police officers had probable cause to stop and impound rental truck following arrest of occupants, and officers did not violate Fourth Amendment when they opened rear of truck to look for evidence of ownership and to attempt to inventory personal property, and defendant was not entitled to suppression of evidence that truck contained body, where officers had observed truck at approximately 4:30 a.m. in neighborhood known to them as high crime area, where speed at which truck was traveling—some 15 to 20 miles per hour less than speed limit—differed substantially from normal traffic speed for that hour, where officers also knew that it was unusual to see rental vehicle in that neighborhood so late at night, and where, additionally, as truck passed officers, both occupants simultaneously "gawked" at officers for what seemed to them to be unusually long time. State v Halstead (1980, RI) 414 A2d 1138.

Evidence was sufficient to support finding that officers had probable cause to conduct warrantless search of vehicle less than one day after vehicle was impounded; State offered evidence that vehicle was linked to crime scene and contained evidence when it was impounded. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Code 1976, § 17–13–140. State v. Weaver, 602 S.E.2d 786 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004).

See Capps v State (Tenn) 505 SW2d 727, § 12[a].

Police lawfully impounded car where there was no person available to drive it following defendant's arrest for investigation of theft of license plates and for credit card abuse, and officer thereafter conducted lawful inventory search at scene of arrest in exercise of his caretaking responsibility. Gordon v State (1982, Tex App 2d Dist) 638 SW2d 654.

State proved the inventory search of defendant's car was lawful; defendant was arrested for outstanding warrants, and there were no alternatives other than impoundment present at the time trooper conducted the inventory search, it was not reasonable to expect trooper to wait 15 minutes for defendant's mother to arrive, then take an additional 15–30 minutes to inventory the vehicle once he realized that she was not coming, trooper had every intent to impound the vehicle if defendant's mother had not shown up, and police department had a policy in place for inventory procedures and trooper followed that policy. U.S.. Const. Amend. 4. Jackson v. State, 468 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2015).

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle that led to inventory search was proper, as the only occupants of the vehicle, defendant and his girlfriend, were both arrested pursuant to a warrant and there was no one at the scene to take possession of the vehicle or other alternative. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Greer v. State, 436 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. Waco 2014).

Police were authorized after legitimate stop and arrest of defendant to conduct an inventory search of vehicle she had been driving if impoundment was the only reasonable alternative to protect the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. St. Clair v. State, 338 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2011).

Search of vehicle's trunk was authorized inventory search; defendant's passengers were arrested and taken to jail while defendant stayed behind officer, where no other person was available to take custody of car, impoundment was necessary to secure protection of car which was stopped on side of road, witness testified that department of public safety had policy to inventory vehicle if it needed to be towed, department of public safety property inventory report was filled out by officer stating vehicle would be taken and stored at wrecker service, inventory form instructed officers to mark location of items found and gave "trunk" as standardized option, and officer's affidavit, report, and inventory form indicated he complied with police policy for inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2010), petition for discretionary review filed, (May 14, 2010).

It was reasonable for police officers to conclude that defendant's car was used to set up his alibi for murder, and thus, police lawfully impounded and searched car without warrant, pursuant to inventory as part of impoundment release procedure, even though defendant used another car to drive to scene of crime, where on night of murder, defendant drove his car to friend's home, traded cars, then drove friend's car to victim's home, and vehicle was seized from public place.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Lagaite v. State, 995 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1999), petition for discretionary review filed, (Aug. 3, 1999).

Police were not required to inquire into alternatives prior to impounding vehicle following defendant's arrest where no one else was on scene to take custody of vehicle which defendant had parked in private driveway. Mayberry v State (1992, Tex App Dallas) 830 SW2d 176, petition for discretionary review ref (Oct 14, 1992).

Where police arrested defendant for possession of marijuana, where police impounded vehicle and commenced on–scene inventory of vehicle, and where, as result of search, police found duffel bag which contained drugs, court held that item by item search of duffel bag was proper. Curren v State (1983, Tex App San Antonio) 656 SW2d 124.

See Schaum v Commonwealth, 215 Va 498, 211 SE2d 73, § 12[a].

See State v Sweet (1986) 44 Wash App 226, 721 P2d 560, review den 107 Wash 2d 1001, § 11[a].

Where automobile was stopped on shoulder of well–traveled highway, where both driver and passenger were in custody, former unable to produce proper registration or title and under arrest for reckless driving, latter awaiting investigation and resolution of apparent crime of carrying loaded pistol in vehicle without permit, and where passenger possessed invalid driver's license, arresting officer had ample grounds to impound car and, accordingly, sound police practice dictated that inventory be taken of car's contents to protect arrestee, police, and towing company; thus, paraphernalia and drugs discovered during inventory search were admissible in prosecution of defendant for unlawful possession of drugs. State v Malbeck, 15 Wash App 871, 552 P2d 1092.

Arresting officer acted reasonably in impounding vehicle and in conducting good faith inventory search where defendant was under arrest on felony warrant, officer had reasonable basis to believe that defendant would not be able to immediately return to his vehicle following his arrest, there was construction in area and vehicle was parked in restricted zone and where, although defendant objected to impoundment, he did not indicate to officer that there were reasonable alternatives for protection of vehicle and its contents. State v Greenway, 15 Wash App 216, 547 P2d 1231.

Where police questioning motorist found sleeping in automobile in park were warned, by radio check, of outstanding warrant for his arrest for shoplifting, and arrested motorist and called for tow truck to impound car, and, when tow truck driver entered car after police completed inventorying contents, loaded pistol fell from underneath dashboard to floor, whereupon officer searched under dashboard and found bottles of barbiturates, search disclosing barbiturates was reasonable, being continuation of lawful inventory search rather than unlawful second search. State v Patterson, 8 Wash App 177, 504 P2d 1197.

Police officers acted reasonably when seizing defendant's car without warrant for impoundment following his arrest pursuant to their community caretaker function, and thus evidence discovered during inventory search of car was admissible in defendant's armed robbery prosecution, even though car was in private storage facility, space remained available for other vehicles to maneuver around it, officers likely had investigatory interest in conducting inventory search, and officers did not offer defendant opportunity to make arrangements for moving his car after his arrest, where car was blocking access to one storage unit and impeding access to several others, defendant was suspect in crime who also allegedly violated terms of his probation, thus likely facing lengthy detention, car contained valuable items, car was registered to another individual, seizure complied with terms of both local law enforcement agencies' procedures governing impoundments, and there was no sensible alternative available. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Asboth, 2017 WI 76, 898 N.W.2d 541 (Wis. 2017).

See State v Weber (1991) 163 Wis 2d 116, 471 NW2d 187, reconsideration den 164 Wis 2d 788, 476 NW2d 867, § 17.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of defendant's vehicle, which was impounded after defendant was arrested for theft, was lawful inventory search, despite fact that inventory was conducted three days after impoundment, where inventory was undertaken pursuant to standard police procedures and delay in conducting inventory occurred because property officer responsible for inventory was not scheduled to work until three days after impoundment and other property officers were occupied with other cases. State v Axelson (1989, App) 149 Wis 2d 339, 441 NW2d 259.

See State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1, § 14[b].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 8[b] Other offenses—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, an inventory search of a vehicle which the police impounded following the arrest of the driver for

an offense other than a vehicle or traffic violation 6 was held unlawful.

In Williams v United States (1969, CA5 Fla) 412 F2d 729, involving a prosecution for unlawful transportation in interstate commerce of, inter alia, a stolen motor vehicle, the court held that where the driver of an automobile was arrested for vagrancy and the vehicle was impounded, a search of the vehicle by the police on the alleged ground that they had a policy of searching all impounded cars was violative of the motorist's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, since there was no particular relationship between the reason for the arrest, the reason for taking the car into custody, and the reason for the search. The defendant motorist was arrested, at a motel, for vagrancy, after the police were informed that he had attempted to cash a stolen money order. Prior to his incarceration, he was questioned about the car, which he was alleged to have been driving, but he disclaimed all knowledge of it. A check by the police revealed that the automobile was improperly licensed, whereupon the police declared the car to be abandoned, had it towed to the jail parking lot, impounded it, and searched it. After reviewing several cases, the court concluded that the present state of the law was that a search can only be valid where it is closely related to the reason the defendant was arrested and to the reason the automobile was impounded. Such a relationship, the court declared, was not present in the instant case. The court went on to state that although the disclaimer of the car by the defendant, and the check on the license number, gave the police good reason for stating that the car was abandoned and probably stolen, the police did not make the limited search for serial number or title that might have been justified, but rather made a general exploratory search. The court further added that the reason given for the search, namely, that the police searched all impounded vehicles, was so vague that it could not be specifically related to anything and could not justify any warrantless search. Accordingly, the court reversed a conviction.

In People v Burke (1964) 61 Cal 2d 575, 39 Cal Rptr 531, 394 P2d 67, where the defendant was arrested for loitering around certain office buildings where there had been a wave of burglaries, and his car was impounded and towed to a police impound lot, the court held that a search of the vehicle at the impound lot was unlawful because it was too remote in time and place to be treated as a search incidental to arrest. While conceding that the police were authorized under a state statute to remove an automobile under these circumstances from the highway and to store it in a designated place, the court observed that the statute did not purport to authorize the making of a search. The court, therefore, reversed a conviction.

Reversing a conviction for an attempt to commit grand theft, in People v Jackson (1967) 254 Cal App 2d 655, 62 Cal Rptr 208, where the defendant and his companion were arrested late at night at a utility substation on suspicion, and where the defendant, during questioning the following morning, revealed that a truck belonging to his companion was

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

parked a few miles from the substation, the court held that an inventory of the truck taken before its impoundment was illegal since it was neither incident to the arrest nor a continuation of a search lawfully begun at the time of the arrest.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress evidence obtained during inventory search of vehicle conducted after driver was arrested on probation violation, where there were no standardized procedures for conducting inventory searches, and where evidence indicated that purpose of search was to find evidence of criminal activity. United States v Marshall (1993, CA8 Mo) 986 F2d 1171.

Police officer's impoundment of vehicle violated Fourth Amendment, and thus evidence seized during inventory of vehicle was not admissible in prosecution of driver for possession of controlled substance, even though driver and his passenger could not legally drive vehicle and no other driver was immediately available, where driver was not in police custody, impoundment was not permitted under city's written impoundment standards, vehicle was in private parking lot, and reasonable person could have concluded that impoundment was mere subterfuge for investigation. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Bridges, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (S.D. Iowa 2003).

The impounding and inventory search of the car the defendant had been driving just before his arrest on outstanding arrest warrants was not conducted pursuant to a standard police department vehicle impound policy, as required to justify the warrantless police search of the vehicle as an inventory search; although the police department's towing policy authorized the towing of a vehicle that would be left unattended on a street or highway upon the arrest of the vehicle's driver, the defendant was arrested after he drove the car into the driveway of the residence of the registered owner of the car, and the police knew that the defendant stayed at that residence each time he came to the city, and the car was parked in that driveway at the time of the defendant's arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Ceruti, 2011 WL 5118970 (W.D. Mo. 2011).

Search of rental vehicle conducted on scene shortly after defendant had been arrested on suspicion of bank robbery could not be justified as inventory search under police policy of impounding vehicles used in crime, where it was admittedly conducted for purpose of finding additional evidence that crime had been committed and that vehicle was tied to defendant, rather than for purpose of recording vehicle's contents to protect police from potential liability. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2001).

In prosecution for illegal weapon possession, trial court properly suppressed sawed–off shot gun found under seat during inventory search conducted after defendant's arrest for possession of firearm in vehicle which was found during an initial protective search of defendant's car, where subsequent inventory search was not justified in that car was parked on private property and there was no need to impound it as defendant was with friend who could have taken responsibility for car. United States v Pappas (1984, CA10 Utah) 735 F2d 1232.

Warrantless search of motor home being used as residence could not be justified as inventory search, since vehicle, although technically driveable, was in semipermanent placement as dwelling and therefore subject to rules governing searches of residences rather than vehicles. United States v Adams (1994, MD Fla) 845 F Supp 1531.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Officers' warrantless search of defendant's vehicle, after defendant was arrested, did not qualify as a warrantless inventory search since there was no legitimate basis for officers' decision to inventory and tow defendant's vehicle over his objections; no probable cause existed to assume the vehicle was related to any criminal activity, and the vehicle was, in fact, unrelated to defendant's arrest for misdemeanor violation of chancery court order, prohibiting him from associating with his former girlfriend, and vehicle was not likely to be in danger of tampering or serve as a hazard to public safety. Rules Crim. Proc., Rule 12.6(b). Izell v. State, 75 Ark. App. 377, 58 S.W.3d 400 (2001).

The police lacked the authority to impound and conduct an inventory search of defendant's car pursuant to California impound statute following defendant's arrest for threatening a police officer, as required for the warrantless inventory search to be constitutional, because doing so did not serve any community caretaking purpose; the car was lawfully parked on the street two houses away from defendant's residence, the possibility that the car would be stolen, broken into, or vandalized was no greater than if the police had not arrested defendant after he parked the car and began walking toward his residence, and the government made no showing that the car was blocking a driveway or crosswalk, or that it posed a hazard or impediment to other traffic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 22651(h)(1). U.S. v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California law).

Inventory search of impounded automobile of defendant, who had been arrested for felony theft, was unlawful where search was conducted with calculated intention of securing incriminating evidence against defendant. People v Rutovic (1977, Colo) 566 P2d 705.

The state could not rely on inventory-search exception to warrant requirement to justify search of defendant's vehicle after defendant was arrested; detective did not indicate that impoundment of vehicle was necessary for purpose justifying inventory search, standardized policy of sheriff's office, as given by detective, was simply to impound all vehicles of arrestees regardless of circumstances, and record did not contain policy itself, which might have otherwise substantiated propriety of policy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Williams v. State, 903 So. 2d 974 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005), reh'g denied, (June 30, 2005).

Warrantless search of trunk of arrestee's car was unlawful, where no contraband was discovered on arrestee's person or in passenger compartment of his car, and search was not conducted in conformity with established procedure for inventory searches; arrestee was arrested for second degree misdemeanor trespass, car was safely parked in motel parking lot and was causing no disruption to street traffic, deputy failed to fill out tow sheet describing property allegedly found in trunk, and no evidence established standardized procedures for towing vehicles following arrests on minor charges. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Leary v. State, 880 So. 2d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2004), reh'g denied, (Aug. 26, 2004).

Seizure of strip of cloth six feet in length and two–and–one–half inches wide from impounded vehicle of suspected rapist by chief–of–police several hours after car had been inventoried and placed in compound for safe–keeping was unlawful absent warrant. Meyers v State (1983, Fla App D4) 432 So 2d 97, petition den (Fla) 441 So 2d 633 and later proceeding (US) 80 L Ed 2d 121, 104 S Ct 1589 and revd (US) 80 L Ed 2d 381, 104 S Ct 1852.

Impoundment and search of truck belonging to defendant, who had been arrested on warrant for burglary, was improper and motion to suppress rifle discovered during search and statements made by defendant after he was advised of discovery of rifle should have been granted, where defendant was never advised of alternatives to impoundment of truck. Ross v State (1983, Fla App D4) 428 So 2d 781.

Fact that fugitive from justice had in his possession car titled in another person's name, without more, did not provide sufficient basis to conclude car was stolen so as to authorize impoundment and inventory search without any attempt by officers to determine if automobile had been reported stolen. Chuke v State (1981, Fla App D2) 404 So 2d 373.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search, which was commenced immediately following defendant's arrest on outstanding warrant and during which pistol was found under front seat and sawed–off shotgun was found in trunk, was unlawful where police did not advise defendant that he had option to have automobile remain where it was or to have passenger drive it away, where passenger, who had valid driver's license, requested permission to drive car to place of employment but was refused, and where automobile was pulled off traveled roadway and did not impede flow of traffic in any way. Session v State (1977, Fla App D4) 353 So 2d 854.

Inventory search of automobile after defendant's arrest was unreasonable and illegal where there was no showing that automobile, if it had been left parked, would have created traffic hazard or nuisance, where defendant was not given choice of not having his car impounded and where he was not allowed to call his mother to come and take car away, which according to defendant would have taken five minutes. Gunn v State (Fla App D4) 336 So 2d 687.

Inventory search of defendant's car over his protest was unreasonable and illegal where defendant and two other occupants were arrested during business hours while car was parked in private lot. Weed v Wainwright (Fla App) 325 So 2d 44.

Inventory search of vehicle following arrest of defendants was not reasonably necessary; police did not impound vehicle, vehicle was not illegally parked, owner of house, if vehicle was parked in driveway, did not request that vehicle be moved, and police did not ask defendant whether anyone could retrieve his car. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Carter, 305 Ga. App. 814, 701 S.E.2d 209 (2010).

Impoundment of vehicle and concomitant search were improper, where inventory search which disclosed marijuana and methaqualone tablet inside console compartment of car's interior followed impoundment of vehicle that was not reasonably necessary, inasmuch as vehicle was unconnected with reason for defendant's arrest for possession of beer, and arresting officer failed to give defendant opportunity to make alternative arrangements for removal of vehicle. Strobhert v State (1983) 165 Ga App 515, 301 SE2d 681.

Absent inquiry by police concerning preference of then present driver regarding disposition of his vehicle following arrest for indecent exposure, impoundment of vehicle, which was parked on shopping mall parking lot, at suggestion of mall security officer, was unlawful and marijuana discovered during subsequent inventory search was suppressed. State v Darabaris (1981) 159 Ga App 121, 282 SE2d 744.

The warrantless search of defendant's vehicle was not justified as an inventory search following arrest for pandering; the impoundment of defendant's vehicle was unlawful, as there was no evidence that the vehicle was illegally parked, was impeding traffic or threatening public safety, or that officer was instructed school to tow the vehicle from school parking lot. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Spencer, 408 Ill. App. 3d 1, 948 N.E.2d 196 (1st Dist. 2011).

See People v Fox (1978) 62 Ill App 3d 854, 20 Ill Dec 84, 379 NE2d 917, § 12[b].

Evidence seized pursuant to search of accused's vehicle (knife, tire iron, map with victim's city underlined in pen, piece of paper with victim's name and address, wedding invitation, and accused's bank statement) following his arrest for attempted murder while he was driving in his car was improperly admitted, where inventory search was not carried out in accordance with routine police procedures but was conducted by detective from police department's violent crime division three days after impoundment; however, admission of improperly seized evidence was harmless beyond reasonable doubt and conviction would not be reversed. Rabadi v State (1989, Ind) 541 NE2d 271.

In absence of search incident to valid arrest or probable cause for search, good faith inventory search of lawfully impounded automobile was properly limited to items in plain sight. State v Boster (1975) 217 Kan 618, 539 P2d 294.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police who stopped defendant for traffic infraction and arrested him for other offenses did not have reasonable grounds to lawfully impound defendant's vehicle and, thus, inventory search of vehicle was unlawful; evidence established that defendant's vehicle was lawfully parked in the area where he was stopped, and defendant told the officers that his father could pick up the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Vandevelde, 138 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).

Police did not conduct true inventory search of defendant's car but, instead, set out on warrantless search of vehicle without probably cause, where search was made "in the field," in front of defendant's home, where officer could not recall whether he had called tow truck before or after his search, and where officer did not ask defendant for consent, did not inquire whether any valuables were in vehicle and did not check on alternative arrangements before going into car. State v Hardy (1980, La) 384 So 2d 432.

Search of vehicle owned and driven by defendant, after defendant's arrest pursuant to arrest warrant, was not valid inventory search, as would provide exception to search warrant requirement, with respect to crack cocaine found inside tool case in vehicle's trunk; vehicle was searched at scene of arrest, officers made absolutely no attempt to determine whether inventory search could have been avoided, there was no indication that vehicle could not have remained safely at place where it was stopped, and there was no indication that defendant was asked if he consented to search, was asked if vehicle contained valuables, or was asked if he would consent to agency's failure to afford him the protection of an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; LSA–Const. Art. 1, § 5. State v. Griffin, 984 So. 2d 97 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008).

Warrantless search of armed robbery defendant's automobile was not valid as an inventory search, as police officer testified that automobile was searched at police garage for evidence, which was fatal to state's claim that police were merely conducting an inventory when they discovered guns and other incriminating items. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Preston v. State, 141 Md. App. 54, 784 A.2d 601 (2001).

Warrantless search of three women's purses located on front seat of automobile, following arrest of occupants for possession of weapon, could not be justified as "inventory search" of motor vehicle impounded by police where cross–examination of arresting officer indicated his search was "investigative" in nature and conducted for purpose of discovering evidence of crime. Cleckley v State (1979, Md App) 399 A2d 903.

Impoundment seizure of vehicle belonging to burglary suspect was unlawful where defendant was neither in or near vehicle when arrested, arresting officers had no reason to associate car with offense under investigation, no public interest prompted removal of lawfully parked and locked car as an obstruction or hazard, and no apparent risk of risk or damage to vehicle required safekeeping measures. State v Peterson (1979, Mo App) 583 SW2d 277.

Warrantless search of luggage in trunk of vehicle impounded when defendant was arrested for criminal trespass was not valid under inventory exception to warrant requirement where there was no evidence as to what standard inventory procedures were used by police department. State v Neely (1990) 236 Neb 527, 462 NW2d 105.

Exigent circumstances that permitted the police to seize vehicle that served as alleged getaway car in a series of armed robberies and transport it to police station did not justify its subsequent warrantless search; once vehicle was removed from scene, impounded, and taken to police station, there was no danger that the evidence would be lost, compromised, or destroyed, and State had sufficient time to obtain either a telephonic warrant or a traditional one. N.J.S.A. Const. Art. 1, par. 7. State v. Minitee, 415 N.J. Super. 475, 2 A.3d 447 (App. Div. 2010).

See People v Gonzalez (1984) 62 NY2d 386, 477 NYS2d 103, 465 NE2d 823, § 8[b].

See People v Solano (1989, 2d Dept) 148 App Div 2d 761, 539 NYS2d 494, § 4.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Trial court properly suppressed evidence taken from defendant's car during inventory search of vehicle conducted after defendant's arrest on drug charges, where search did not resemble standard inventory search, but rather appeared to have occurred so that arresting officers could gather evidence. State v Smith (1992, Cuyahoga Co) 80 Ohio App 3d 337, 609 NE2d 212, dismd, motion overr 65 Ohio St 3d 1417, 598 NE2d 1169 and (ovrld as stated in State v Gordon (Ohio App, Cuyahoga Co) 95 Ohio App 3d 334).

When highway patrolman, after stopping defendant and issuing speeding citation and permitting defendant to proceed on interstate highway, learned by radio communication that defendant was AWOL from Army, he communicated with other officers and had defendant arrested at interstate highway exit. Proceeding to place of arrest and entering defendant's automobile to get it out of line of traffic, patrolman noticed on floorboard bottle containing white powder which he suspected was narcotic. He did not remove bottle, but called wrecker driver to tow away vehicle, and instructed him to inventory its contents and telephone patrolman if he found anything suspicious. Later, after wrecker driver had inventoried vehicle and found three bottles and syringe in brown paper sack on floorboard, patrolman went to place where vehicle was stored, entered vehicle, and took away items so found. Court held that so–called "inventory" was not legitimate police inventory, because (1) it had not been conducted in presence of officer and wrecker driver had not been deputized, and (2) highway patrolman merely suspected that contents of bottle might be narcotics, his subsequent direction that inventory search be made merely being subterfuge for unlawful search. So–called police inventory being void ab initio, contraband discovered thereby was inadmissible against defendant. Gonzales v State (Okla Crim) 507 P2d 1277.

See State v Gaunce (1992) 114 Or App 190, 834 P2d 512, § 4.

Stolen telephones discovered in locked trunk of defendant's car were properly suppressed as fruit of illegal search where defendant was initially arrested for theft of services after ordering breakfast and being unable to pay, police conducted inventory search of defendant's car including locked trunk, but car was located in parking lot used exclusively for restaurant's customers, it was not in situation where car had to be removed from public highway, it was not unattended, obstructing traffic or illegally parked, there was no indication vehicle had been stolen or used in commission of crime, and no one had asked that car be removed from parking lot. State v Thirdgill (1980) 46 Or App 595, 613 P2d 44.

Commonwealth failed to demonstrate its authority to impound defendant's vehicle and that inventory search was in accordance with relevant legal standards, and as such, gun which was found in defendant's vehicle after inventory search should have been suppressed; Commonwealth failed to demonstrate how its concern about defendant's legally parked vehicle was reasonably related to community care-taking function, and the only evidence was testimony from police officer that the impoundment was routine. Com. v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).

See Commonwealth v Anderl (1984) 329 Pa Super 69, 477 A2d 1356, § 15[b].

Warrantless inventory of defendant's vehicle after arrest for public intoxication was not constitutionally justified but search of vehicle and seizure of objects in plain view was not illegal where police had probable cause to arrest defendant for burglary of service station and search vehicle. State v Catlette (SD) 221 NW2d 25.

Because the inventory list was admittedly not performed in accordance with the standardized procedures or the written policy of police department, and there was no indication that nothing else of value (besides the contraband) was located in defendant's pickup truck, the search of defendant's pickup truck was an invalid inventory search; based upon the officers' complete failure to fill out any inventory form as required by law, the inventory was merely a ruse to search defendant's truck. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Stauder, 264 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App. Eastland 2008), petition for discretionary review filed, (Oct. 29, 2008).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In prosecution for theft by receiving, warrantless search of automobile driven by defendant, which had been stopped in connection with surveillance operation involving whoever returned rental car that had been described to police by victims, was not justified as inventory search where only item removed from car was purse containing stolen jewelry. Aitch v State (1994, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 879 SW2d 167, petition for discretionary review ref (Nov 16, 1994).

State failed to demonstrate necessity to impound vehicle and validity of subsequent inventory search, where defendant was stopped because of expired rejected safety sticker on windshield, was arrested based on two outstanding misdemeanor arrest warrants, and was recognized by officer as resembling photo of suspect in recent robbery, and where, at time of arrest, defendant's vehicle was parked next to curb in lawful parking place, there was no evidence of danger to police or public, defendant was not given opportunity to arrange for other disposition of his automobile, no impoundment slip or list was filled out by officer, and officer did not completely search vehicle but, rather, searched only trunk. State v Hygh (1985, Utah) 711 P2d 264.

Search of vehicle after occupants had been handcuffed and secured in patrol vehicles was not justified by inventory search exception to warrant requirement, as there was no suggestion that the vehicle had actually been impounded at the time the vehicle was searched. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Duncan, 185 Wash. 2d 430, 374 P.3d 83 (2016).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

B. Search of abandoned or unattended vehicle

§ 8.5. Forfeiture

[Cumulative Supplement]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Search of defendant's vehicle when he was arrested was proper inventory search, where vehicle was under forfeiture order, and thus subject to impoundment pursuant to defendant's already issued indictment, and search was conducted pursuant to standardized Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011).

Where truck was seized under federal forfeiture provision following determination that truck was used to transport cocaine, inventory search was proper. United States v Thompson (1991, CA8 Ark) 925 F2d 234.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 9[a] Generally—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following case, an inventory search of a motor vehicle impounded by the police after it was found abandoned or unattended was held lawful.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Ill People v Hundley (1993) 156 Ill 2d 135, 189 Ill Dec 43, 619 NE2d 744 Mich People v Erskin (1979) 92 Mich App 630, 285 NW2d 396 People v Russell (1989) 174 Mich App 357, 435 NW2d 487 NY People v Price (1987, 3d Dept) 127 App Div 2d 935, 512 NYS2d 523 ND State v Klodt (1980, ND) 298 NW2d 783 Tex Pearson v State (1983, Tex App Fort Worth) 649 SW2d 786, review ref In Kimbrough v Beto (1969, CA5 Tex) 412 F2d 981, involving a prosecution for, inter alia, illegal possession of narcotic drugs, where police officers were called to the scene of a wreck involving a pickup and discovered that the lone occupant of the pickup had been removed in an unconscious condition to a hospital, the court held that it was the duty of the police officers to check the contents of the pickup and the occupant's clothing to determine his identity and to safeguard his possessions. Rejecting the contention that the search of the pickup was illegal, the court affirmed a denial of the occupant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

The towing of defendant's car from psychiatrist's office parking lot for impoundment was not an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; defendant was being removed from psychiatrist's office in an ambulance for a psychiatric evaluation, there was no showing that the decision to evaluate defendant was pretextual, the vehicle was packed with defendant's belongings, so that it was possible target for theft or vandalism, towing the vehicle reduced the risk of future violent confrontation between defendant and psychiatrist, defendant had made comments to psychiatrist about using explosives or biological weapons, so that police had concerns that the vehicle contained such items, and defendant never informed the officers of any other means of removing the car other than impoundment. U.S. v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006).

See United States v Pappas (1979, CA1) 613 F2d 324, § 5[a].

Warrantless inventory search of defendant's vehicle following his arrest on outstanding warrant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and the troopers who arrested defendant were not required to allow him to call his girlfriend to retrieve the vehicle so that it would not have been left unattended; defendant was the sole occupant of the vehicle at the time of his arrest, state police towing order authorized the troopers to tow the vehicle because defendant had been physically arrested and the vehicle would have been left unattended, and having determined that the vehicle would be towed, trooper was authorized by the state police's vehicle inventory order to inventory defendant's vehicle, including the unlocked glove compartment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Mensah, 796 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Mass. 2011).

Warrantless but routine inventory search of vehicle was lawful even though vehicle was seized in course of criminal investigation concerning drug laboratory discovered by firemen. United States v Callabrass (1979, SD NY) 469 F Supp 323.

Police officer did not act in bad faith, in violation of Fourth Amendment, in conducting inventory search of defendant's vehicle after deciding to treat towing of defendant's vehicle from hospital parking lot as a private-property tow; hospital security officers asked officer to have vehicle towed, giving officer legitimate reason to treat case as a private-property tow, and even if officer failed to comply with police department policy by issuing defendant a parking ticket and following

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

policy instructions regarding closed containers in the vehicle, there was no showing that police raised the inventory search banner in an after-the-fact attempt to justify a simple investigatory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hall, 497 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2007).

State trooper's opening of duffel bag found in vehicle in ditch on side of road, during course of preliminary inventory search pursuant to vehicle's impoundment, was conducted according to standardized procedures of state highway patrol, and thus, was reasonable under totality of circumstances; highway patrol policy manual directed officers to conduct detailed inspection and inventory of all impounded vehicles, and trooper testified he was trained to open closed containers during inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Kimhong Thi Le, 474 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2007).

See United States v Maier (1982, CA8 Minn) 691 F2d 421, cert den (US) 75 L Ed 2d 947, 103 S Ct 1524, § 11[a].

Where defendant had abandoned truck and camper in a day–parking–only zone in state park and left the scene, and where park ranger had probable cause to believe that the truck and camper had been stolen, based, inter alia, on the appearance of altered vehicle identification number (VIN), ranger lawfully impounded the truck and camper. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Whitaker, 6 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 263, 151 L. Ed. 2d 192 (U.S. 2001).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle, which he abandoned after being stopped for speeding and driving with expired tags, did not violate Fourth Amendment, where search was carried out pursuant to police department policy directing inventory searches of vehicles with expired tags abandoned on city streets. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jefferson, 451 Fed. Appx. 833 (11th Cir. 2011).

Police seizure of van which had overturned and was lying at bottom of steep enbankment off side of road was justified on abandonment theory where testimony showed that van had gone straight off enbankment, examination of vehicle at scene showed no signs that anyone had been inside when vehicle went off road, and where, when combined with investigating officer's prior knowledge that van may have been involved in serious hit–and–run accident, evidence was sufficient to allow him to infer that van had been deliberately pushed over side of hill. Lupro v State (1979, Alaska) 603 P2d 468.

Search of pickup truck found abandoned in desert was lawful where officers could see large plastic bags filled with many small plastic bags when they first inspected abandoned vehicle and they also detected odor of marijuana, and thus subsequent inventory search in town was not conducted to find additional contraband, but to inventory and to preserve contraband already found within pickup. State v Schutte (1977, App) 117 Ariz 482, 575 P2d 882.

Where police officers refused to move vehicle reported as stolen, found abandoned and hazard on public highway until it was opened and its contents checked since it could contain something hazardous to them or motorists, where officers refused to open vehicle because they had no authority but legal owners, rental company, then took position that they had authority pursuant to rental contract and opened truck by breaking lock, where police officers in no way participated in initial intrusion which revealed two organs, piano and four benches, and where they observed articles then entered vehicle, inventoried or noted serial numbers of items amd impounded vehicle and its contents, such actions of officers were reasonable, followed sound police practices, and were not violative of constitutional prohibition against illegal search. Lipovich v State (1979, Ark) 576 SW2d 720.

Items found in van and automobile that defendant was driving before fleeing on foot in connection with separate drug and forgery incidents were seized pursuant to valid inventory searches. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Hicks, 53 Conn. App. 470, 730 A.2d 649 (1999).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police had probable cause to seize and search defendant's vehicle; officer acted lawfully in opening unlocked car door of vehicle, which was parked on public street without current identification tags in front and rear of vehicle, in preparation for impoundment and towing, and officer saw ammunition clip in plain view once he opened car door. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Andrews v. U.S., 922 A.2d 449 (D.C. 2007).

In prosecution for violating state control substances act and for possession of firearm by convicted felon, trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in search of his car, where defendant gave his consent to search of passenger compartment of car and where search of trunk was for purpose of inventory of contents after defendant had fled from scene and officer had been directed to impound car. Jolly v State (1987) 183 Ga App 370, 358 SE2d 912.

See State v Evans (1986) 181 Ga App 422, 352 SE2d 599, § 14[a].

Routine inventory search of impounded vehicle was lawful where bank manager requested police to remove car from parking lot and where police asked defendants, who were arrested at bank, whether they could identify car and both stated they knew nothing about car, even though bill of sale indicated it belonged to one of defendants. Hall v State (1977) 143 Ga App 706, 240 SE2d 125.

See State v Bray (1992, Idaho App) 834 P2d 892, petition for certiorari filed (Jan 6, 1993), § 5[c].

Two primary factors are considered in determining whether the conclusion that a parked vehicle constitutes a hazard justifying impoundment is reasonable in light of objective standards of policing; first is the degree to which the property upon which the vehicle is situated is under the control of the defendant, and second is the length of time the impounding officer perceived that the impounded car would be unattended, which helps assess the reasonableness of the officer's conclusion that the vehicle, if left alone, would be exposed to an unacceptable risk of theft or vandalism. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).

Where kidnap victim supplied police with identities of four men involved in kidnap and murder and also described vehicle used in crimes, and where police thereafter discovered same vehicle legally parked and unattended, but with blood stains in plain view, seizure of vehicle in order to secure it pending issuance of warrant was lawful and subsequent limited inventory search prior to arrival of warrant was reasonable. Pollard v State (1979, Ind) 388 NE2d 496.

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle after defendant could not produce a valid driver's license during a traffic stop was statutorily authorized, for purpose of determining whether subsequent inventory search of vehicle was valid; vehicle was stopped on paved shoulder of a highway, two statutes provided that a person commits an infraction if he or she stops, parks, or leaves standing an attended or unattended vehicle upon paved part of a highway under certain circumstances, third statute provided that a police officer who finds a vehicle standing upon a highway illegally may remove vehicle if person directed by officer fails or refuses to move vehicle, and defendant could not move vehicle himself. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11; West's A.I.C. 9–21–16–1, 9–21–16–3, 9–21–16–9. Jones v. State, 856 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Threat or harm to the community is implicated, supporting impoundment of vehicle by law enforcement, and permitting warrantless search of vehicle, when: (1) arrest of the driver has left car unattended on highway, (2) where owner of the vehicle cannot be located, and (3) where vehicle is left on private property and owner of the property has requested removal. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Police were justified in impounding vehicle and making inventory of its contents, after occupants fled vehicle and left doors open, thus allowing officers to see automatic handgun, marijuana cigars, and bag of material that appeared to be marijuana. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Perkins, 716 So. 2d 120 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Even though search of automobile, including trunk, could not be justified as inventory search where automobile was parked on private property and property owner had requested police to have it removed, search was justified as search of abandoned vehicle where defendants, who had been observed parking vehicle and who were arrested on suspicion of larceny short time later as they were walking back toward car from shopping center, disclaimed any knowledge about vehicle. Duncan v State (1977) 281 Md 247, 378 A2d 1108.

Even if defendant had not abandoned the vehicle, police search of vehicle was reasonable as an inventory search; officer performed inventory search of vehicle while waiting for a tow truck, and officer testified that it was the sheriff's department standard procedure to inventory the contents of a vehicle about to be impounded. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Green v. State, 183 So. 3d 78 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015), judgment aff'd, 183 So. 3d 28 (Miss. 2016).

Search of interior of defendant's car was properly conducted inventory search; there was no one available to remove vehicle from roadside, and under such circumstances, sheriff office's standard procedure was to call wrecker to impound vehicle, and officer performed inventory search prior to impoundment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Garrison v. State, 918 So. 2d 846 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Where defendant abandoned automobile during chase by police, taking into custody of stolen items from vehicle was part of reasonable inventory procedure concomitant with removal of defendant's abandoned car from highway. State v Achter (Mo App) 512 SW2d 894 (citing annotation).

Defendant abandoned his expectation of privacy in his vehicle, and thus police officers' inventory search of vehicle did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; after defendant stopped vehicle in driveway, he exited vehicle and fled the scene. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Brunson, 145 A.D.3d 1476, 44 N.Y.S.3d 643 (4th Dep't 2016).

Officer did not disregard police department standard inventory search procedures, thus inventory search was reasonable; officer was not required to determine whether defendant wished to make reasonable alternate arrangements for pick-up truck, thus obviating need for inventory search, general order explicitly provided that officers were authorized to tow vehicle if it was illegally parked or obstructing normal and safe movement of traffic, which vehicle was, and there was no qualifying provision for this authority. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3352; 3353. Com. v. Chambers, 2007 PA Super 81, 920 A.2d 892 (2007).

Authority of police to impound vehicles, for purposes of inventory search, derives from the police's reasonable community care-taking functions, and such functions include removing disabled or damaged vehicles from the highway, impounding automobiles which violate parking ordinances, thereby jeopardizing public safety and efficient traffic flow, and protecting the community's safety. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Henley, 2006 PA Super 276, 909 A.2d 352 (2006).

See State v Bonin (1991, RI) 591 A2d 38, § 14[a].

See State v Lemacks (1980, SC) 268 SE2d 285, § 12[a].

Inventory of automobile involved in accident, taken by police officers after driver was taken to hospital but before private wrecking service took possession of car, which resulted in discovery of marijuana in unopened glove compartment, was not unreasonable search. Robertson v State (Tex Crim App) 541 SW2d 608, cert den (US) 51 L Ed 2d 563, 97 S Ct 1145.

Where all occupants of automobile were carried away from site in ambulance, officer's decision to tow and impound vehicle was proper, and accompanying inventory search was also proper, even though search was partially conducted

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

at accident site and finished, one day later, in impound yard. State v Sterger (1991, Utah App) 808 P2d 122, 155 Utah Adv Rep 30.

Inventory search of vehicle that was impounded because owner was in arrears in child support was lawful, and cocaine discovered in zipper bag was admissible in prosecution of owner, where seizure was legal (state agency had perfected lien against owner and seizure of scofflaw parents' property was allowed by statute) and search was conducted according to written procedures, notwithstanding that procedures did not provide rules for treatment of closed containers. State v Mireles (1994) 73 Wash App 605, 871 P2d 162.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 9[b] Generally—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, an inventory search of a motor vehicle impounded by the police after it was found abandoned or unattended was held unlawful.

In Williams v United States (1969, CA5 Fla) 412 F2d 729, supra § 8[b], where a vehicle was impounded following the arrest of its "driver" for vagrancy, and where the police declared the vehicle abandoned because the "driver" disclaimed all knowledge of the vehicle and because it was improperly licensed, an inventory search of the vehicle was held unlawful.

Rejecting a police officer's contention that he had to search a parked and unattended car before impounding it, in order to absolve himself from liability for conversion of articles which might be claimed to have been in the car and which were later not found, the court in Dodge v Turner (1967, DC Utah) 274 F Supp 285, took the view that such a claim was specious and observed that the officer's protection could much better have been assured by relying upon a search warrant in the regular way. The evidence indicated that the officer had received an erroneous report that the license plates on the vehicle belonged to another vehicle, and that the officer, in reliance on such report, decided to impound the car and to determine if there was anything of value in it. During this search, he found two wallets which were later introduced in evidence at the defendant's trial for burglary. The court granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and declared the conviction void.

For another case in which an inventory search of an apparently abandoned vehicle was held unlawful because the search involved the opening of a closed satchel, see Boulet v State (1972) 17 Ariz App 64, 495 P2d 504, infra § 14[b].

Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84, involved a prosecution for possession of marijuana, in which the court granted a writ of mandate to suppress evidence found during a police inventory of the contents of an automobile which was left at the scene of an accident after the motorist had been removed to a hospital by an ambulance. The police, on arrival at the scene, determined that the automobile was causing an obstruction and exercised their statutory power to tow the car away to a police storage facility, and in accordance with standard procedure, an inventory of the contents of the automobile was prepared before the car was towed away. In the course of such inventory, the police officer observed an unlocked suitcase on the rear seat of the car, and on searching it, found a plastic bag containing marijuana. Since the automobile was a convertible, the police also removed several items found in the car's interior, including the suitcase, and locked them in the trunk. Disapproving of a series of cases from its own jurisdiction which had purported to validate inventory searches whenever the police are authorized to remove and store vehicles, the court noted that a routine police inventory of the contents of an automobile involves a substantial invasion into the privacy of the vehicle owner, and that such conduct was not exempt from the requirements

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

of reasonableness set down in the Fourth Amendment. The court also noted that items of value left in an automobile being stored by the police may be adequately protected by merely rolling up the windows, locking the vehicle doors, and returning the keys to the owner. Where, as in the instant case, the automobile involved is a convertible, adequate protection of valuables can be achieved, continued the court, by raising the top, or if necessary, by moving visible items, like the small suitcase, into the trunk for safekeeping. Conceding that a police inventory of the contents of an automobile is a valid protective measure, and that any objects clearly visible without probing may be listed on an inventory, the court declared that the crucial issue in the instant case was the reasonableness of the search into the closed suitcase. Rejecting as without legal foundation the contention that the police, as involuntary bailees of automobiles lawfully taken into custody, have the civil obligation to inventory the contents of such vehicles for the protection of the owners, and for the protection of the police from unfounded loss claims, the court noted that while the police were involuntary bailees within the definition of a state statute dealing with bailees, the statutory duty of care imposed on such bailees was to use "slight care for the thing deposited." The court concluded that in dealing with the contents of an automobile, such duty could be adequately fulfilled by merely rolling up the windows and locking the doors of vehicles taken into custody. Another contention advanced by the prosecution, and rejected by the court, was that since the automobile was legally in the possession of the police as incident to its having been impounded, the contents of the car were also legally in their possession. In rejecting this contention, the court noted that lawful custody of an automobile does not of itself dispense with the constitutional requirements for searches thereafter made of it. In conclusion, the court explained that an inventory of the type conducted by the police involved a random search of the articles left in an automobile taken into police custody, since the police were looking for nothing in particular and everything in general, and that a random police search was the precise invasion of privacy which the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit.

In Miller v State (1962, Fla App) 137 So 2d 21, where a police officer, on arrival at the scene of an accident, found the driver of an automobile unconscious and arranged for the car to be towed to a garage and impounded while the driver was hospitalized, the court held that a search of the car at the garage where it was impounded was unlawful, even though the officer had observed in the open glove compartment a large amount of money and adding machine tapes bundled together with paper clips and rubber bands, and even though he had noticed something protruding from a torn place in the floormat, which when lifted up, revealed another bundle of adding machine tapes rolled around lottery tickets. Rejecting the prosecution's attempt to justify the instant search on the ground that it was the duty of a police officer to protect valuables that might be found in a car, the court distinguished an earlier case which had validated a search of an unattended truck discovered at night at a darkened intersection. The court pointed out that in the cited case, the search was validated because under the suspicious circumstances in which the truck was found, a search of the truck was necessarily a component part of a complete investigation of the situation. However, in the instant case, continued the court, a search beneath the floormats was not necessarily a component part of a complete investigation of a motor vehicle accident, or of the investigating officer's duty to protect the owner's valuables. The court added that it would appear that the officer satisfactorily performed his duty to protect the owner's property by securing valuables found in plain sight and by impounding the automobile. Reversing a conviction, the court concluded that under the facts of the case, when the officer dug beneath the floormats, he committeed an unreasonable search and seizure, and that admission into evidence of the fruits of the search and seizure was an error.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Police officer's search of defendant's automobile while it was parked in driveway of defendant's residence did not fall under "inventory" exception to search warrant requirement; officer who conducted search of defendant's automobile testified that his purpose in searching automobile was "to search for evidence." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Dean, 76 P.3d 429 (Ariz. 2003).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of defendant's automobile following his arrest was not a valid inventory search based on a legal impoundment, but rather, an unauthorized investigative search; decision to search vehicle followed the discovery of contraband on defendant's person while he was inside store, and at time search occurred, vehicle was legally parked and locked, and police had not called for tow truck to tow vehicle pursuant to an impoundment nor inquired how long it would be before defendant could have someone else remove vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Colson, 831 So. 2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2002).

Search of car involved in accident for name of owner, which led to discovery of drugs in glove compartment, could not be justified as inventory search where car was parked off street in private driveway and locked. Lovett v State (1981, Fla App D1) 403 So 2d 1079.

See Weed v Wainwright (Fla App) 325 So 2d 44, supra § 8[b].

Although trooper lawfully impounded defendant's unattended vehicle after car skidded off roadway and brought down power line, which created hazard, trooper was not authorized to open closed cigarette case during inventory search, where trooper opened case at his own discretion without benefit of standardized police procedure requiring opening of closed containers during warrantless inventory searches. People v Hundley (1992, 3rd Dist) 227 Ill App 3d 1056, 169 Ill Dec 399, 591 NE2d 903.

Inventory search of defendant's automobile that was impounded after being parked in guest area of apartment complex where defendant was arrested was not valid search where state failed to establish that police were following detailed policy with regard to procedures for inventory search, and that search was reasonable and not mere pretext grounded on suspicion. Fair v State (1993, Ind) 627 NE2d 427.

Officers' decision to tow a truck parked in front of residence where its owner was staying as an overnight guest violated Fourth Amendment; there was no indication that public safety required truck to be towed, and officers requested tow for the improper purpose of conducting an investigatory search with respect to shopping cart in truck bed, which police believed to be stolen. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. J.K. v. State, 8 N.E.3d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Impoundment of suspect's vehicle could not be justified as police effort to take custodial care of vehicle in order to protect property, and subsequent discovery of weapon in vehicle was illegal where vehicle was parked in private driveway, and where impoundment, which was neither under authority of statute nor ordinance, was effected two hours after arrest. State v Urban (1979) 3 Kan App 2d 367, 595 P2d 352.

See State v Peaten (1993) 110 NC App 749, 431 SE2d 237, § 5[a].

Police officers' warrantless search of defendant's automobile could not be justified as an inventory search, where the search occurred during a stakeout of an area in which they received complaints of criminal activity, and was conducted once the officers suspected there was contraband in the vehicle. Const. Art. 1, § 8. Com. v. Casanova, 2000 PA Super 34, 748 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 10. Illegally parked vehicle

[Cumulative Supplement]

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In the following cases, an inventory search of a motor vehicle impounded by the police for being illegally parked was held lawful.

In Godbee v State (1969, Fla App) 224 So 2d 441, the court held that where the driver of an automobile was arrested on a fugitive warrant but absconded immediately, leaving his car locked and illegally parked, the police were justified in impounding the automobile and, in accordance with routine police procedures, inventorying the car and its contents both for the preservation of the car and to protect themselves and a garage owner acting under their direction from possible responsibility in the event of theft or destruction. Affirming a conviction for possession and concealment of the stolen property discovered in the course of the inventory, the court stated that the conduct of the police in forcing open the car to gain entrance into its interior and to make an inventory of its contents did not constitute an unreasonable search in violation of any constitutional prohibition, and that under the particular circumstances of the case, there was no other way in which the police could have executed their duty. Taking cognizance of police department regulations governing towaway procedures, which required that an officer removing a vehicle make an adequate record in his official memorandum book of valuable property in the car, and regulations making provisions for the filing of owners' claims arising from the towaway program, the court observed that it was quite clear that in inspecting vehicles taken into custody, in the absence of their drivers, the police were not seeking evidence of crime but were pursuing precautions which any bailees of personal property would be expected to take, as a matter of reasonable care, for the benefit of the absent owner of the vehicle and as a safeguard against claims of loss or damage which could be alleged against the city. The court further pointed out that if evidence of crime was discovered during such an inventory, it would be the merest peripheral incident to custody in such a vast program, and that, assuming the custody itself to be lawful, a thorough examination of the car in such custody, for the protection of both the owner and the custodial bailee, was not an unreasonable search, but by any standard was reasonable within the Fourth Amendment.

For a case involving an inventory search of a vehicle impounded because, inter alia, it was illegally parked and the driver was arrested for consuming alcoholic beverages in the motor vehicle, and in which such search was held lawful, see Plitko v State (1971) 11 Md App 35, 272 A2d 669, supra § 7[a].

In People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY 2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE2d 464, 48 A.L.R.3d 527, involving a prosecution for possession of a loaded gun, it was held that where an unattended and illegally parked automobile was towed to a police storage facility, and a police officer examined the contents of the automobile in order to record any valuables that might be found therein, there was no unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court reviewed several federal and state decisions on the subject and observed that there was apparently a split in the authorities, but noted that several state courts, in significant decisions examining the problem, had concluded that an inspection of a vehicle in lawful custody, where the custody and the examination are not intended to produce criminal evidence against the owner, but are incidental to proper control and protection, does not violate Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches. Stressing that considerable emphasis had been placed in those decisions on the ground for and the motivation of inspection as bearing on the reasonableness of the search, the court concluded that in the instant case, the impounding of the vehicle was undertaken without regard to any possible prosecution and physical custody was neither necessary nor useful in the parking violation itself, and that its purpose was to promote public safety and to facilitate the flow of street traffic. Accordingly, the court held that the search was not unreasonable, but was an incident to a routine and proper check of a vehicle lawfully taken into custody because it had been left unattended in the wrong place. The court, therefore, reversed a judgment dismissing the indictment.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Police properly decided to impound defendant's vehicle which was parked on street, approximately four feet from curb, for purposes of determining whether subsequent inventory search was valid, where town's written guidelines and

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

procedures clearly stated that vehicle in location that obstructs or interferes with traffic shall be removed. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Gordon, 23 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Me. 1998).

Police officer's testimony supported the determination that defendant's vehicle was impounded as a traffic hazard, in accordance with the police department's impoundment policy, thus defeating defendant's challenge to a search of the vehicle; the officer complied with standard procedure when he determined that defendant's vehicle, which was parked in a traffic lane, was a traffic hazard and impounded it. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lilly, 438 Fed. Appx. 439 (6th Cir. 2011).

See U. S. v Gerlach (DC Mich) 350 F Supp 180, § 12[a].

See United States v Maier (1982, CA8 Minn) 691 F2d 421, cert den (US) 75 L Ed 2d 947, 103 S Ct 1524, § 11[a].

Search of vehicle by airport security officers, which lead to discovery of small quantity of cocaine, was valid "inventory search" where suspect was arrested under warrant at airport, airport security officers took car in charge and removed it from no–parking zone, and where, as part of standard operating procedure, security officers examined contents of car for inventory purposes and discovered cocaine. United States v One 1976 Lincoln Continental Mark IV (1978, CA8 Minn) 584 F2d 266.

Inventory search of defendant's car after it was towed for being illegally parked was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, where search was conducted according to standard police procedures allowing the officers to look into an unlocked glove compartment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Calvin, 543 Fed. Appx. 807 (10th Cir. 2013).

Warrantless search of defendant's impounded vehicle was a lawful inventory search, where vehicle was impounded because it was blocking a driveway and parked far enough out in the roadway to create a traffic hazard, and inventory search was performed to document what was in the vehicle and to protect the tow company and the police department. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Cal. Veh. Code § 22651(b),(h). People v. Quick, 2016 WL 6875925 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2016).

Police officers properly impounded arrestee's vehicle and conducted inventory search, based on determination that leaving vehicle in parking lot after business closed would subject vehicle to substantial risk. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Hitchcock v. State, 746 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999).

See People v Williamson (1993, 4th Dist) 241 Ill App 3d 574, 181 Ill Dec 692, 608 NE2d 943, § 14[b].

Impoundment of defendant's vehicle after traffic stop was not justified as exercise of police community-caretaking function on ground that it was allegedly illegally parked at angle to curb in apartment complex's parking lot, for purpose of determining whether subsequent inventory search of vehicle was valid; nothing indicated that vehicle constituted a potential hazard to public safety simply because it might have been illegally parked, in there were relatively few cars parked in parking area, vehicle's location did not constitute a public nuisance, vehicle was on correct side of parking lot, and vehicle was parked in permissible parking area for nonresidents of apartment complex. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006).

Police officer's search of defendant's vehicle following impoundment of vehicle did not fall within inventory search exception to warrant requirement, where officer conducted search at scene rather than after vehicle had been towed to impoundment lot as contemplated by standard operating procedures (SOP), officer was drug interdiction officer rather than officer responsible for custody of impounded property, and defendant was present at scene and was capable of taking custody of property within vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Bartruff v. State, 706 N.E.2d 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police transformed otherwise lawful inventory search of arrestee's person into unlawful investigatory search by scrutinizing keys seized from arrestee's person, noting that they belonged to rental car with particular license plate number, and returning with keys to scene of crime for purpose of locating and impounding arrestee's car; information on keys was not overtly incriminating or obvious, and actions of police went far beyond custodial necessities of safeguarding seized keys and amounted to investigatory use of item taken for safekeeping. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Com. v. Murphy, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 11, 822 N.E.2d 320 (2005).

See State v Lemacks (1980, SC) 268 SE2d 285, § 12[a].

Inventory search of abandoned vehicle illegally parked in fire lane before officers relinquished custody to towtruck operator was justified to protect owner's property, and to protect police from claims of property loss or theft. Girardi v Commonwealth (1980, Va) 270 SE2d 743.

Police department policies did not render reasonable an officer's decision to impound and tow parked vehicle, where vehicle was found legally parked but unlocked and officer made no attempt to contact persons to whom vehicle was registered prior to having it towed, as required by department policy; policy permitting vehicle towing even if vehicle owner was unable to consent did not establish permissible reasons for towing, and unwritten "unsecured vehicle" policy, permitting police to order towed any unlocked vehicle found by them, was overly broad. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; W.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 11. State v. Clark, 2003 WI App 121, 666 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 10.5. Vehicle involved in accident where driver incapacitated

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following authority considered the propriety of an inventory search conducted on a vehicle impounded by police following an accident during which the vehicle's driver was incapacitated.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Search of defendant's rental car at scene of crash where she was rendered incapacitated, which revealed methamphetamine, was conducted as part of a legitimate inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, §§ 401(a)(1), 406, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. U.S. v. Howell, 261 Fed. Appx. 55 (9th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 10, 2008).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

C. Search of vehicle before arrest of driver or occupant

§ 10.7. Search held valid

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following authority has upheld the validity of an inventory search of a motor vehicle impounded by the police prior to the arrest of the driver or occupant.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Having properly decided to impound motorist's vehicle following traffic stop, officers did not violate motorist's Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an inventory search of the vehicle, and when such search led to the discovery of a handgun, officers had probable cause for arrest and prosecution of motorist on weapons charges. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Redmond v. Sanders, 858 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2012).

Impoundment and inventory search of defendant's vehicle, which occurred after defendant was unable to provide proof of insurance following valid traffic stop, was permissible under inventory search exception to warrant requirement; vehicle inventory occurred before defendant's arrest and the discovery of contraband on his person, impoundment of vehicle was proper under Louisiana law, and the procedure used to inventory the vehicle was acceptable. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. U.S. v. Smith, 249 Fed. Appx. 336 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying Louisiana law).

Inventory search of impounded vehicle, which defendant had been driving when he was stopped for driving in the opposite lane, was not pretextual, where police officers determined that neither defendant nor passenger could safely operate the vehicle, leaving the vehicle on the street was not viable given the circumstances, and the impoundment and attendant inventory search complied with written policy. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. 14. Commonwealth v. Ehiabhi, 478 Mass. 154, 84 N.E.3d 13 (2017).

Detective's inventory search, following lawful traffic stop, of vehicle in which defendant was passenger was proper; detective testified that it was discovered at the stop that the driver's license of defendant's girlfriend, who had been driving, was suspended, under police department's standard operating procedures the vehicle had to be towed because girlfriend was not allowed to drive it in light of her suspended license, these procedures required that an inventory search be conducted and a report prepared documenting the contents of the vehicle to ensure the protection of vehicle owner's or occupant's property, and officers did not have to inquire whether defendant was able to drive the vehicle before having it towed. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Gabriel, 155 A.D.3d 1438, 66 N.Y.S.3d 359 (3d Dep't 2017).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

IV. Scope of search

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

§ 11[a] Objects in plain view—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, it was held that the observance and discovery of objects in plain sight during the course of an inventory search did not constitute an unlawful search.

Ala Ervin v State (1992, Ala App) 630 So 2d 115 Ga Carson v State (1978) 241 Ga 622, 247 SE2d 68 Douglas v State (1978) 145 Ga App 42, 243 SE2d 298 Ind Griffin v State (1978, Ind App) 372 NE2d 497 La State v Borning (1985, La App 1st Cir) 477 So 2d 134, writ den (La) 481 So 2d 1330, reconsideration den (La) 485 So 2d 58 Miss Jackson v State (1983, Miss) 440 So 2d 307 Mo State v Taylor (1986, Mo App) 714 SW2d 767 Or State v Brewton (Or App) 529 P2d 967, cert den 423 US 851, 46 L Ed 2d 74, 96 S Ct 95 Pa Commonwealth v Scott (Pa) 365 A2d 140 In Fagundes v United States (1965, CA1 Mass) 340 F2d 673, involving a prosecution for bank robbery, the court held that where a police officer arrested a driver for drunk driving, and in the process of taking an inventory of the contents of the vehicle prior to towing it away, observed bundles of money in an open straw bag lying in plain sight, there was no search, because it is not a search to see what is patent and obvious either in daylight or in artificial light. Reversing a conviction and remanding the case for further hearing on grounds not within the scope of this annotation, the court stated that police officers are not required to go about their routine duties with their eyes shut.

In Kaufman v United States (1971, DC Mo) 323 F Supp 623, affd (CA8) 453 F2d 798, a prosecution for armed robbery, it was held that where the operator of a privately owned garage had towed an impounded vehicle to his garage at the request of the police and had proceeded to check the automobile for any personal belongings which should be protected, a gun which was discovered in plain view on the rear seat of the automobile was not obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. The court noted that the garageman was not looking for evidence of a crime, and that it had long been settled that objects in plain view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. The court ruled that the discovery of the gun under these circumstances was not the result of a search in the legal sense, but that even if the observance of the gun could be deemed a search, the fact that it was found by a private citizen acting on his own behalf precluded a Fourth Amendment contention.

In United States v Fuller (1967, DC Dist Col) 277 F Supp 97, involving a prosecution for possession of narcotic drugs, where a driver was arrested for operating a motor vehicle without "running lights," and without a valid driver's license, and was incarcerated for failure to post the requisite collateral, it was held that evidence of drugs found during an inventory of the contents, in an eyeglass case protruding from beneath the front seat of the vehicle, was not the product of an unreasonable search and seizure. The court held that the practice of protecting valuables found in an impounded automobile is not only reasonable, but also in the public interest, where it is not utilized as a substitute for a search without a warrant. Relying on an earlier case in which incriminating evidence discovered in plain sight during the course of a similar procedure to safeguard the contents of an impounded automobile was held admissible, the court noted that

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

the item was not found in the glove compartment or the trunk of the vehicle, but was seized in open view, and that there was no evidence or indication that a search for incriminating evidence had been carried out. Accordingly, the evidence was held admissible.

In People v Nebbitt (1960) 183 Cal App 2d 452, 7 Cal Rptr 8 (ovrld on other grounds Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County, 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84), the court held that where a police officer, during the course of an inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle, removed a jacket from the front seat, where the defendant motorist had been sitting, and noticed in plain sight a cigarette which turned out to be marijuana, the officer's observation of the cigarette was not the result of a search, for it appeared in plain sight in the normal course of the reasonable and valid activity of the officer in making the inventory, incidental to impounding the car. Adopting the rule that it is not a search to observe that which is open and patent, the court affirmed a conviction for possession of marijuana.

In People v Cook (1969) 275 Cal App 2d 970, 80 Cal Rptr 528 (impliedly overruled on other grounds in Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County, 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84), it was held that there was no unlawful search where an officer, in the course of an inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle, saw an orange–colored pill on the right front seat and picked it up, but it slipped from his fingers and fell behind the bucket seat, whereupon, in an attempt to retrieve it, he moved the hinged seat forward and found three plastic pill bottles and two plastic bags containing marijuana. The court ruled that under the circumstances, the officer acted properly in making an inventory of the contents of the car incident to storage, and that, therefore, the marijuana found during the course of the inventory was properly and lawfully obtained and was admissible in evidence. The court, therefore, affirmed a conviction for possession and transportation of marijuana.

In Jackson v State (1966, Fla App) 192 So 2d 78, involving a prosecution for the statutory offense of buying, receiving, and concealing stolen property, the court held that where a police officer stopped a motorist for a traffic violation and decided to impound his vehicle, evidence of two pillowcases stuffed with clothing, a hair dryer, and a canned ham, which were observed by the officer in plain sight on the floorboard of the automobile, was not obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, and was, therefore, admissible in evidence. Relying on earlier decisions from its own jurisdiction and without much discussion of its own, the court affirmed a conviction.

In Heffley v State (1967) 83 Nev 100, 423 P2d 666, involving a prosecution for burglary, it appeared that the defendant, who was arrested in his car, in which a large number of guns were in plain view on the back seat, was charged with unlawful possession of a pistol and was taken to the police station, and that thereafter, the police impounded and searched his car, and discovered on the floor by the rear seat two passports, and two certificates of registration, which allegedly had been taken in a burglary. Rejecting the contention that the stolen goods were the fruits of an illegal search, the court stated that a police officer, when there is just cause, has a duty not only to impound a car from the public highway for its own protection, but also to inventory the contents so that they may be safeguarded for the owner, and the police and the bailee may be shielded from dishonest claims of theft of the car's contents. The court stated that the fact that the car was loaded with an unusually large number of guns in plain view on the rear seat imposed a responsibility on the officers to inventory the property, for if it later developed that the defendant owned the guns and the automobile, they would be responsible for their safekeeping. The court, therefore, affirmed a conviction.

In Shepp v State (1971, Nev) 484 P2d 563, involving a prosecution for burglary and receiving stolen property, it was held that a guitar which was in plain view on the back seat of the defendant's car, and which was seized during the course of an inventory of the car's contents, was not obtained as the result of an unconstitutional search and seizure of the car, which had been impounded by the police. In reaching this conclusion, the court, without much discussion of its own, relied on an earlier case from its own jurisdiction.

In State v Montague (1968) 73 Wash 2d 381, 438 P2d 571, involving a prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana, the court held that evidence of a brown paper bag containing eight plastic bags filled with marijuana, found on the floor

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

of a car in the course of an inventory, was not the product of an illegal search, where the evidence indicated that the search was made for the dual purpose of protecting the contents of the vehicle from undue risk during storage and of protecting the police and the bailee from false claims of loss or theft. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Fact that officer who opened unsealed cans found in defendant's impounded vehicle while conducting inventory search of vehicle was suspicious of the cans did not render search, which was conducted according to police department's procedures manual providing that containers that were not locked or sealed should be opened to inspect for valuables, unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Davenport, 134 Fed. Appx. 523 (3d Cir. 2005).

See United States v Young (DC Del) 369 F Supp 540, § 7[a].

Where police, after checking license and registration of motorist observed attempting to start automobile parked on street, discovered, through phone call, that motorist was wanted on narcotics charge and arrested motorist and, preparatory to having inoperable automobile towed away for impounding, opened automobile door to inventory contents and saw packet of glassine envelopes protruding in plain sight from between backrest and front seat and, upon examining them, concluded that they contained heroin, such search and seizure of envelopes was proper, objects being in plain view and discovery being inadvertent. U. S. ex rel. Clark v Mulligan (DC NJ) 347 F Supp 989.

See United States v Davis (CA5 Ala) 496 F2d 1026, reh den (CA5 Ala) 503 F2d 568, § 14[a].

Inventory search of camper portion of pickup was proper, where police legitimately seized pickup after finding it illegally parked in early hours of morning attended by person without valid driver's license, where during inventory search of cab of pickup police discovered large amount of cash, where officers learned that person attending truck did not own truck and denied any interest in money, where officers observed other items of personal property in camper through window and where, in light of cash discovered in cab, further search was necessary to assure that any other valuable property possibly in camper would be recorded and kept safe. United States v Maier (1982, CA8 Minn) 691 F2d 421, cert den (US) 75 L Ed 2d 947, 103 S Ct 1524.

See U. S. v Lawson (DC SD) 355 F Supp 101, affd (CA8 SD) 487 F2d 468, § 12[b].

Search of small package shaped like book which was strapped to rear portion of motorcycle seat by two elastic cords, was pursuant to lawful inventory search where motorcycle had collided with another vehicle at intersection and was lying on its side few feet from unconscious operator when police arrived to supervise accident investigation, and where, pursuant to removal of motorcycle by private towing company, officers removed package and searched its contents for purpose of safeguarding valuables. State v Floyd (1978, App) 120 Ariz 358, 586 P2d 203, app dismd (US) 59 L Ed 2d 765, 99 S Ct 1487.

See Getty v State (1978, Fla App D3) 362 So 2d 322, § 8[a].

Where officer, after trespass arrest, made routine inventory of defendant's automobile prior to removing it at request of owner of premises, and found marijuana and orange capsule in plain view, drugs were subject to seizure and could be introduced in evidence. State v Cash (Fla App) 275 So 2d 605.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of defendant's impounded car was conducted pursuant to standard police procedure, and thus, inventory search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; trooper, who initiated the inventory search, stated that, once the decision to impound was made, it was the policy of the police department to inventory the vehicle according to standard police procedure in order to protect the violator and the police, and in so doing, the trooper completed a standard inventory form, listing all items of value found in the vehicle other than the contraband, and plastic bags containing marijuana and cocaine were found in plain view during the inventory search, and the removal of the bags from car's console was not unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Askew v. State, 755 S.E.2d 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Where detective, having driven arrestee's automobile to garage in police station after driver was arrested on secluded road at night when he was observed picking up sack of money left by victim pursuant to demand and threats received by telephone, promptly proceeded without search warrant to inventory contents of automobile and discovered handgun in plain view on front seat near folded–down center armrest, there was probable cause to search vehicle at police station and handgun was not product of unreasonable search. People v Babic, 7 Ill App 3d 36, 287 NE2d 24.

In absence of search incident to valid arrest and in absence of probable cause for search, good faith inventory search of lawfully impounded automobile should be limited to items within plain sight. State v Boster, 217 Kan 618, 539 P2d 294 (citing annotation).

Search of opaque, unmarked blue pill bottle found in center cup holder of vehicle was reasonable and within scope of valid inventory search of vehicle, where police department instructed officers to open such containers during inventory searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; LSA–Const. Art. 1, § 5. State v. Escoto, 41 So. 3d 1160 (La. 2010).

See State v Short (1991, La App 4th Cir) 588 So 2d 151, § 7[a].

See State v Waters (1979, Minn) 276 NW2d 34, § 7[a].

See State v Achter (Mo App) 512 SW2d 894 (citing annotation), § 9[a].

See State v Sawyer (1977, Mont) 571 P2d 1131, § 15[b].

See State v Jones, 122 NJ Super 585, 301 A2d 185 (envelope found in plain view between seat and console), § 6[a].

See People v Henriquez (1990, 1st Dept) 162 App Div 2d 206, 556 NYS2d 581, § 14[a].

Police conducting lawful inventory search of vehicle following arrest of operator for driving with suspended license could properly examine contents of crumpled up paper bag suspended by wire from dashboard, and cocaine discovered in bag was properly used as evidence against operator charged with possession of controlled substance. People v Gonzalez (1983, 1st Dept) 92 App Div 2d 512, 459 NYS2d 281, affd 62 NY2d 386, 477 NYS2d 103, 465 NE2d 823.

Following arrest of defendant for being in physical control of motor vehicle while under influence of alcohol and officer's decision to impound vehicle, examination of contents of passenger compartment, including contents of unlocked canvas bag, for purpose of making inventory, was lawful. State v Muralt (1985, ND) 376 NW2d 25, cert den 479 US 1063, 93 L Ed 2d 997, 107 S Ct 947.

See State v Keller (Or) 510 P2d 568 (citing annotation), § 4.

See State v Flittie (1988, SD) 425 NW2d 1, § 12[a].

See Capps v State (Tenn) 505 SW2d 727, § 12[a].

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 11[b] Objects in plain view—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

Applying the rule that the police must obtain lawful custody of a vehicle before they can lawfully conduct an inventory search, the court held in the following case that the observance and discovery of a narcotics instrument in plain view during the course of the search constituted an unlawful search.

In United States v Pannell (1969, Dist Col App) 256 A2d 925, a police officer testified that after he had arrested a driver for driving without a permit and had impounded his vehicle, he proceeded to take an inventory of the contents when he saw the tip of a syringe sticking out from under the mat on the floor of the front seat, next to the "hump." Rejecting the contention that the seizure of the narcotics paraphernalia was justified on the ground that the syringe was in plain sight of the officer after he entered the automobile to take the inventory, the court held that the police had no lawful basis for taking the automobile into custody, and that, therefore, they had no duty to inventory the contents of the car. Accordingly, the court affirmed a judgment suppressing evidence of the narcotics paraphernalia.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See People v Counterman (Colo) 556 P2d 481, § 17.

Evidence of drugs seized in search of vehicle involved in single car accident was inadmissible, where evidence was discovered inside container within cloth bag by highway patrolman not conducting inventory search, which was responsibility of police officer on scene, and where container with drugs was not in plain view. State v Potter (1982) 8 Kan App 2d 52, 648 P2d 1162.

Inventory exception to warrant requirement did not provide justification for warrantless viewing of videotape found in videocamera in bed of pickup truck in which armed robbery defendant was riding; officer's testimony at suppression hearing and preliminary hearing made no mention that he seized camera and viewed it in effort to inventory the truck's contents prior to impoundment, and he testified at preliminary hearing he needed to see whether camera belonged to occupant of truck or had been taken in another armed robbery. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Merchant, 713 So. 2d 577 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998).

See State v Luna (1980) 93 NM 773, 606 P2d 183, § 7[b].

Warrantless search of purse which defendant placed on hood of her car, at officer's direction, after she exited the vehicle and prior to the canine pass, was not justified as an inventory search of the impounded vehicle; search of the purse preceded the inventory search, and in any case the purse was not part of the contents of the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Boler, 106 A.D.3d 1119, 964 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dep't 2013).

Where defendant, who was suspected of manufacturing drugs, was validly stopped by police officers while driving converted school bus on public highway, and inside of bus, in plain view of officers, was property they knew to be stolen, where defendant was arrested and bus driven to police lot where it was impounded, and where police officers opened

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

closed, unlocked trunk while defendant was in jail, search of closed container could not be justified as inventory search and, there being no exigent circumstances at time of initial seizure, warrantless search was not constitutionally justifiable. State v Dowens (1979) 285 Or 369, 591 P2d 1352.

See State v Walden, 15 Or App 259, 515 P2d 407, infra § 15[a].

Where defendant was arrested on suspicion of rape and thereafter lost consciousness, police acted properly in impounding his truck, and subsequent inventory search which revealed gun in plain view was also proper. State v Sweet (1986) 44 Wash App 226, 721 P2d 560, review den 107 Wash 2d 1001.

See State v McDougal, 68 Wis 2d 399, 228 NW2d 671, infra § 14[b].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 12[a] Search of trunk—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

Under the particular circumstances of the following cases, an inventory search of the trunk of a vehicle impounded by the police was held lawful.

US United States v Barnes (DC NY) 443 F Supp 137, 2 Fed Rules Evid Serv 779, affd (CA2 NY) 604 F2d 121, cert den 446 US 907, 64 L Ed 2d 260, 100 S Ct 1833, habeas corpus proceeding (CA2 NY) 814 F2d 888 United States v Walker (1991, CA5 Tex) 931 F2d 1066 United States v Duncan (1984, WD Mich) 586 F Supp 1305, affd (1985, CA6 Mich) 763 F2d 220 United States v Velarde (1990, CA7 Ill) 903 F2d 1163 U.S. v. Wallace, 102 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 1996) United States v Martin (1977, CA10 Okla) 566 F2d 1143 Ala Stone v State (1986, Ala App) 501 So 2d 562 Cal People v Superior Court (Moraza) (1989, 6th Dist) 210 Cal App 3d 592, 258 Cal Rptr 499, review den Ga Highland v State (1978) 144 Ga App 594, 241 SE2d 477 Stanley v State (1989) 191 Ga App 603, 382 SE2d 686 Ind Griffin v State (1978, Ind App) 372 NE2d 497 Ky See Cardwell v Commonwealth (1982, Ky App) 639 SW2d 549 Mich People v Rocha (1981) 110 Mich App 1, 312 NW2d 657 NJ State v Roberson (1978) 156 NJ Super 551, 384 A2d 195 NM State v Ruffino (1980) 94 NM 500, 612 P2d 1311 NY

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

People v Prator 93 Misc 2d 303, 402 NYS2d 739 Ohio State v Robinson (1979) 58 Ohio St 2d 478, 12 Ohio Ops 3d 394, 391 NE2d 317, cert den (US) 62 L Ed 2d 309, 100 S Ct 297 Okla Fallon v State (1986, Okla Crim) 725 P2d 603 RI State v Louro (1991, RI) 589 A2d 1197 In People v Williams (1967) 67 Cal 2d 226, 60 Cal Rptr 472, 430 P2d 30, the court held that an inventory search into the trunk of an automobile impounded by the police after the driver had been arrested on suspicion of burglary was lawful, because, in view of the totality of circumstances present, the inventory was a continuation of a search lawfully begun at the scene of the arrest. The court affirmed a conviction for burglary.

For a case involving a search of a briefcase found in the trunk of an impounded vehicle, and in which such search was held lawful, see Roush v State (1967, Fla App) 203 So 2d 632, infra § 14[a].

In Mackall v State (1969) 7 Md App 246, 255 A2d 98, involving a prosecution for grand larceny, the court held that where a defendant and another were arrested for tampering with motor vehicles on a motel parking lot, and where it was discovered that the vehicle in which they were driving did not belong to either of them, the action of the police in inventorying the contents of the trunk, for the purpose of safeguarding the contents for the owner, was justified. The court noted that the police had made unsuccessful attempts to contact the vehicle's owner, that they did not know at the time of the inventory that any of the goods removed were stolen, and that the search was not for the purpose of making an exploratory search for incriminating evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

In Plitko v State (1971) 11 Md App 35, 272 A2d 669, involving a prosecution for carrying a shotgun in a motor vehicle, the court held that where a motorist was arrested for consuming alcoholic beverages in a motor vehicle parked on a public street and the arresting officer decided to impound his car, the action of the officer in removing the trunk key from the ignition keyring and taking an inventory of the contents of the trunk did not violate the driver's Fourth Amendment rights. The court noted that the vehicle was illegally parked at the time of the arrest, that the ignition keys were stuck in the ignition, and that under these circumstances it was not illegal for the officer, following the arrest and prior to having the vehicle towed away, to take an inventory of the contents of the trunk in order to safeguard whatever valuables may have been left in the car. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

In State v Wallen (1970) 185 Neb 44, 173 NW2d 372, cert den 399 US 912, 26 L Ed 2d 568, 90 S Ct 2211, involving a prosecution for keeping gambling devices for illegal purposes, the court held that where a patrolman had arrested and jailed a motorist for intoxication and had impounded his car, the conduct of the patrolman in opening the car's trunk during the course of an inventory, and in examining the contents of a vanity box which contained five pairs of dice and other gambling paraphernalia, did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. The court stated that the patrolman, having placed the driver in jail, had the duty to remove the automobile from the highway, and that in removing the automobile, necessary steps had to be taken to protect the contents of the car to insure the return of all personal property found therein to the owner and to protect the patrol against false claims of loss while the car was in the custody of law enforcement officers. The court observed that the inventory was not taken as a subterfuge for an unlawful search for incriminating evidence, and that, therefore, it did not constitute a search in the constitutional sense, but continued that even if it did, it was not an unreasonable search and seizure. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

Denying a motion to suppress evidence of stolen property discovered in the trunk of an impounded vehicle, the court in People v Kern (1971) 67 Misc 2d 495, 324 NYS2d 442, involving a prosecution for possession of stolen property, held that the conduct of an arresting officer in removing the keys from the ignition while the defendant driver was being booked at the station house, and in opening the trunk in order to "voucher" its contents and to safeguard them, was

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

lawful since the officer, in opening the trunk, was neither seeking evidence against the driver, nor doing more than was minimally necessary to "voucher" the car's contents. In reaching its decision, the court relied on an earlier case from its own jurisdiction, in which an inventory search was validated under similar circumstances. The court observed that the instant case was even stronger, because in the earlier case the search was validated even though the police searched not only the car, but also a briefcase found therein, whereas the police in the instant case merely opened the trunk and saw the stolen property in plain view.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See United States v Pappas (1979, CA1) 613 F2d 324, § 5[a].

Deputy's search of bags in trunk of arrestee's vehicle, which revealed presence of drugs, fell within inventory search exception to warrant requirement, and thus did not violate Fourth Amendment; policy of sheriff's department authorized opening of closed containers encountered during inventory search and properly curtailed discretion of searching officers, and deputy adhered to that policy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2009).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle, which included opening closed containers inside locked trunk, was conducted in accordance with standard procedures and was limited by purpose of safekeeping, precluding suppression of evidence in prosecution arising from armored car robbery; county sheriff's policy was to conduct inventory search upon arresting sole occupant of vehicle, which included inventorying defendant's property entirely in order to protect his property and to protect officer from any property being stolen or misplaced or taken from vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 1951(a). U.S. v. Foots, 340 Fed. Appx. 969 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 12, 2009).

See United States v Gravitt (CA5 Fla) 484 F2d 375, cert den 414 US 1135, 38 L Ed 2d 761, 94 S Ct 879, § 8[a].

District court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress drug seized as result of inventory search of automobile's trunk on ground that, to protect themselves against spurious claims of loss or stolen property, authorities must know contents of any vehicle which they impound. United States v Duncan (1985, CA6 Mich) 763 F2d 220.

Where automobile was illegally parked and apparently abandoned on private parking lot, and police, notified and requested to remove it, found door unlocked and keys on floor, whereupon one officer used keys to drive car to police lot for impounding purposes and then conducted inventory search of car's contents, including unlocking trunk in which he discovered counterfeit money and searching under front seat where he discovered wallet containing defendant's identification, inventory search was reasonable and evidence discovered would not be suppressed. U. S. v Gerlach (DC Mich) 350 F Supp 180.

Even assuming that police officer did not initially have probable cause to search trunk of automobile following Terry stop of vehicle, arrest of driver on outstanding warrant, and discovery of contraband on driver's person, weapon found in automobile's trunk was admissible against driver in felon-in-possession-of-firearm prosecution, since it inevitably would have been discovered when police took possession of vehicle and performed inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g). U.S. v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 2004).

See United States v Wilson (1991, CA7 Ill) 938 F2d 785, cert den (US) 117 L Ed 2d 115, § 14[a].

Evidentiary hearing would be required to determine police department's policy with respect to opening of closed containers encountered during inventory search to determine whether inventory search of impounded vehicle which

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

revealed cash and large amount of cocaine in locked compartment of car's trunk was lawful. United States v Kordosky (1990, CA7 Wis) 909 F2d 219, later app (CA7 Wis) 921 F2d 722.

Inventory search of defendant's auto after his arrest for driving with suspended license, in course of which search sawed off shotgun was found in trunk, was justified by police need to protect property of arrestee and to protect themselves against claims of loss. United States v Balanow (DC Ind) 392 F Supp 200.

In narcotics prosecution, search of exterior, passenger compartment, and trunk of car, pursuant to police department policy, was reasonable in that it had been conducted for valid law enforcement purposes and pursuant to established police policy. United States v Wilson (1985, CA8 Iowa) 758 F2d 304.

Hypothetical inventory search which would have resulted in police using force to break into locked trunk of vehicle if drug–sniffing dog had not been used during actual search to uncover trunk key and methamphetamine hidden in vehicle's gear shift boot would have been reasonable and consistent with standardized police procedure directing officers to inventory both locked and unlocked trunks, and thus discovered contraband was admissible under doctrine of inevitable discovery even if use of drug–sniffing dog rendered actual search unlawful. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Tueller, 349 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2003).

Pursuant to lawful inventory search Drug Enforcement Administration agents lawfully opened trunk of automobile and located two bales of marijuana, and lawfully searched game box found in trunk for purposes of inventorying its contents, which led to disclosure of 954 methaqualone tablets. United States v Laing (1983, CA11 Fla) 708 F2d 1568, reh den (CA11 Fla) 710 F2d 840 and cert den (US) 78 L Ed 2d 235, 104 S Ct 246.

See Vaughn v State (1985, Ala App) 473 So 2d 661, § 8[a].

See State v Scarborough, 110 Ariz 1, 514 P2d 997, cert den 415 US 1000, 39 L Ed 2d 892, 94 S Ct 1598, § 15[a].

See People v Contreras (1989, Colo) 780 P2d 552, § 7[a].

Search of automobile trunk to secure personal property after defendant was arrested for giving false information to police was lawful inventory search where no closed containers were opened and officer was not engaged in investigatory search. People v Meeks (1977, Colo) 570 P2d 835.

Inventory search in which dead body was found in trunk was reasonable where police were complying with prescribed impoundment and inventory search procedures, car was parked in high–risk area, had out–of–state license plates, whereabouts of its owner were unknown, and defendant, who was found in car and placed under arrest for public intoxication, had voluntarily turned over keys to police and invited search of vehicle. People v Trusty (Colo) 516 P2d 423 (citing annotation).

Police had proper grounds to conduct warrantless inventory search of defendant's unregistered car that was being towed from private parking lot and to open bag, containing gun, found in car's trunk; there was a long-standing police policy authorizing towing vehicles whether illegally parked, abandoned, seized as evidence or for other reasons and a clear cut set of procedures for conducting an inventory, and police followed those procedures in all respects. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Stallings, 60 A.3d 1119 (Del. Super. Ct. 2012).

Law enforcement officer did not exceed permissible scope of an inventory search of vehicle, which was conducted after vehicle was impounded following defendant's arrest for failure to maintain lane, by examining contents of bags and container found in vehicle's trunk. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's Ga.Code Ann. §§ 17–4–23(a), 40–6–48. Lopez v. State, 650 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Where driver and passenger of car parked in church parking lot and bearing expired out of state license were both arrested on outstanding charges and officer had received information that they might be armed, and where neither suggested that there was someone who could take charge of car, search including trunk of car was justified as inventory. Biggers v State (1982) 162 Ga App 163, 290 SE2d 159.

It was proper to admit into evidence marijuana discovered in inventory search of impounded auto since discovery was made not by search in technical sense but while marijuana was plainly visible to officer who had right to be in position to view it when he opened trunk to inventory contents and found marijuana in garbage disposal bag. Pierce v State, 134 Ga App 14, 213 SE2d 162.

Police officer's warrantless inventory search of defendant's impounded vehicle was reasonable under Federal and State Constitutions, though officer failed to make written inventory list, as required by sheriff's department procedure in county in which defendant was arrested; officer, upon observing several guns in vehicle's trunk, suspended search because it had been reported that victim's firearms had been stolen, and officer did not want to disturb evidence, search was legitimately suspended when guns were discovered and county in which crimes allegedly occurred took custody of vehicle, which meant that officer could not complete search, and lack of written record did not invalidate an otherwise reasonable search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

See Duncan v State (1977) 281 Md 247, 378 A2d 1108, § 9[a].

Proper noninvestigative inventory search reasonably includes opening locked trunk. Commonwealth v Garcia (1991) 409 Mass 675, 569 NE2d 385.

Evidence supported finding that search of closed briefcase that was contained in defendant's vehicle following impoundment of vehicle was conducted pursuant to standardized policy, and thus handgun inside of briefcase was admissible in prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon; evidence indicated that a standardized police procedure required officers to "inventory all available areas of the motor vehicle and any containers contained within that motor vehicle," and to list "all personal property of value," and officer testified that when he searched vehicle he inventoried all areas of the vehicle, and that when he searched the trunk, he found the briefcase, opened it to inventory it, and found the handgun. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. People v. Green, 677 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

See People v Wade (1987) 157 Mich App 481, 403 NW2d 578, § 8[a].

While an inventory search of a seized vehicle properly includes the contents of a locked trunk, the inventory search must be preceded by an attempt to allow the owner to first remove his own belongings, as the entire purpose of the inventory search exception to warrant requirement is based upon the need to safeguard the owner's property while it is in police custody. State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird, 349 N.J. Super. 352, 793 A.2d 792 (App. Div. 2002).

See State v Vigil (App) 86 NM 388, 524 P2d 1004 cert den 86 NM 372, 524 P2d 988, cert den 420 US 955, 43 L Ed 2d 432, 95 S Ct 1339, (citing annotation), § 8[a].

See State v Crickon (1988, Sandusky Co) 43 Ohio App 3d 171, 540 NE2d 287, cause dismd 39 Ohio St 3d 718, 534 NE2d 95, § 7[a].

In prosecution for trafficking in marijuana, inventory search of car, including search into closed containers found in trunk of defendant's lawfully impounded automobile met constitutional standard of reasonableness, since opening of containers was reasonably related to and effectively served legitimate societal interest that justify an inventory search,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

and officer was acting in with accordance standard departmental procedures. State v Bronaugh (1984, Hamilton Co) 16 Ohio App 3d 237, 16 Ohio BR 260, 475 NE2d 171.

Pursuant to inventory search following defendant's arrest for speeding and possible driving under influence of intoxicating liquor, police properly examined contents of tied garbage bag found in trunk of automobile. Johnson v State (1988, Okla Crim) 764 P2d 530.

Where defendant's vehicle was left unattended with keys in ignition, and parked in such manner as to constitute traffic hazard, vehicle was abandoned for constitutional purposes and impoundment and subsequent inventory were proper. Routine inventory search was properly extended to locked trunk of vehicle since by leaving keys readily available, defendant in effect left trunk unlocked. State v Lemacks (1980 SC) 268 SE2d 285.

Search of trunk of automobile, which revealed stolen typewriter, was proper, where driver had been lawfully arrested for driving under influence of alcohol, vehicle could not be secured at scene due to faulty locks, and search was standard inventory procedure that did not need to be confined to objects in plain sight. State v Flittie (1988, SD) 425 NW2d 1.

See State v Glenn (1983, Tenn) 649 SW2d 584, § 14[a].

After nighttime arrest of intoxicated out–of–state driver and passenger, and police decision to pull vehicle off emergency strip of interstate highway, police lawfully searched closed but unlocked army duffle bag located in trunk, and thus lawfully discovered 74 pounds of peyote cactus buttons. State v Roberge (1982, Tenn) 642 SW2d 716.

In prosecution for concealing stolen check–writing machine stemming out of prior arrest for possession of illegal weapon in which vehicle was impounded, checkwriter which was discovered in trunk of car in course of inventory search was admissible where car was in lawful custody and exclusive possession of U.S. Government, as authorized by federal statute, and where, once police gained lawful access to trunk, officers could constitutionally seize items within their "plain view." Capps v State (Tenn) 505 SW2d 727.

Trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that inventory search of vehicle's trunk and closed backpack inside trunk was permissible following arrest of defendant for traffic violations, even though defendant argued that search was not conducted pursuant to any established police guidelines, and no written policy governing inventory searches of closed containers apparently existed; there was evidence of established routine governing opening of closed containers, in that officer performing search testified that he was trained to inventory any container to which he had access, including locked trunk if he had key, and there was no evidence that search was ruse to discover incriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Richards v. State, 150 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2004), reh'g overruled, (Dec. 23, 2004).

Warrantless inventory search of vehicle, including bag contained in trunk, did not violate state or federal constitutional search and seizure rights of defendant who had been driving vehicle prior to his arrest for possession of marijuana, where officer conducted search in compliance with police department's inventory search policy. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Jurdi v. State, 980 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998), petition for discretionary review refused, (Apr. 21, 1999).

Inventory search of automobile and of briefcase in trunk was proper when conducted in accordance with standard policy for impoundment of vehicles wrecked during pursuit. Dotson v State (1990, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 785 SW2d 848.

See State v Johnson (1987) 60 Utah Adv Rep 30, 745 P2d 452, § 7[a].

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of closed container, discovered in trunk in course of legitimate inventory of contents of motor vehicle in lawful police custody, was not unreasonable under Fourth Amendment, especially where inventory search had been conducted in good–faith compliance with standard police procedures. Boggs v Commonwealth (1985) 229 Va 501, 331 SE2d 407, cert den 475 US 1031, 89 L Ed 2d 347, 106 S Ct 1240, reh den 475 US 1133, 90 L Ed 2d 207, 106 S Ct 1666, habeas corpus proceeding 485 US 993, 99 L Ed 2d 512, 108 S Ct 1302, habeas corpus proceeding (ED Va) 695 F Supp 864, affd in part and revd in part on other gnds (CA4 Va) 892 F2d 1193 and cert den (US) 109 L Ed 2d 521, 110 S Ct 2193 and stay den (US) 111 L Ed 2d 818, 111 S Ct 2, later proceeding (US) 112 L Ed 2d 193, 111 S Ct 233.

Inventory of contents of car, including those in locked trunk, after occupants were lawfully arrested was legitimate police practice and in harmony with First Amendment. Schaum v Commonwealth, 215 Va 498, 211 SE2d 73.

Search of trunk of defendant's car did not exceed scope of investigatory search, since trunk could be opened by use of automatic–release button in car's passenger compartment, so that risk of theft from trunk was substantial. State v White (1996) 83 Wash App 770, 924 P2d 55.

Search of toilet kit located inside shopping bag in locked car trunk was lawful where driver was arrested for traffic violation and officer was unable to ascertain true ownership of vehicle from registration and title. State v Houser (1978) 21 Wash App 30, 584 P2d 410.

See State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1, § 14[b].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 12[b] Search of trunk—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

Under the particular circumstances of the following cases, an inventory search of the trunk of a vehicle impounded by the police was held unlawful.

In Williams v United States (1969, CA5 Fla) 412 F2d 729, the court held that where a motorist was arrested at a motel parking lot for vagrancy, and where the car he was driving was impounded because it was abandoned and probably stolen, a search into the locked trunk was unlawful, and that evidence recovered from the search should not have been admitted at his trial for unlawful transportation in interstate commerce of, inter alia, a stolen motor vehicle. The prosecution testified that the motorist denied any knowledge of or connection with the car he was alleged to have been driving, and that a police check of the license number gave them probable cause to believe that it had been stolen. The court observed that while the disclaimer, and the police belief that the vehicle was abandoned and probably stolen, might have justified a limited search for evidence that would identify the true owner, the general exploratory search into a locked trunk was unjustified because the declared policy of making a general search was not specifically related to the reason the car was impounded. The court, therefore, reversed a conviction.

In People v Burke (1964) 61 Cal 2d 575, 39 Cal Rptr 531, 394 P2d 67, the court rejected an attempt to justify an inventory search of a trunk of an impounded vehicle on the ground that the police were authorized, under a state regulation, to remove a vehicle from the highway, and to store it in a designated place, whenever a person driving or in control of a vehicle was arrested for an offense which required them to take the arrested person before a magistrate without unnecessary delay. While conceding that the police were authorized by the regulation to remove a vehicle from the highway and to impound it, the court noted that the regulation did not purport to authorize the making of a search.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In People v Nagel (1971) 17 Cal App 3d 492, 95 Cal Rptr 129, the defendant motorist was arrested for running a red light and his car was impounded. The court held that an inventory search of the trunk, which revealed an unlocked suitcase containing a plastic bag of marijuana, was illegal and improper because police custodial care of the vehicle was neither necessary nor proper under the circumstances. The court pointed out that unlike the situation in which the driver, the sole occupant, was drunk or injured, the driver in the instant case was sober, unhurt, and capable of driving, and that no reason appeared on the record why he could not have taken charge of his own vehicle and driven it under the direction of an officer to a nearby place of safekeeping before being taken before a magistrate as required by the statute under which he was arrested. Moreover, observed the court, an arrest for running a red light could not by itself have justified a search of the car, for such search could have no relation to the traffic violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed a judgment suppressing the incriminating evidence found during the search.

In People v Heredia (1971) 20 Cal App 3d 194, 97 Cal Rptr 488, involving a prosecution for possession of marijuana, it was held that where a police officer who was conducting an inventory of the contents of the vehicle preparatory to impounding it, and who was not given the keys to the trunk, opened the trunk by pushing in the trunk lock and lifting the lid with his fingers, he conducted an unreasonable search of the trunk, and evidence of narcotics found therein was not admissible in evidence.

For another case involving a search not only of the trunk, but also of the glove compartment, and in which such search was held unlawful, see Pigford v United States (1971, Dist Col App) 273 A2d 837, infra § 13[b].

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), § 14[b].

Although breaking into car and inventory of contents by officers were sanctioned under well–established rules, entry into trunk was improper, since such act is not permitted except on basis of established probable cause. U. S. v Lawson (DC SD) 355 F Supp 101, affd (CA8 SD) 487 F2d 468 (holding that inventory search constituted search within meaning of Fourth Amendment; citing annotation).

Inventory search of automobile, including trunk thereof, preparatory to reasonable impoundment after arrest of driver and occupant for traffic and drunkenness offenses, was reasonable search, but officer's opening and examination of contents of closed satchel found in trunk was unlawful search. State v Gwinn (Del Sup) 301 A2d 291.

See Stevens v State (1982, Fla App D2) 412 So 2d 456, § 5[a].

See Session v State (1977, Fla App D4) 353 So 2d 854, § 8[b].

Search of trunk of impounded vehicle was unlawful after arrest of defendant on warrant for driver license violation where friends of defendant, who were on scene at time of arrest and before trunk search began, offered to take vehicle. Jones v State (1977, Fla App D4) 345 So 2d 809.

Search of trunk after defendant's arrest for speeding and driving with suspended license was not valid inventory search where defendant was not given opportunity to make arrangements for vehicle and where interior was inventoried prior to towing, whereas trunk was inventoried after vehicle had been towed. People v Alewelt (1991, 3d Dist) 217 Ill App 3d 578, 160 Ill Dec 484, 577 NE2d 809.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

After driver was arrested following routine check by state police of license plates of vehicles parked in interstate rest area on warrant charging contempt of court, warrantless inventory search of trunk of car was unreasonable where arrest of passenger, in addition to driver, was mere pretext concealing investigatory motive for search and where less intrusive alternatives were available in that passenger could have been given authority to move vehicle from highway. People v Fox (1978) 62 Ill App 3d 854, 20 Ill Dec 84, 379 NE2d 917.

See State v Hatfield (1978, La) 364 So 2d 578, § 7[b].

See State v Carey (1986, La App 1st Cir) 499 So 2d 283, § 7[b].

See People v Martin, 48 App Div 2d 213, 368 NYS2d 342, § 4.

See State v Peaten (1993) 110 NC App 749, 431 SE2d 237, § 5[a].

See State v Bradshaw, 41 Ohio App 2d 48, 70 Ohio Ops 2d 52, 322 NE2d 311, § 7[b].

Forced entry to locked trunk of automobile after arrest of driver could not be justified as inventory search; purpose of inventory is to protect items of owner of vehicle, and necessity of getting wrecker to remove back seat of vehicle to enter trunk indicated both other purpose of police and unlikeliness of items in trunk being stolen during impound. Gill v State (1980, Tex Crim) 625 SW2d 307, reh den (Dec 23, 1981).

Absent a showing of manifest necessity, the Washington Constitution prohibits an inventory search of a locked vehicle trunk. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. VanNess, 344 P.3d 713 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015).

Searches of locked trunks and locked containers are prohibited under the vehicle inventory exception to the warrant requirement, because privacy interests exhibited by placement of any property in such containers and in trunks outweigh the need to inventory the contents to protect the property or protect against false claims of theft. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Tyler, 302 P.3d 165 (Wash. 2013).

Warrantless search of vehicle trunk during inventory search of validly impounded vehicle violated Washington Constitution, though police used trunk release latch in unlocked glove compartment to gain access to the locked trunk; inside trunk release was merely a substitute for use of key to unlock trunk, warrantless searches of locked trunks are illegal in the absence of manifest necessity, and accessibility of trunk to a "would be thief" did not create manifest necessity for the search. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7; West's RCWA 46.20.435 (Repealed). State v. White, 135 Wash. 2d 761, 958 P.2d 982 (1998), as amended, (July 17, 1998).

Noninvestigatory inventory search of locked trunk found in impounded vehicle was beyond bounds of reasonableness and unlawful absent manifest necessity for conducting such search. State v Houser (1980) 95 Wash 2d 143, 622 P2d 1218.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 13[a] Search of glove compartment—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

Under the particular circumstances of the following case, it was held that a police search of an impounded automobile, which search extended to the glove compartment of the vehicle, was lawful.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Cal People v Steeley (1989, 5th Dist) 210 Cal App 3d 887, 258 Cal Rptr 699, review den (search pursuant to standardized, unwritten police procedure) Ill People v Clark, 65 Ill 2d 169, 2 Ill Dec 578, 357 NE2d 798 La State v Sims (1983, La) 426 So 2d 148 Mich People v Godwin (1979) 94 Mich App 286, 288 NW2d 354 Tex Martinez v State (1982, Tex App 4th Dist) 644 SW2d 104 In United States v Pennington (1971, CA5 Fla) 441 F2d 249, cert den 404 US 854, 30 L Ed 2d 94, 92 S Ct 97, the court held that where a driver was arrested for reckless driving and his car was impounded, an inventory search of the car which revealed a pistol in the glove compartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches, because the inventory procedure was a reasonable method for the protection of personal effects lawfully contained within lawfully impounded vehicles. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction for violation of a statute prohibiting a person previously convicted of a felony from transporting firearms in interstate commerce.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 49 L Ed 2d 1000, 96 S Ct 3092, on remand (SD) 247 NW2d 673, § 3[a].

See United States v Gravitt (CA5 Fla) 484 F2d 375, cert den 414 US 1135, 38 L Ed 2d 761, 94 S Ct 879, § 8[a].

Police officers did not unreasonably impound defendant's rental car or conduct an improper inventory search when they had it towed to police department complex; officers had the vehicle towed in anticipation of obtaining a search warrant, and detective looked inside the vehicle's glove compartment to obtain the vehicle's registration information to complete the tow slip, did not search further, and locked the car after finding the information. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Washington, 145 F. Supp. 3d 646 (E.D. La. 2015).

Where nonresident defendant was uncooperative when stopped for minor traffic violation, decision to take him to station to post bail was reasonable and thus, decision to transport defendant's car and conduct inventory search, including search of locked glove department pursuant to departmental policy, was reasonable. People v Kinney (1989, 4th Dist) 189 Ill App 3d 952, 137 Ill Dec 484, 546 NE2d 238.

Handgun found in glove compartment of impounded automobile was properly seized pursuant to lawful inventory search. Commonwealth v Oreto (1985) 396 Mass 1103, 485 NE2d 188.

Discovery of defendant's check book bearing his name and address in glove compartment of validly impounded vehicle came within inventory search exception to warrant requirement. State v Holt (1985, Mo App) 695 SW2d 474.

See State v Slockbower, 145 NJ Super 480, 368 A2d 388, § 7[a].

Search of vehicle's glove compartment was part of valid inventory search, and thus gun found in compartment was admissible in motorist's prosecution, where vehicle was properly stopped by police after speeding and driving recklessly,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

and defendant was driving with suspended out–of–state driver's license and could not produce registration papers for vehicle. People v. Johnson, 748 N.Y.S.2d 594 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2002).

See People v Gallego (1989, 2d Dept) 155 App Div 2d 687, 548 NYS2d 62, app den 75 NY2d 919, 555 NYS2d 37, 554 NE2d 74, § 8[a].

Police officer's inventory search of locked passenger compartment of impounded pickup truck was not a search of a locked compartment or closed container prohibited under city's inventory search policy, and thus search was lawful under state constitution; policy required the search of passenger compartment of impounded vehicles, whether locked or unlocked, and distinguished between passenger compartment and other compartments and closed containers. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Bostwick, 226 Or. App. 57, 202 P.3d 259 (2009).

See State v Walden, 15 Or App 259, 515 P2d 407, § 15[a].

See Backer v State (1983, Tex Crim) 656 SW2d 463, § 7[a].

See Robertson v State (Tex Crim App) 541 SW2d 608, cert den (US) 51 L Ed 2d 563, 97 S Ct 1145, § 9[a].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 13[b] Search of glove compartment—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

Applying the rule that an inventory search must be conducted in good faith and not as a pretext to make a general exploratory search for the purpose of finding evidence of crime, the court held in the following case that a police search of an impounded vehicle, which search extended to the glove compartment, was unlawful.

In Pigford v United States (1971, Dist Col App) 273 A2d 837, an inventory search of, among other places, the glove compartment of an impounded automobile, made within one hour after the driver's arrest for traffic violations and prior to his being incarcerated for failure to post the necessary collateral, was held exploratory and therefore illegal, the court rejecting the allegation of the police that the search was conducted for inventory purposes. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the court observed that the course of action taken by the police was inconsistent with the claim that it was necessary to take an inventory of the automobile's contents in order to protect the defendant's property. The court noted that the officers had failed to take the elementary precaution of locking the car doors after the "inventory" search, that they were admittedly suspicious of the defendant's conduct and had been watching him for a possible robbery, and that it was against such a background that within an hour after his arrest and while collateral for his release was being obtained, the search was conducted. The court reversed a conviction for receiving stolen property.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Search of locked glove compartment during routine inventory search conducted after defendant's arrest for driver's license violation was unreasonable as beyond scope of inventory search for purpose of protecting against substantial risks to property in vehicle. State v Miller (1980, Del) 420 A2d 181.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

See Clark v Commonwealth (1993, Ky App) 868 SW2d 101, § 7[b].

Police officer's warrantless search of vehicle's locked glove compartment following arrest of driver of vehicle that was subject of traffic stop was not a valid inventory search, since state failed to show existence of a city police department policy concerning the opening of locked containers during an inventory search; even if officer's testimony that a procedure existed for inventory searches was sufficient to establish existence of a routinized, general departmental inventory search policy, testimony failed to indicate whether such policy provided standardized criteria governing the search of closed or locked containers and, if so, that the search of the locked glove compartment had been done according to that policy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Briscoe v. State, 30 A.3d 870 (Md. 2011).

University police officer's search of illegally parked car was not valid inventory search, even though car was to be impounded because of many parking tickets, where sole motivation of police officer, who had found magazine clip in pocket of vehicle's apparent owner, in conducting the search was to discover the pistol, which officer found in locked glove compartment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1997).

Where upon information then available police would not have been entitled to search warrant authorizing breaking of lock of automobile console, subsequent acts of police officer during inventory search of automobile in forcing and breaking lock of console, which acts revealed loaded pistol, constituted unreasonable search and seizure. People v Stevens, 51 App Div 2d 899, 381 NYS2d 61.

See Kelly v State (1980, Okla Crim) 607 P2d 706, § 6[a].

Inventory of vehicle's contents, following police impound of vehicle, was neither search nor seizure, but rather, it was limited administrative act designed to protect defendant's property while in police custody. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Kruchek, 156 Or. App. 617, 969 P.2d 386 (1998), review allowed (Or. May 25, 1999).

Warrantless inventory search of compartment of defendant's automobile, which had been properly impounded, exceeded scope of constitutionally permissible search, where inventory was not justified by need to protect defendant's property, and where investigatory motive was behind search. State v Atkinson (1983) 64 Or App 517, 669 P2d 343, remanded 298 Or 1, 688 P2d 832.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 14[a] Search of briefcase, suitcase, or the like—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, the opening of a closed or locked briefcase during the course of an inventory search of a vehicle impounded by the police was held lawful.

In Roush v State (1967, Fla App) 203 So 2d 632, involving a prosecution for unlawfully possessing barbiturates, the evidence showed that after the driver of an automobile had been arrested for reckless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, he informed the police that he had $1,200 in cash in his automobile, whereupon the police proceeded to take an inventory of the contents of the automobile, in the course of which they found a briefcase in the trunk of the car, and took it to the police station where it was opened, and was found to contain barbiturates. Ruling that the search was lawful, the court held that discovery of the barbiturates was the result of the search for the money, which search was invited, impliedly if not expressly, by the statements made by the motorist when arrested. The

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

court also observed that it was a normal and a prudent action on the part of the police to search the automobile in order to protect the city, as well as the arrested party, from the effect of possible loss of the money, if in fact it was in his automobile. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

For another case involving the opening of a suitcase found in a trunk during the course of an inventory search of an impounded vehicle, and in which such search was held lawful, see Mackall v State (1969) 7 Md App 246, 255 A2d 98, supra § 12[a].

In People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE2d 464, 48 ALR3d 527, where the police removed an illegally parked and unattended car to a police storage facility and, in the course of an inventory, observed a black plastic briefcase which on examination was found to contain a loaded pistol, the court ruled that when a driver leaves his car unattended under such circumstances, he is not far from making an open invitation to authorities to remove it, and that he could not reasonably expect the police to leave a briefcase in open sight in the storage facility, or expect that when they took control of the briefcase, they would not determine what it contained and record its contents. The court observed that all the cases dealing with the subject permitted the opening of the vehicle and an inspection of the interior, and that the inspection of its contents was a matter of close degree and not a matter of constitutional differentiation as to what is reasonable. Accordingly, the court reversed a judgment dismissing an indictment for possession of a loaded gun.

In State v Keller (1972, Or App) 497 P2d 868, the court held that where the police had arrested a motorist for driving while her license was suspended and had summoned a tow truck to remove the vehicle from the street, a search of a closed fishing–tackle box, which search was made during the course of an inventory of the vehicle's contents, was proper, and narcotics found therein were admissible in evidence. The evidence showed that the police observed the box, whose latch was broken, on the floor of the back seat, that it was tied around with red wire, and that the police untied the wire, looked inside, and saw the narcotics. The court rejected the trial court's view that the inventory search was improper because the narcotics were not in plain view and rejected also the ruling that the police had no authority to untie the fishing–tackle box, and to look inside, without obtaining a warrant. Noting that other jurisdictions have expressed disbelief that it is necessary for police to make inventories in order to protect themselves from spurious claims of theft, or from liability for loss or destruction of property when they become responsible for vehicles by reason of arrest of the owners or occupants thereof, the court declared that it had reached the opposite conclusion. The court said that where the vehicle is to be placed in the possession of tow truckers and possibly others whom the police cannot constantly watch, it is unreasonable to hold that the rights of the motorist against invasion of privacy rise higher than those of the police to protect themselves against possible personal liability because they perform their duty. The court further stated that the search should not be a general exploratory search for the purpose of finding evidence of crime, but should be made for the justifiable purpose of finding, listing, and securing from loss, during the arrested person's detention, property belonging to him. In ascertaining the reasonableness of the search, the court declared that the first question to be determined is whether a bona fide arrest or arrests have been made which require taking into custody all the vehicle's occupants, so that the vehicle must be placed in the hands of third parties, and secondly, whether the security of personal property in the vehicle reasonably indicates that an inventory will be helpful in meeting claims of loss that may later be made. The court reversed a judgment granting the motorist's motion to suppress as evidence the narcotics.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Police officers, based on probable cause for warrantless impoundment and search of vehicle, were justified, five days after impounding the vehicle, in opening a bag found in the vehicle's trunk, which contained a pistol. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Donahue, 764 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2014).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Following traffic stop, officer's inventory search of laptop case and its contents found in defendant's vehicle and the towing of the vehicle were not conducted in bad faith; officer's search was justified under the police department's inventory search policy, while officer did not list every item in the vehicle he generally complied with standard procedures in conducting the search, neither defendant nor his passenger could drive the vehicle, and defendant's vehicle was stopped in a hazardous location. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. White, 707 Fed. Appx. 766 (4th Cir. 2017).

Scope of deputy sheriff's warrantless search of defendant's vehicle, following his arrest after traffic stop, did not violate the Fourth Amendment; safety concerns dictated that the vehicle be towed and impounded, it was routine practice to conduct an inventory search of containers located inside such impounded vehicles, deputy testified that his purpose in searching defendant's duffle bags was not to uncover contraband, but to catalog defendant's belongings and secure any valuables, and there was no indication that the search was undertaken in order to discover discriminating evidence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Hudson, 497 F. Supp. 2d 771 (W.D. Va. 2007).

Search of backpack found to contain $65,000 in allegedly drug–related cash was proper inventory search, where pack was in seized vehicle solely occupied by arrestee and Drug Enforcement Agency procedures required that all containers discovered during inventory searches are to be opened and inspected, removing objectionable element of evidentiary discretion from search. United States v Judge (1989, CA5 Tex) 864 F2d 1144, reh den, en banc (CA5 Tex) 868 F2d 1271.

Closed container found in course of inventory search of automobile may be searched without warrant. United States v Rizk (1988, CA5 Tex) 842 F2d 111, cert den (US) 102 L Ed 2d 66, 109 S Ct 90.

Search of briefcase in plain view on front seat of defendant's impounded automobile was not search and seizure in sense of police accumulating evidence for later use at trial but was legitimate inventory procedure. United States v Davis (CA5 Ala) 496 F2d 1026, reh den (CA5 Ala) 503 F2d 568.

Injured motorist's asserted privacy interest in closed bag that he removed from vehicle after accident did not outweigh police department's interest in conducting inventory search of bag, which motorist left when he was taken to hospital. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Tackett, 486 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2007).

Policy requiring officers to search all impounded vehicles and to inventory all items of value authorized officers to open and close containers, including duffle bag, in trunk of vehicle. United States v Wilson (1991, CA7 Ill) 938 F2d 785, cert den (US) 117 L Ed 2d 115.

Probable cause supported police officer's warrantless search of cooler in impounded vehicle during inventory search, regardless of whether police department's inventory policy provided him with authority to open cooler, where, prior to searching inside cooler, officer had obtained contradictory statements from car's occupants as to their destination, discovered plastic bag containing marijuana, and found dollar bill containing apparent drug residue. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Perez-Trevino, 891 F.3d 359 (8th Cir. 2018).

Search of briefcase found in trunk of car during inventory search after driver was arrested for selling cocaine to undercover officer was valid inventory search. United States v Porter (1988, CA8 Minn) 859 F2d 83.

State trooper's opening of duffel bag found in vehicle in ditch on side of road, during course of preliminary inventory search pursuant to vehicle's impoundment, was conducted according to standardized procedures of state highway patrol, and thus, was reasonable under totality of circumstances; highway patrol policy manual directed officers to conduct detailed inventory of all impounded vehicles, trooper testified he was trained to open closed containers during inventory searches, four-foot-long duffel bags found in vehicle were large enough to contain hazardous or dangerous materials or valuables, and there was no evidence that search was based on suspicion of criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 8. U.S. v. Le, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D.N.D. 2005).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Patrolman instructed to take speeding arrestee's car to city impounding lot, who discovered valuable watches in plastic cases on front seat and front floor of automobile and placed such watches in partially open sample case resting on floor of automobile and took sample case and contents into police station, where contents were inventoried and found to include 29 watches, blackjack, and automatic pistol, acted reasonably pursuant to standard procedure to protect contents of lawfully impounded automobile, and pistol was not procured by unreasonable search or seizure. U. S. v Mitchell (CA9 Mont) 458 F2d 960.

Sufficiently regulated inventory search permits law enforcement officers to search closed containers found inside impounded automobile. United States v Donnes (1991, CA10 Wyo) 947 F2d 1430.

Opening and search of bank bag lying on front seat of automobile lawfully subject to inventory search was reasonable where separate cataloguing of bag's contents reflected standard practice that served strong governmental interest in protecting automobile owner's property while it was in official custody and in insuring that no claims could be made that contents had been lost, stolen, or vandalized. In addition, record contained no showing that inventory was pretext used to investigate for evidence of criminal activity. United States v Kornegay (1989, CA10 Okla) 885 F2d 713, cert den (US) 109 L Ed 2d 508, 110 S Ct 2179.

Inventory search of impounded car used by mail–fraud defendants was not illegal even though conducted by off–duty detective, not lower–echelon officer, who had arrested defendant and who may have had expectation of uncovering evidence, where police department had written policy of routinely performing inventory searches of impounded vehicles, search was conducted routinely and did not exceed scope of usual inventory search, detectives sometimes performed such searches, and defendant made no showing that inventory search was used as pretext for investigatory search; detective's cursory search of briefcase found in car was illegal, however, where no exigency existed and warrant could have been obtained. United States v Bosby (1982, CA11 Ala) 675 F2d 1174.

Where inventory search of vehicle was reasonable, search of shaving satchel was also reasonable, since reason for conducting inventory is to safeguard valuables, and it is illogical to prohibit search of those areas wherein valuables are most likely to be placed. Re One 1965 Econoline, 109 Ariz 433, 511 P2d 168.

Deputy sheriff's search of duffel bag attached to rear seat of motorcycle, which had been lawfully seized, as part of inventory search, was properly conducted within permissible discretion granted under county policy for inventory searches, under which officers must check all valuables and property in vehicle and record them on towing form, and have discretion whether all property from the vehicle is seized or released to an individual, and thus was reasonable and did not violate Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Needham, 79 Cal. App. 4th 260, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899 (5th Dist. 2000).

Search of tote bag was valid inventory search under departmental policy to inventory all closed containers prior to being released, where bag was found inside automobile at time of impoundment. People v Salcero (1992, Cal App 3rd Dist) 6 Cal App 4th 720, 8 Cal Rptr 2d 578, 92 Daily Journal DAR 7017, ordered published (3rd Dist) 92 CDOS 4674, 92 Daily Journal DAR 7016, reported in full (3rd Dist) 6 Cal App 4th 720, 92 CDOS 4675.

Inventory search of vehicle impounded by police officer was lawful where driver and passenger of vehicle were being arrested for traffic infractions and outstanding traffic warrant, and vehicle had no windshield to protect expensive personal valuables and stereo system inside, even though Vehicle Code only authorized impounding of vehicles parked on public highway and driver had parked on private property; thus, motion to suppress narcotics discovered by officer in his search of closed container on back seat of car was improperly granted. People v Scigliano (1987, 4th Dist) 196 Cal App 3d 26, 241 Cal Rptr 546.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Search of tool box in pickup truck day after vehicle had been impounded following arrest of occupants for larceny by trick was lawful where search was routine, and presence of valuable tools and equipment in truck conferred upon police duty to safeguard property. Lewis v United States (1977, Dist Col App) 379 A2d 1168.

Pre–towing inventory search of Corvette parked in traffic lane of six–lane highway after nighttime arrest of intoxicated driver, which led to discovery of cocaine in latched vinyl case between front bucket seats, was lawful where driver had no expectation of privacy in contents of impersonal, self–identifying container which appeared, based on design and surrounding circumstances, that its contents contained music tape recordings like those playing on tape deck and scattered about car. Knight v State (1981, Fla App D1) 398 So 2d 908.

Where impoundment and inventory search of wrecked and abandoned automobile were proper, it was reasonable for officer conducting search to open closed but unlocked plastic box found in trunk. State v Evans (1986) 181 Ga App 422, 352 SE2d 599.

See State v Bray (1992, Idaho App) 834 P2d 892, petition for certiorari filed (Jan 6, 1993), § 5[c].

Officers properly searched coin purse found in trunk of impounded automobile, where officer, after determining there was money in purse, opened purse to inventory contents in order to protect owner's property and to protect herself and other officers from false accusations of theft or claims of missing property. People v Bradford (1993, 4th Dist) 239 Ill App 3d 796, 180 Ill Dec 556, 607 NE2d 625, app den 151 Ill 2d 568, 186 Ill Dec 386, 616 NE2d 339.

Where law officer arresting motorist for traffic offenses and for transporting open bottle of liquor, arranged to have automobile towed for impounding, and opened and examined contents of suitcase observed on back seat of automobile and found assorted supply of liquor therein, officer stating he opened suitcase to see if there was anything of value therein before he relinquished control to wrecker company and also to see if there was additional whiskey in car for use as evidence in open–bottle case, search of suitcase was warranted both as incident to arrest of defendant and as inventory search for safekeeping purposes, and fact that search was made at scene of arrest rather than subsequently at jail or station house was immaterial. State v Undorf, 210 Kan 1, 499 P2d 1105.

Following defendant's arrest on cocaine charges, police acted reasonably in impounding her vehicle, which she had left in nearby parking lot, and in searching purse left in plain view on front seat; also, since purse could not have been left in plain view and would have been returned to defendant had vehicle not been impounded, contents of purse would most likely have been discovered during search for weapons or inventory search subsequent to booking. People v Krezen (1986) 427 Mich 681, 397 NW2d 803.

See State v Vigil (App) 86 NM 388, 524 P2d 1004 (citing annotation), cert den 86 NM 372, 524 P2d 988, cert den 420 US 955, 43 L Ed 2d 432, 95 S Ct 1339, § 8[a].

Warrantless inspection of closed paper bag was permissible, where defendant had been lawfully arrested for stealing vehicle, bag was found on front seat, and inspection was done as part of routine inventory search. People v Henriquez (1990, 1st Dept) 162 App Div 2d 206, 556 NYS2d 581.

Police officer's search of defendant's purse after it was removed from her vehicle while she was arrested and awaiting transport to jail following a traffic stop was a valid administrative inventory search, as required for application of inventory search exception to warrant requirement, where officer testified that there was a standardized highway patrol policy regulating the removal and search of a person's belongings incident to incarceration, search ensured that no weapons were concealed in purse and protected officer from dangerous instrumentalities, and officer retrieved purse from vehicle so that defendant's personal belongings would have been returned to her and accompanied her to jail. U.S.C.A.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Const.Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 14. State v. Banks-Harvey, 2016-Ohio-2894, 64 N.E.3d 570 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Warren County 2016), appeal allowed, 146 Ohio St. 3d 1502, 2016-Ohio-5792, 58 N.E.3d 1173 (2016).

During inventory of lawfully impounded vehicle, the police may inventory the contents of containers when doing so is necessary to serve the inventory's purposes. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Connally, 339 Or. 583, 125 P.3d 1254 (2005).

See State v Keller (Or) 510 P2d 568 (citing annotation; reversing State v Keller, 9 Or App 613, 497 P2d 868), supra § 14[b].

Police officer could open closed drawstring bag found underneath seat of defendant's car pursuant to city's vehicle inventory ordinance; car was lawfully impounded after officer, who made traffic stop, determined that defendant's insurance had expired, purpose of ordinance was to inventory valuable and dangerous personal property, bag was large enough to contain valuable personal property, ordinance, by requiring officer to open all closed containers that officer reasonably believed could hold dangerous or valuable personal property, eliminated discretion, and officer did not open every closed container that he discovered during inventory. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9; West's Or.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 809.720. State v. Stone, 232 Or. App. 358, 222 P.3d 714 (2009).

Where defendant was involved in automobile accident and was taken to hospital in rescue vehicle, and where police conducted investigatory search in conjunction with having defendant's automobile towed, marijuana found in closed unlocked suitcase pursuant to department policy of opening all containers was admissible. State v Bonin (1991, RI) 591 A2d 38.

After lawful seizure and impoundment of defendant's car for reckless driving, search of clothes, unlocked suitcase and briefcase found in trunk for purpose of itemizing contents was proper. State v Glenn (1983, Tenn) 649 SW2d 584.

Seizure of 102.5 pounds of marijuana contained in opaque garbage bags found in trunk of automobile driven by man arrested for public drunkenness was lawful where police had impounded vehicle and opened bags pursuant to routine inventory and officers had no way of knowing what bags contained or what security measures would be required to protect that property against loss or damage. State v Howard (1982, Tenn) 645 SW2d 751.

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by police inventory of contents of defendant's vehicle, including contents of closed ice chest, cardboard box, shopping bag, closed plastic key box located under driver's seat, where inventory was conducted pursuant to established departmental policy that included opening closed containers, police were unable to ascertain contents of containers by containers' exteriors, and where there was no evidence that inventory was ruse to discover incriminating evidence. Autran v State (1994, Tex Crim) 887 SW2d 31, motion for rehearing on PDR denied (Nov 9, 1994).

Evidence supported trial court's finding that law enforcement officer acted in good faith in searching diaper found in defendant's van during inventory of van's contents and, thus, that search was reasonable under state constitution, where officer testified that he found what appeared to be diaper tightly wrapped in plastic bag on top of defendant's personal business papers and that he detected no odor from diaper. Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004).

See Jurdi v. State, 980 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998), petition for discretionary review refused, (Apr. 21, 1999), § 12[a].

Inventory search of defendant's half–locked, half–unlocked briefcase found in automobile upon defendant's arrest did not violate defendant's rights under state or federal constitution where search was mandated by departmental policy requiring search of all closed containers in impounded vehicles, and where there was no showing or contention of bad

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

faith on part of police. Heitman v State (1989, Tex App Fort Worth) 776 SW2d 324, petition for discretionary review gr, revd on other gnds (Tex Crim) 815 SW2d 681, motion for rehearing on PDR denied (Sep 18, 1991).

Automobile–inventory search of defendant's vehicle, following his arrest for driving while under influence of alcohol, in which police discovered hashish contained in closed but unlocked vinyl case on back seat of vehicle did not violate Fourth Amendment, where inventory was conducted pursuant to established, standardized police– department procedure. Wooldridge v State (1985, Tex App San Antonio) 696 SW2d 252.

Police officers were justified in opening shaving kit, which was found to contain methamphetamine, during routine inventory search of vehicle after defendant had been arrested for driving while intoxicated since, by placing shaving kit in bed of pickup, defendant was not indicating any great expectation of privacy, and since officer was justified in examining contents of kit to determine if there was anything of value in it and whether it would be appropriate to remove it from bed of pickup. Mayhood v State (1984, Tex App Corpus Christi) 669 SW2d 873.

See Curren v State (1983, Tex App San Antonio) 656 SW2d 124, § 8[a].

Search of unlocked but zippered–shut briefcase found in backseat of automobile following arrest of owner for possession of cocaine was lawful since police had duty to inventory contents of automobile following occupants' lawful arrest. Hamby v Commonwealth (1981) 222 Va 257, 279 SE2d 163.

See State v Mireles (1994) 73 Wash App 605, 871 P2d 162, § 9[a].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 14[b] Search of briefcase, suitcase, or the like—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, the opening of a closed but unlocked case during the course of an inventory search of a vehicle impounded by the police was held unlawful.

In Boulet v State (1972) 17 Ariz App 64, 495 P2d 504, the court held that where the police observed an apparently immobile vehicle on the shoulder of a highway and called a tow truck to have the vehicle removed, a search of a closed shaving satchel, in the course of making an inventory of the vehicle's contents, was improper, and marijuana found therein was not admissible in evidence. Ruling that an "inventory search" constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the court said that in deciding the reasonableness of the search it was faced with the problem of balancing competing interests. While the automobile owner is concerned with the protection of his property and his right to privacy, noted the court, law enforcement officers and storage bailees (where the vehicle is stored in a private garage) are interested in protecting themselves against unfounded claims of missing or damaged goods. Stating that all of these competing interests could be satisfied short of an inventory search, the court observed that the taking of an inventory does not insure the safety of the vehicle's contents, nor does it ipso facto prevent an owner from later claiming that goods had been stolen or damaged. The court pointed out that unscrupulous persons who desired to steal articles would simply not list them on the inventory, and that owners who wished to assert spurious claims against law enforcement officers or storage bailees could simply claim that the officers had not listed them on the inventory. In fact, stressed the court, instances could be envisioned where the taking of an inventory might actually alert potential thieves to the value of items contained in the automobile. In balancing the conflicting interests, the court ruled that it found a countervailing interest in maintaining the privacy of one's personal effects and preventing anyone,

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

including the police, from searching suitcases and other closed containers which might be in the automobile at the time it was being removed to storage. The court suggested that items of value left in an automobile to be stored by the police, could be adequately protected merely by rolling up the windows, locking the vehicle doors, and returning the keys to the owner. In cases of automobile accidents where damage to the car might prevent such action, the court suggested that after making an inventory of any personal property in plain sight within the automobile, the officers could take such property as they might deem necessary into their custody, and, if they wished for their own protection, they could seal suitcases, briefcases, packages, and the like. The court further added that it did recognize that the police do have the authority to inspect and inventory all items of personal property in plain sight within the vehicle and, if necessary, to lock these items in the trunk, or transfer them to some other place for safekeeping. Accordingly, the court concluded that there were no circumstances to justify the search of the contents of the shaving satchel without a warrant, and reversed a judgment admitting into evidence the marijuana found therein.

In Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84, the court held that a search of an unlocked suitcase observed on the rear seat of an automobile following its impoundment was unjustified, notwithstanding that the search was part of a routine police inventory of the contents of the vehicle preparatory to placing it in storage. The court ruled that in an area of constitutional protection, the contention of the police that the inventory search into the closed case was reasonably necessary to protect the owner's personal property from loss or damage, and to protect the police and the storage bailee from unfounded tort claims, was without substantial merit. In weighing the necessity of the inventory search as a protection of the owner's property, against the owner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, the court observed that items of value left in an automobile to be stored by the police may be adequately protected merely by rolling up the windows, locking the vehicle doors, and returning the keys to the owner. The court further added that in the instant case, where the automobile involved was a convertible, adequate protection of valuables could be achieved by raising the top, or if necessary, by moving visible items, like the small suitcase, into the trunk for safekeeping. Conceding that the police, in the course of an inventory search, may take note of any personal property in plain sight within the automobile being taken into custody, the court stated that it found unpersuasive the contention of the prosecution that the inventory of contents not within plain sight was reasonable because it was necessary to protect the property for the benefit of the vehicle owner, the court pointing out that in those circumstances where the driver of the vehicle was on the scene and the police could have readily ascertained his preference for the care of his personal property, there was little doubt that he would have preferred that the police simply close the windows and lock the doors, rather than search the contents of the car. In reaching this decision, the court expressly disapproved of a series of cases

which had validated inventory searches involving objects not in plain view. 7

In People v Denman (1971) 19 Cal App 3d 632, 97 Cal Rptr 23, where state police, in the course of an inventory of an impounded vehicle, opened a closed but unlocked attache case which was lying on the rear seat of the vehicle, the court held that the inventory was violative of the driver's Fourth Amendment rights because, by its nature, it involved a random search of the articles left in the vehicle and because there were no other circumstances to justify the search of the vehicle without a warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed a judgment dismissing an information for possession of marijuana.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Two paper receipts that were recovered from defendant's purse, which indicated that, prior to her vehicle being stopped by police for driving while intoxicated, she had patronized two bars, were not lawfully recovered pursuant to an inventory search, as there was no evidence the search was conducted in accordance with a standardized, written protocol. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Thomas, 131 A.D.3d 712, 2015 WL 5023047 (2d Dep't 2015).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In absence of highway patrol policy regarding opening of closed containers during inventory searches of vehicles, highway patrolman's search of locked suitcase, found in trunk opened with defenant's permission as part of inventory search, violated Fourth Amendment, since absence of such policy allowed police officers so much latitude that inventory searches were turned into ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence; while police may establish policy mandating either that all containers be opened during inventory searches or that no containers be opened, policy that allowed police officer sufficient latitude to determine whether particular container should be opened in light of nature of search and characteristics of container itself would not violate Fourth Amendment. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990).

Opening of brief case by IRS during inventory search conducted in absence of standardized procedure was invalid and items found in brief case were inadmissible. United States v Hahn (1991, CA5 Tex) 922 F2d 243.

Police exceeded permissible scope of routine inventory search where, after unconscious defendant suffering from seizures was removed from behind wheel of his vehicle which was blocking traffic and transported by ambulance to hospital, officers opened knapsack which was zipper–closed and tied with string, and which was discovered to contain cash and contraband. United States v Bloomfield (1979, CA8 Minn) 594 F2d 1200.

Inventory of defendant's car, after defendant had been arrested for driving under influence of alcohol and had been removed from scene following auto accident, did not justify opening of closed but unlatched briefcase which contained marijuana, cocaine, and pistol. State v Daniel (1979, Alaska) 589 P2d 408.

While seizure of evidence in "plain view" during inventory search was not improper, search of zippered compartment within closed flight bag constituted an unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment, since such search entered into constitutionally protected area of privacy without warrant and without probable cause. People v Grana, 185 Colo 126, 527 P2d 543 (citing annotation).

Officer's bona fide inventory search of automobile, made preparatory to reasonable impoundment of vehicle, following lawful arrest of driver and passenger for traffic and drunkenness offenses, for purpose of safeguarding property for protection of owner, police, and tow company, and not to gather evidence, was lawful, but officer's opening and search of contents of closed satchel found in trunk of automobile was unlawful search not justified under "plain view" exception to search warrant requirement, and suppression of evidence of marijuana so found in satchel was proper. State v Gwinn (Del Sup) 301 A2d 291.

Evidence obtained from search of defendant's briefcase removed from behind seat of defendant's pickup truck during inventory search following defendant's arrest should have been suppressed where search was neither incident to arrest nor based upon probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances. Kuhn v State (1983, Fla App D3) 439 So 2d 291.

Search of brown leather pouch or "purse" located next to bank deposit bag discovered on floor of vehicle in front of driver's seat after arrest of driver for intoxication was unlawful inventory search where record failed to reflect search was conducted pursuant to standard highway patrol procedures, and where defendant had expectation of privacy in her personal luggage superior to legitimate police interest in securing car for towing and inventory of its contents. Hicks v State (1981, Fla App D1) 398 So 2d 1008.

Where briefcase that was found in defendant's van involved in accident did not pose threat to police officer, it could have been protected from loss of theft while in police custody by placing it in locked locker or storage room, and officer himself could have been protected against later claim of theft by locking briefcase and leaving key at hospital where defendant had been taken following accident along with defendant's other personal belongings and by sealing briefcase with tape and initialing it or by sealing it in some other suitable manner in presence of nurse, there was no proper governmental purpose served by and no reasonable justification for warrantless intrusion into defendant's briefcase in

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

which he obviously had substantial expectation of privacy; purpose of opening briefcase was not to make inventory of its contents but was to search for contraband which officer believed to be contained in briefcase. People v Hamilton (1979) 74 Ill 2d 457, 24 Ill Dec 849, 386 NE2d 53.

Investigating officer's opening of opaque prescription bottle that contained cocaine paraphernalia could not be justified as lawful inventory search conducted on assault defendant's automobile, which was towed because it was illegally parked after defendant's arrest for sidewalk altercation, where state failed to offer evidence that container was opened pursuant to valid written procedures established by police agency. People v Williamson (1993, 4th Dist) 241 Ill App 3d 574, 181 Ill Dec 692, 608 NE2d 943.

Opening of closed drawstring bag found in trunk during inventory search was improper where defendant was arrested for speeding and driving with suspended license and where there was no departmental policy for opening closed containers during routine inventory and where other luggage in trunk was not searched. People v Lear (1991, 5th Dist) 217 Ill App 3d 712, 160 Ill Dec 501, 577 NE2d 826, app den 142 Ill 2d 660, 164 Ill Dec 923, 584 NE2d 135.

Although police properly impounded vehicle and properly searched as to other items in vehicle, opening of tool box was improper and items inside box would be suppressed. People v Dennison (1978) 61 Ill App 3d 473, 18 Ill Dec 756, 378 NE2d 220.

Police officer exceeded scope of warrantless inventory search in course of traffic stop for driving left of center when he searched defendant's purse, where he only had evidence of defendant's driving infractions, he had already told defendant that she was not going to jail, and defendant had not abandoned purse inside vehicle or otherwise disclaimed ownership of purse. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11.; West's A.I.C. 9–21–8–2(a). Combs v. State, 878 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Warrantless inventory search of locked metal box located in van that had allegedly been stolen was not reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, as county sheriff's department policy, which provided that closed containers could be opened, made no reference to locked containers, such that there was no clear department policy or procedure that mandated opening of locked container as part of an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Lucas, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Search of black cloth bag, which was closed container, found on floor next to gas pedal during warrantless inventory search of vehicle impounded following traffic stop violated state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, in absence of motorist's knowing and voluntary consent to search bag. Iowa Const. art. 1, § 8. State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 2018).

In prosecution for driving while under influence of alcohol, speeding, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and trafficking in cocaine, search by police, during inventory search of defendant's truck, of closed gym bag found in open truck bed violated state constitution, where there was no written police policy with respect to whether and under what circumstances closed container should be opened and inventoried; trial court properly suppressed contents of bag and defendant's statement concerning bag as fruit of unlawful search. Commonwealth v Bishop (1988) 402 Mass 449, 523 NE2d 779.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle, which was impounded on basis that it was unregistered and uninsured, should not have extended to interior of backpack found in vehicle, where defendant's grandmother was present and willing to take possession of defendant's backpack prior to officers' search of backpack, and officers had given other property of defendant to grandmother prior to searching backpack. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Nicoleau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 518, 61 N.E.3d 470 (2016).

See State v Greenwald (1993, Nev) 858 P2d 36, § 7[b].

See Obermeyer v State (1981, Nev) 625 P2d 95, § 8[a].

Warrantless search of defendant's locked attache case located in trunk of stolen vehicle was not justified on basis of inventory search where there was complete absence of any facts suggesting that briefcase contained contraband, explosives or instrumentalities which could place police or others in danger, and where there was no reason why case could not have been inventoried as "one locked briefcase" which police knew belonged to vehicle's driver, person police suspected of stealing vehicle. State v Pace (1979) 171 NJ Super 240, 408 A2d 808.

Warrantless search of defendant's zippered satchel taken from trunk of mother's car could not be justified as inventory search where actual inventory search had taken place five days prior at time of arrest and where police had not thought it necessary to search trunk or glove compartment during five days vehicle was in custody either for inventory or any other reason. State v Parker (1977) 153 NJ Super 481, 380 A2d 291.

See People v Townsend (1989, 1st Dept) 152 App Div 2d 515, 544 NYS2d 349, app gr 74 NY2d 953, 550 NYS2d 288, 549 NE2d 490 and app dismd 76 NYS2d 746, 557 NE2d 777, § 5[c].

Police conducting inventory search of narcotics defendant's impounded vehicle could not lawfully open suitcase in vehicle's trunk absent the existence of a standardized policy or practice governing the opening of containers during an inventory search. State v. Howard, 146 Ohio App. 3d 335, 766 N.E.2d 179 (5th Dist. Muskingum County 2001).

Officer's search of unzipped leather bag located on front floorboard of passenger's side of vehicle, revealing bottle containing phencyclidine, was not valid inventory search where seizure and search of bottle was unnecessary and not in furtherance of purpose of inventory, which could have been achieved by leaving bottle in zipped bag and storing it with contents of vehicle during impoundment. Avriett v State (1985, Okla Crim) 699 P2d 666.

After stopping and arresting defendant for driving automobile with suspended driver's license, police, inventorying vehicle's contents before it was towed away, found on floor in front of driver's seat open cosmetic case containing syringes and needles in plain view, and also observed on floor of back seat fishing–tackle box closed by wire tied around it, and removing such wire, they opened tackle box and found therein five vials of liquid, litmus paper, and razor blades, which liquid later was determined to be dangerous drug. Such opening and searching of closed fishing–tackle box was held an unreasonable search violative of defendant's constitutional rights, court pointing out that after police found syringes and needles in plain view in partially opened cosmetic case, they could have obtained search warrant from disinterested magistrate on probable cause to permit search of wired fishing–tackle box. State v Keller (Or) 510 P2d 568 (citing annotation; reversing State v Keller, 9 Or App 613, 497 P2d 868).

Seizure of defendant's backpack pursuit to inventory search of vehicle was invalid; city's impound and inventory ordinances did not provide for seizure of backpack, and defendant had removed the backpack from the car and thus inventorying its contents served none of the purposes justifying inventory exception to warrant requirement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Dimmick, 248 Or. App. 167, 273 P.3d 212 (2012).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Fish oil capsule container found under driver's side car seat during inventory search of defendant's car following defendant's arrest was not designed to hold valuables, and thus police officer's opening and inspection of the container was not authorized under inventory policy which permitted the opening and inspection of only those closed containers designed to hold valuables, and, consequently, the officer's conduct effectuated an unlawful search. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Keady, 236 Or. App. 530, 237 P.3d 885 (2010).

Officer's opening jewelry box found in vehicle in which defendant was a passenger exceeded scope of inventory search made prior to towing of vehicle following traffic stop, thus violating city ordinance and defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Gilley, 188 Or. App. 450, 71 P.3d 582 (2003).

Officer's act of opening contents of purse accessory kit found during officer's inventory of impounded vehicle was not permissible under municipal inventory ordinance or police department's general order, and thus drug evidence found in accessory kit was subject to suppression; while inventory was lawful for items designed to carry valuables, officer did not testify that accessory kit appeared to be designed for carrying valuables or even that he expected to find valuables when he opened accessory kit. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Swanson, 187 Or. App. 477, 68 P.3d 265 (2003).

Opening of zipped bag during inventory search of moving van after driver was arrested for DWI violated Fourth Amendment in absence of standardized procedures allowing opening of closed containers during inventory searches. State v Shamblin (1988, Utah App) 763 P2d 425, 94 Utah Adv Rep 31.

In prosecution for possession of heroin with intent to deliver, although inventory search of defendant's car before it was removed from motel parking lot at motel manager's request, after defendant had been arrested on narcotics violation charge, was valid and legally included car trunk, search of purse located in car trunk was beyond permissible scope of inventory search and unjustified. State v Prober (1980) 98 Wis 2d 345, 297 NW2d 1.

Scope of inventory search was proper as to items in plain view, but examination of contents of locked suitcases violated Fourth Amendment since neither of stated purposes of search, to protect police against false claims for lost property and to protect contents for owner, was served thereby. State v McDougal, 68 Wis 2d 399, 228 NW2d 671.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 15[a] Search under or around seat—Held lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

A search under or around the seat of an impounded vehicle during the course of an inventory search by the police was held lawful in the following cases.

US United States v Smith (1989, ND Tex) 714 F Supp 1393 DC Madison v United States (1986, Dist Col App) 512 A2d 279 Mich People v Boutell (1977) 80 Mich App 216, 263 NW2d 36 NY People v Prator 93 Misc 2d 303, 402 NYS2d 739

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Or State v Weeks (1977) 29 Or App 351, 563 P2d 760 Pa Commonwealth v Smagala (1989) 383 Pa Super 466, 557 A2d 347, app den 524 Pa 619, 571 A2d 382 Tex State v Garcia (1990, Tex App San Antonio) 801 SW2d 137, petition for discretionary review ref (Jan 30, 1991) In Knight v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 900, it was held that a jewelry box found under the front seat of an impounded vehicle during the course of an inventory of its contents was admissible in evidence at the defendant's trial for breaking and entering a dwelling and for grand larceny. A police officer had found the defendant motorist sleeping on the rear seat of his automobile, which was parked in a residential district. On further investigation, it was found that the vehicle was improperly licensed, whereupon the police arrested the motorist, impounded the vehicle, and, prior to towing it away, made an inventory of the contents. Relying on an earlier case from its own jurisdiction, the court ruled that the trial court correctly denied a motion to suppress the evidence, and affirmed a conviction.

The action of a police officer in seizing a horseshoe nipper discovered behind a car seat during the course of an inventory of an impounded vehicle was held in State v Armstrong (1967) 149 Mont 470, 428 P2d 611, not to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. The court, therefore, affirmed a conviction for petit larceny.

Affirming a conviction for, inter alia, unlawfully carrying an unlicensed pistol in a vehicle, the court in State v Olsen (1953) 43 Wash 2d 726, 263 P2d 824, held that where, during the course of an inventory of the contents of a car, the police found a fully loaded automatic pistol behind a folding armrest in the rear seat, such item was not obtained as a result of an illegal search, because the evidence showed that the rear–seat area of the car was piled high with numerous articles of personal property, and that the police officers were performing a routine duty in checking the articles for safekeeping when the pistol was found.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See United States v Gravitt (CA5 Fla) 484 F2d 375, cert den 414 US 1135, 38 L Ed 2d 761, 94 S Ct 879, § 8[a].

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle, including under floor carpeting, was within parameters of police department's policy, which authorized search of all interior areas; carpet was "ripped up," which drew officer's attention, officer simply lifted already loose flap of carpet that appeared to have been tampered with based on his reasonable belief that it might be concealing a hiding place for items, and officer did not search under all of vehicle's carpeting, but just portion that appeared to have been disturbed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Jackson, 682 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2012).

Fourth Amendment was not violated by inventory of defendant's impounded vehicle, made for purposes of safekeeping of property and guarding against false claims and conducted in accordance with established inventory procedure, and handgun found under left front seat was admissible in evidence against defendant. United States v Spitalieri (DC Ohio) 391 F Supp 167.

Where officer arrested driver and occupants of car for armed robbery, visual search under car seats, on seats, and in trunk for anything of value was lawful inventory search. State v Scarborough, 110 Ariz 1, 514 P2d 997, cert den 415 US 1000, 39 L Ed 2d 892, 94 S Ct 1598.

See State v Broomfield (1978, Fla App D2) 364 So 2d 863, § 7[a].

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that police officers' search of the zippered, red bag that was found under the driver's seat of motorcycle was conducted pursuant to State Patrol procedures, which required all items of value be listed and, thus, did not exceed the permissible scope of the inventory search of defendant's motorcycle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Grizzle v. State, 310 Ga. App. 577, 713 S.E.2d 701 (2011).

See State v Joyner (1984, La App) 445 So 2d 179, cert den State v Joyner (1984, LA) 447 So 2d 1068, § 7[a].

Police officer's checking of askew seat panels as part of inventory search of defendant's impounded vehicle was reasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414 (2013), petition for cert. filed, 82 U.S.L.W. 3095 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2013).

State trooper acted reasonably in searching open garbage bags he observed in rear seat of vehicle impounded following its driver's arrest. People v. Morman, 145 A.D.3d 1435, 43 N.Y.S.3d 619 (4th Dep't 2016).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle complied with applicable departmental policy and served its purpose, such that weapon found during search was legally seized; policy and procedures of police department required that an inventory be conducted of the contents of any impounded vehicle to safeguard that property and protect the department from any claim that property had been stolen from the vehicle while it was in its possession, after officer decided to impound defendant's vehicle and while he waited for a tow truck to take the vehicle to police headquarters, defendant began the search and, at that time, discovered a loaded handgun under the driver's seat, and officer, at headquarters, completed the search and filled out appropriate forms, which included a list of the property that had been found in the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Robinson, 891 N.Y.S.2d 752 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010).

See People v Hassele, 53 App Div 2d 699, 385 NYS2d 113, § 8[a].

When officer, during inventory search incident to arrest, following traffic stop, of driver of vehicle in which defendant was passenger, found small plastic bag inside folded bottle cap under passenger seat, alongside used syringe and methamphetamine pipe, officer had objective probable cause to believe that controlled substances were present, and opening of bag was reasonably within scope of search for that contraband. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Stock, 209 Or. App. 7, 146 P.3d 393 (2006).

Car which had been identified by witness as having left scene of crime was stopped by police and its occupants, including defendant, were arrested for burglary; police locked car and left it along roadway, returning later to conduct warrantless inventory search preparatory to storage. Although state failed to carry its burden of proving that search was reasonable on ground that items taken from glove box area, under front and rear seat areas, and on floor between front and back seats were in plain view, search was lawful on independent ground that car was instrumentality of crime. State v Walden, 15 Or App 259, 515 P2d 407.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 15[b] Search under or around seat—Held not lawful

[Cumulative Supplement]

In a few cases, a search under or around the seat of an impounded vehicle during the course of an inventory search by the police has been held unlawful.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In State v Ruiz (1972) 17 Ariz App 76, 495 P2d 516, the court held that where police discovery of marijuana on the back seat of an impounded vehicle during the course of an inventory search would have constituted probable cause for issuance of a search warrant, the continued search of the vehicle, absent any exigent circumstances dispensing with the requirement of a warrant, was improper, and that therefore a plastic bag containing marijuana, discovered under the front seat of the automobile, was properly suppressed. Pointing out that at the time of the search, the defendant had been incarcerated following his arrest for burglary, and that the automobile was completely immobilized in front of the police station, the court ruled that the police should have secured a warrant after they discovered the marijuana on the seat if they desired to conduct a general search. Accordingly, the court affirmed a judgment suppressing the plastic bag of marijuana.

In Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793, a motorist was arrested for reckless driving and later charged with cultivation and possession of marijuana on the basis of evidence of growing marijuana plants discovered in a pan under the front seat of his automobile in the course of an inventory search. Citing the rule that custodial possession of an automobile is not an inevitable concomitant of an arrest of the driver, the court ruled that the search was unjustified and went on to hold that the Constitution does not permit an otherwise unreasonable search of a car simply because the police have statutory authority to arrest and to take the accused before a magistrate, and also have the right to cause the car to be removed from the highway. Observing that an arrest for a traffic violation alone could not have justified a search of the car, because it could have had no relation to the traffic violation, and noting that there were no other suspicious circumstances which could have justified the search, the court concluded that there was no necessity to take the car into custody, and that, therefore, an inventory of the contents of the car was not necessary and violated the driver's Fourth Amendment rights.

In People v Greenwood (1971, Colo) 484 P2d 1217, involving a prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana, where a paper bag of marijuana was discovered under the front seat of an impounded automobile, in the course of an inventory search, the court ruled that since it was conceivable that the driver might have been erroneously advised as to the bond he would have to post for certain traffic violations, and also conceivable that he would have posted the required bond had he been properly advised, the police had lacked the authority to impound his vehicle upon his failure to post the bond, and consequently lacked the authority to take the inventory of the contents which resulted in the discovery of the incriminating evidence. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for further hearing and determination in this respect.

Williams v United States (1961, Mun Ct App Dist Col) 170 A2d 233, involved a prosecution for carrying an unlicensed gun. A driver was arrested by the police for speeding, and the police sought to justify their examination of the interior of the vehicle, which examination revealed a loaded pistol lodged under the front seat, by contending that the examination

and inventory procedure was conducted pursuant to a police department administrative order. 8 The court stated that although it would not question the propriety of the police regulation which authorized the officer to thoroughly search and to make an inventory of the contents of an impounded, stolen, or abandoned vehicle, there was no legal basis by which the police acquired control of the automobile in the instant case, and that therefore the search of the automobile, which revealed the weapon, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. Reversing a conviction, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the automobile was impounded pursuant to the police department regulation which authorized an inventory of the automobile, and added that it was insufficient merely to show that the automobile had been parked in front of the police station and that it had to be removed from the street.

In Mayfield v United States (1971, Dist Col App) 276 A2d 123, involving a prosecution for unlawful possession of narcotics, the evidence showed that after a police officer had arrested a driver on a traffic violation, and while the driver was being booked inside the station, the officer impounded the automobile and proceeded to take an inventory of its contents, finding a brown envelope which contained the narcotic, and which he testified he had observed the driver slip under the front seat when the driver went back to his car momentarily after being notified that he was under arrest. Rejecting the contention that the search was justified under a regulation requiring police officers, after impounding an automobile which had been stolen, abandoned, or left unattended, to make an inventory of the contents of the car and

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

to remove any valuables for safekeeping, the court held that while it did not question the propriety of such a regulation, it had been consistently held that in situations where the search occurs in a parking area contiguous to a police station while the accused is inside the building being booked on a traffic charge, resort to the impoundment procedure does not make admissible, at least for the prosecution of wholly different offenses, articles thereby uncovered which would be otherwise inadmissible as violating Fourth Amendment principles. Accordingly, the court reversed a conviction.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

See Session v State (1977, Fla App D4) 353 So 2d 854, § 8[b].

See State v Rome (1978, La) 354 So 2d 504, § 7[b].

See State v Green (1986, La App 2d Cir) 482 So 2d 930, § 7[a].

After defendant was arrested for reckless driving, search and seizure by police of amphetamines discovered under driver's seat violated state constitutional rights; inventory search incident to lawful custody of impounded vehicle must be limited in scope to articles in plain view from outside vehicle. State v Sawyer (1977, Mont) 571 P2d 1131.

See State v McDaniel (1978) 156 NJ Super 347, 383 A2d 1174, § 5[a].

See People v Rivera, 72 Misc 2d 307, 339 NYS2d 82 (holding search under driver's seat of automobile unreasonable), § 4.

Officer's conduct in removing rear seat of vehicle exceeded bounds of inventory search and constituted "search for evidence." People v Lloyd (1990, 4th Dept) 167 App Div 2d 856, 562 NYS2d 257.

See People v Solano (1989, 2d Dept) 148 App Div 2d 761, 539 NYS2d 494, § 4.

See Commonwealth v Anderl (1984) 329 Pa Super 69, 477 A2d 1356, § 15[b].

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 16. Search under floormat

[Cumulative Supplement]

In the following cases, a search under the floormat of an impounded vehicle during the course of an inventory search by the police was held unlawful.

In United States v Pannell (1969, Dist Col App) 256 A2d 925, the evidence showed that during an inventory search of an impounded vehicle, a police officer saw the tip of a syringe sticking out from under the mat on the floor of the front seat, next to the "hump," and that when he rolled back the mat, he discovered narcotics paraphernalia. Affirming a judgment declaring the search unreasonable and suppressing the incriminating evidence, the court held that the record showed that the police had no lawful basis for acquiring custody of the automobile, and that absent such lawful custody, any subsequent search was exploratory and forbidden.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In Miller v State (1962, Fla App) 137 So 2d 21, the court held that a search beneath the floormat of a vehicle was improper and could not be justified on the ground that the police officer had a responsibility as a policeman to safeguard anything of value that might be fonnd in the car. The evidence indicated that after the defendant had been arrested for a traffic violation and his car had been impounded, the officer proceeded to take an inventory of the car's contents. Upon looking inside, he noticed something protruding from a torn place in the floormat. The mat was lifted and a bundle of adding machine tapes rolled around lottery tickets was found and offered in evidence at his trial for possession of lottery tickets. The court stated that a search beneath the floormat was not necessarily a component part of the investigating officer's duty to protect the owner's valuables.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

The district court did not commit clear error in finding that the relevant inventory search policy permitted state troopers to search under the floor mats of defendant's vehicle after stopping defendant for speeding, determining that his driver's license was revoked, and calling for a tow truck to remove the vehicle; the two troopers who conducted the search testified that the Massachusetts State Police written inventory policy required a search of all interior areas of a vehicle, including floor areas and all unlocked containers, that the floor area included the area under floor mats, and that officers usually looked under floor mats during an inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Richardson, 515 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2008).

Where officer searching car noticed that two separate parts of carpet between driver's seat and door overlapped, concealing area where property could be secreted, lifting of carpet and discovery of evidence secreted therein were proper. United States v Edwards (1978, CA5 Ga) 577 F2d 883.

Routine inventory search made prior to releasing vehicle to its proper owner was reasonable under Fourth Amendment; thus, stolen license plates and pieces of identification, wrapped in newspaper which protruded from under mat behind driver's seat, found by deputy sheriff, were admissible in prosecution for knowing transportation of stolen vehicle in interstate commerce. United States v Jamerson (CA9 Wash) 549 F2d 1263.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 17. Miscellaneous places

[Cumulative Supplement]

An inventory search of a vehicle impounded by the police was held lawful in the following case involving a search of places other than those discussed in §§ 11- 16, supra.

In State v Olsen (1953) 43 Wash 2d 726, 263 P2d 824, involving a prosecution for unlawfully carrying an unlicensed pistol in a vehicle and for unlawfully possessing burglary tools, the court held that where during the course of a police inventory of the contents of a car for safekeeping, a set of tools commonly used by safe burglars was found in the space between the car's radiator and the front grill, and where a "sap" and a police badge were found on a ledge under the dashboard, such items were not obtained as a result of an illegal search, because the evidence showed that the rear–seat area of the car was piled high with numerous articles of personal property, and that the police officers were performing a routine duty in checking the articles for safekeeping when the above–mentioned items were found which implicated the defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed a conviction.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

If officer, in conducting inventory search, examined contents of each paper found in seized automobile, then officer would have exceeded proper scope of inventory search. D'Antorio v. State, 926 P.2d 1158 (Alaska 1996) (applying US and Ohio law).

Warrantless automobile inventory search of pickup truck, driver of which had been arrested for vehicle theft following traffic stop, was reasonable, regardless of fact that several spaces on inventory form were not filled out by police; standard police procedures required inventory searches of all recovered stolen vehicles, there was no showing of ulterior motive, and standard procedure involving canine unit was followed as to package containing unfamiliar material found in back of truck's cab. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Garcia-Robledo, 488 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.P.R. 2007).

Officer's inventory search of trap door in defendant's motor vehicle was valid, where officer stayed within guidelines of inventory search procedures of police department when he searched under vehicle's floor mat that was identified by its highly visible plastic edging, and mat was not a piece of carpeting firmly attached to floor that could only be removed with a knife or other cutting tool that would have exceeded the inventory search procedures. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Banks, 150 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

See United States v Ponce (1993, CA5 Tex) 8 F3d 989, § 5[b].

In prosecution involving providing false identification in transaction affecting interstate commerce, officer's search of pockets of jacket hanging in rear seat of impounded vehicle, which uncovered false driver's license and checkbook, did not exceed scope of reasonable inventory search, where search (1) was conducted pursuant to local police procedures, (2) was necessary to safeguard any valuables contained in pockets, and (3) was necessary to guard against claims of theft, negligence or vandalism on part of police. United States v Ford (1989, CA6 Ohio) 872 F2d 1231, cert den (US) 109 L Ed 2d 309, 110 S Ct 1946.

Removal of vehicle's interior panel as part of inventory search following traffic stop far exceeded its permissible scope, and, accordingly, was conducted in violation of Fourth Amendment, since officers conducted search for purpose of locating contraband; officers readily admitted that their search was conducted for purpose of locating contraband, body camera footage supported their admission, and officers did not list one single item of personal property on impound report other than contraband. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torbert, 207 F. Supp. 3d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2016).

Search of vehicle exceeded permissible scope of warrantless inventory search when officer, upon noting that vehicle's windows did not function properly, used flashlight to look inside window for obstruction and opened door panel upon seeing what appeared to be bundle of marijuana; state inventory policy did not specifically allow looking inside door panels, and officer's looking inside window and opening panel did not serve purpose of protecting car and its contents. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. U.S. v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223 (8th Cir. 1998).

See United States v Lewis (1993, CA8 Mo) 3 F3d 252, § 7[a].

Search of air filter compartment in vehicle's engine cabin as part of the inventory search following legal impoundment of vehicle driven by defendant arrested on suspicion of driving-under-the-influence (DUI) comported with police department policy and did not violate the Fourth Amendment; air filter compartment in vehicle was large enough to hold a firearm, police officers commonly checked air filter compartments because contraband such as narcotics and weapons were often hidden in such places, and it was reasonable for police department to maintain an inventory search protocol

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

that encompassed areas where weapons could be stored in a manner reasonably accessible to the owners of vehicles in the process of being impounded, or others who may have access to the vehicle after it was impounded. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).

Local law enforcement officer's search of closed containers found in automobile during routine inventory search was invalid, rendering evidence seized from such containers inadmissible in subsequent federal prosecution for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, where state law prohibited any inspection of closed, locked or sealed luggage, containers, or packages contained within vehicle during a routine inventory search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 14. U.S. v. Franklin, 233 Fed. Appx. 741 (9th Cir. 2007).

Police officer did not exceed scope of permissible warrantless inventory search of impounded vehicle by opening eyeglasses case before allowing defendant to remove case from vehicle during process of inventory search, in light of department policy of inventorying all items in vehicle, and in light of reasonable need of officer to record contents of case to protect himself from possible claim that he removed, damaged, or destroyed its contents before he handed it over to defendant. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. Thompson v. State, 333 Ark. 92, 966 S.W.2d 901 (1998).

As part of inventory search, police are permitted not only to search impounded vehicle, but also containers within vehicle. Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997).

Deputy exceeded scope of lawful inventory search when he removed vehicle dashboard console following traffic stop and impoundment of vehicle as removal was inconsistent with sheriff's department protocol allowing deputies to search places where people "commonly" put items of value, including closed containers, though State argued that concealed area behind console functioned like closed container; concealed area behind the dashboard console was not an area where people commonly put items of value, concealed area was hidden compartment and not a closed container like a suitcase, box, or backpack, and deputy did not observe anything through the enlarged dashboard gap such as a weapon that would present a danger to the officers. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Zabala, 19 Cal. App. 5th 335, 2018 WL 359950 (6th Dist. 2018).

Following traffic stop and impoundment of vehicle, removal of vehicle dashboard exceeded scope of lawful inventory search, as it was inconsistent with sheriff's department protocol which allowed deputies to search places where people "commonly" put items of value; concealed area behind the dashboard console was not an area where people commonly put items of value, nor was it a closed container, and deputy did not observe anything through the enlarged dashboard gap such as a weapon that would present a danger to the officers. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Zabala, 2017 WL 5248445 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2017).

Warrantless dashboard console search was supported by probable cause, where suspicious white powder and plastic bags were found under driver's seat during scope of a lawful inventory search of the vehicle following traffic stop and impoundment of vehicle, deputy noticed that dashboard console had been tampered with, and deputy's training and experience taught him that people used hidden compartments to conceal contraband in vehicles and he believed area behind dashboard was being used as a hidden compartment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Zabala, 2017 WL 5248445 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2017).

Although knapsack was in plain view in defendant's stationwagon after defendant had been arrested and jailed on felony fraud by check charge, where contents of knapsack were securely sealed and completely unknown to arresting officer, knapsack did not give any indication that its contents were dangerous or particularly valuable and in need of special inventory, legitimate purposes of inventory search could have been fully accomplished by merely noting item as sealed knapsack, and defendant could have been offered choice of full inventory of contents at police station; thus, both Fourth

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Amendment of United States Constitution and provision of state constitution were violated by inventory search of knapsack and evidence obtained thereby was properly suppressed. People v Counterman (Colo) 556 P2d 481.

Warrantless search of cooler found in defendant's van during an inventory search did not violate state constitutional search and seizure provisions; the search was conducted according to standardized police department policy, and the officer did not act in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. Colo. Const. art. 2, § 7. People v. Parks, 2015 COA 158, 370 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2015), cert. denied, 2016 WL 1645043 (Colo. 2016).

In prosecution for possession of cocaine, search of aerosol cans with false bottoms constituted illegal search, where cans were found in closed tote bag in trunk of impounded automobile. Roberson v. State, 566 So. 2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1990).

Officer's decision to impound defendant's vehicle was reasonable, given the lateness of the hour, the unsafe location, and defendant's apparent lack of insurance for car, and once car was properly impounded, the inventory search that uncovered the drugs was also proper; defendant presented no evidence that car was actually insured, that his aunt would have been available to retrieve car, or that such retrieval could have taken place in reasonable amount of time, car was stopped on an on-ramp to interstate, defendant lived 45 miles away, and there was no evidence that he made any request for disposition of the car other than impoundment. Colzie v. State, 572 S.E.2d 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Inventory search of impounded vehicle, after it was stopped for vehicle code violation and driver arrested for driving under influence, properly included search of opaque black plastic bag inside of closed but unsealed cardboard box found on front seat of vehicle. Garner v State (1980) 154 Ga App 839, 269 SE2d 912.

See Denson v State, 128 Ga App 456, 197 SE2d 156, § 8[a].

After lawful empoundment and inventory search of unattended vehicle towed from wreck, officer's decision to open cigarette case in which cocaine was found because of his experience that women often kept their drivers licenses and money in such containers was reasonable exercise of officer's judgment, and order suppressing evidence of cocaine was reversed. People v Hundley (1993) 156 Ill 2d 135, 189 Ill Dec 43, 619 NE2d 744.

Warrantless inventory search of vehicle was proper and evidence of cocaine discovered under dashboard was properly admitted where vehicle was lawfully impounded following arrest of accused by undercover agent for dealing in cocaine. Freeman v State (1989, Ind) 541 NE2d 533.

Inventory search of defendant's truck, following stop for infraction, was not sufficiently regulated by standardized police procedures, and was thus pretextual; police officers gave vague, conflicting testimony regarding police department's inventory regime, inventory regime included conflicting written and unwritten policies, and inventory regime thus was not capable of sufficiently regulating search, and even if it was capable, officers' major deviation from regime by opening fast-food bag in which methamphetamine was found "because it was suspicious" gave rise to inference of pretext confirmed by other evidence and not overcome by State. Sams v. State, 71 N.E.3d 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Warrantless search of defendant's jacket that defendant had removed before exiting vehicle on police officer's request did not fall within inventory search exception to warrant requirement, despite police officer's testimony that vehicle was impeding traffic and was going to be towed incident to defendant's arrest on outstanding warrant, where, although police department had procedure in placing for towing vehicles, no evidence was produced at trial indicating that police officer followed that procedure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Anderson v. State, 64 N.E.3d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

In determining reasonableness of inventory search, court must examine propriety of impoundment as need for inventory arises from the impoundment and scope of inventory must be evaluated; where either is clearly unreasonable, the search will not be upheld. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's A.I.C. Const. Art. 1, § 11. Friend v. State, 858 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Warrantless search of steering column of defendant's impounded vehicle was based on probable cause that arose during lawful inventory search, and was therefore permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement; fact that the vehicle had been impounded and removed from the scene of seizure before inventory search was commenced and probable cause arose for broader automobile exception search was of no constitutional moment, in that the reasonableness of the search could not turn on fortuity of whether the inventory search was commenced and contraband was discovered before or after the vehicle was removed from the scene of the stop or seizure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Allensworth, 748 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2008).

See State v Casteel (1986, Iowa App) 392 NW2d 168, § 5[a].

Deputy's failure to list every item of value in defendant's van during inventory search following traffic arrest and to give defendant any alternative options regarding disposition of van did not establish that search was ruse for investigatory search; no evidence suggested that deputy had hidden agenda as to search, deputy had never come into contact with defendant, did not recognize van, and had no reason to suspect defendant of hiding contraband in van, deputy performed inventory search pursuant to department procedure, deputy testified that it was his practice to only list those items of value during inventory searches, and inside of van was very cluttered, making it possible that some items of value were overlooked. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV. State v. Shelton, 93 P.3d 1200 (Kan. 2004).

Officer, who was impounding car, exceeded the limits of permissible warrantless searches for weapons in searching a day planner after discovering it contained no weapons and then searching the trunk of the car; police officer impounded car but did not arrest defendant, and defendant then asked to retrieve some items from the car, and unsure of his safety, the officer searched car first, and without any probable cause, the officer continued to search day planner even though day planner contained no weapons. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Warren, 171 P.3d 656 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).

See Clark v Commonwealth (1993, Ky App) 868 SW2d 101, § 7[b].

Facts surrounding search of defendant's car, after defendant had been arrested for obstructing highway and removed from car, which produced illegal drug, supported conclusion that police officers were searching for incriminating evidence and not collecting personal items found in car which might be stolen and thus needed to be inventoried either for police department's protection or to safeguard defendant's property, where, inter alia, there was no evidence that standard inventory forms were completed and kept for future reference (showing presence or absence of valuables), or that place of safe keeping for valuables so secured was maintained, where car was not formerly impounded within custody of official storage agency at time and record did not even clearly reflect that tow truck had been called before search began, where vehicle's custodian was present at time of so–called inventory search and where, additionally, contraband was inside of Excedrin bottle, an unlikely place for anything of value which owner could complain was lost or stolen, and opening of bottle and inspecting its contents was inconsistent with purpose and permissible scope of true inventory search. State v Jewell (La) 338 So 2d 633 (citing annotation).

Evidence did not establish that search of closed nylon bag in trunk of motorist's vehicle, following motorist's arrest for traffic violations, was conducted pursuant to standard inventory search policy, and thus, search was not valid inventory search for which search warrant would not be required; arresting officer merely testified he performed an inventory and made out an inventory slip, and that he conducted the search pursuant to his personal routine for searching automobiles. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Sellman v. State, 152 Md. App. 1, 828 A.2d 803 (2003).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

See Ciriago v State (1984) 57 Md App 563, 471 A2d 320, cert den 300 Md 152, 476 A2d 721, § 8[a].

Police officers did not exceed permissible scope of inventory search, since area was "open area" at time officers conducted their search, where officers looked into area behind detached wall panel located underneath rear window on driver's side which created gap of one to two inches. Commonwealth v Figueroa (1992) 412 Mass 745, 592 NE2d 1309.

Opening of a locked safe, to which state and local police found the key in the course of an inventory search of an automobile, violated state constitution, since it was prohibited by written policies of state and local police; neither policy explicitly authorized opening locked containers for inventory of contents, and required instead that locked containers be inventoried as a single unit. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 14. Com. v. Difalco, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 401, 897 N.E.2d 1287 (2008).

Opening of white plastic bag containing methamphetamine found in car during purported inventory search conducted by police officers was illegal under inventory search exception of Fourth Amendment; although State presented evidence of policy requiring inventory search of all impounded vehicles, it did not present any evidence of standardized criteria or established routine governing opening of closed containers found during such search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; V.A.M.S. Const. Art. 1, § 15; V.A.M.S. § 542.296, subd. 1. State v. Ramires, 152 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2004).

Police did not exceed scope of inventory search when they read notebook and listened to tape, which were found in arrestee's impounded car. Collins v. State, 113 Nev. 1177, 946 P.2d 1055 (1997), reh'g denied, (May 12, 1998).

It is generally the inventory exception to the search warrant requirement that allows the search of closed containers removed from a vehicle. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 19. State v. Denoncourt, 821 A.2d 997 (N.H. 2003).

See People v Gonzalez (1984) 62 NY2d 386, 477 NYS2d 103, 465 NE2d 823, § 7[a].

Police entry into defendant's impounded car, and under its hood, was reasonable, where it was done in compliance with police department safeguarding procedures requiring police to disable all vehicles being safeguarded in order to prevent theft, and the limited entry into the car was done to protect the defendant's property and was not an attempt to search for incriminating evidence, as shown by fact that, upon discovering credit cards in hood of car, police did not search any other part of the vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. People v. Keita, 162 A.D.3d 610, 79 N.Y.S.3d 157 (1st Dep't 2018).

Police officer did not exceed permissible scope of inventory search of impounded car in checking spare tire compartment in trunk and seizing and vouchering cocaine and other items found there, where city's standardized guidelines required police to check any area that might contain valuables. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Ramirez, 103 A.D.3d 444, 959 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1st Dep't 2013).

In conducting inventory search of defendant's vehicle, police officer did not go beyond proper boundaries of search by removing two screws holding air vent in place to remove bag visible behind vent. People v. Washington, 233 A.D.2d 684, 650 N.Y.S.2d 334 (3d Dep't 1996), appeal denied, 89 N.Y.2d 1042, 659 N.Y.S.2d 873, 681 N.E.2d 1320 (1997).

When police officer conducting inventory search of vehicle observed white object through hole in door panel, officer was justified in removing panel to determine whether object should be included in inventory, since officer's motivation was to advance purpose of inventory, not to discover incriminating evidence. People v Watson (1995, App Div, 4th Dept) 624 NYS2d 710.

Police who viewed one or two minutes of videocassette found in lawfully impounded vehicle of defendant who was arrested for public lewdness exceeded permissible bounds of inventory search where playing of tape was not necessary

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

to ensure its return to defendant or to further invalid objective of inventory search. People v Thomas (1990, 2d Dept) 163 App Div 2d 438, 558 NYS2d 150, app gr 76 NY2d 945, 563 NYS2d 74, 564 NE2d 684.

See People v Castillo (1989, 3d Dept) 150 App Div 2d 957, 541 NYS2d 640, app den 74 NY2d 806, 546 NYS2d 564, 545 NE2d 878, § 7[a].

See People v Solano (1989, 2d Dept) 148 App Div 2d 761, 539 NYS2d 494, § 4.

Inventory and search of capital defendant's automobile was not illegal; vehicle had been properly impounded, inventory search was undertaken in accordance with procedures established by township's police department, and once the officers who conducted inventory search came across what appeared to be incriminating evidence, they stopped their inventory, sealed the car, and sought a search warrant for the vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St. 3d 6, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001).

City police officers, in opening the closed but unlocked armrest console of defendant's automobile and finding a loaded handgun, acted in good faith and in accordance with city's established procedures for inventory searches, which stated that "open compartments of the vehicle are to be searched" and that "locked compartments shall not be opened," as required for constitutionally valid inventory search of a compartment of a lawfully impounded vehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 14. State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St. 3d 105, 717 N.E.2d 329 (1999).

Warrantless search under hood of defendant's vehicle during course of traffic stop was pursuant to valid inventory search; vehicle was subject to tow because neither defendant nor his passenger had valid driver's license, and it was police department policy that, prior to tow, officer had to complete checklist indicating that he had checked under hood for battery, radiator, engine, and transmission. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Ohio Const. art. 1, § 14. State v. Lewis, 2017- Ohio-4300, 92 N.E.3d 325 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2017).

Despite existence of police department's standardized inventory policy, instructing officers to open and inventory contents of closed and unlocked containers, officer's actions following traffic stop went beyond administrative caretaking functions for securing and inventorying vehicle's contents and demonstrated that search was conducted as investigative, warrantless evidentiary search, and since search was conducted with investigatory intent, it did not constitute inventory search, which was exception to warrant requirement of Fourth Amendment; officer opened container, then swabbed the inside for narcotics, a clear investigatory act, officer examined particles on floor and in crevices of car and picked them up to see what they were, car debris was beyond scope of general inventory search, and search for these items manifested officer's intention of finding evidence and not merely chronicling the contents of the car. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Foster, 2017-Ohio-2858, 91 N.E.3d 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2017), appeal not allowed, 151 Ohio St. 3d 1506, 2018-Ohio-365, 90 N.E.3d 948 (2018).

Discovery of gun during inventory search of automobile performed following arrest of its driver justified thorough search of vehicle for contraband. State v. Pierson, 128 Ohio App. 3d 255, 714 N.E.2d 461 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 1998).

Search of heating vents of vehicle, which was performed in connection with inventory search after motorist was found to be driving without license and vehicle was impounded, exceeded permissible scope of inventory search of vehicle under Fourth Amendment; search of vents was meant not to preserve and document vehicle's contents, but instead was performed because vent area is known storage space for contraband, especially drugs. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Rose, 118 Ohio App. 3d 864, 694 N.E.2d 156 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997).

Evidence did not support a determination that police officer's motor vehicle inventory, in which officer removed wallet from a pair of shorts left in vehicle, had been conducted pursuant to county sheriff's inventory policy, which required officer to open and inventory any container that based upon its context or physical appearance would reasonably be

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

expected to contain valuables, and thus inventory was not valid under inventory exception to constitutional warrant requirement; state presented no evidence about the context or the physical appearance of the shorts from which it could be concluded that the inventory policy was properly applied. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Hockersmith, 264 Or. App. 560, 333 P.3d 1085 (2014).

Police inventory policy for impounded vehicles, which directed officers to search a "trunk" and "external vehicle containers attached to the vehicle," did not authorize examination of the area under the locked tonneau cover of the bed of a pickup truck, and, thus, search under the cover following traffic stop was unlawful; the pickup's bed, as enclosed by the pickup's walls and the locked tonneau cover, was neither a trunk nor an external vehicle container. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Hanna, 248 Or. App. 608, 273 P.3d 945 (2012).

A police officer conducting a vehicle inventory lawfully may open a closed container without a warrant in only two circumstances: (1) the discovered container "announces its contents" to such an extent that opening it does not invade a protected privacy interest and, thus, does not constitute a search, or (2) opening the container is justified by probable cause and some exception to the warrant requirement. West's Or.Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Stock, 209 Or. App. 7, 146 P.3d 393 (2006).

Officer's act of opening contents of metal lock box found during officer's inventory of impounded vehicle was not permissible under municipal inventory ordinance or police department's general order, and thus drug evidence found in box was subject to suppression; lock box was not similar to items such as purses and wallets that were allowed to be opened and their contents inventoried. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Const. Art. 1, § 9. State v. Swanson, 187 Or. App. 477, 68 P.3d 265 (2003).

Fact that police officer has authority to conduct inventory involving closed container does not mean that officer has lawfully seized container; if, in course of inventory, officer develops probable cause to believe that closed container contains controlled substance, officer cannot seize container as evidence of crime without first obtaining warrant or establishing that exception to warrant requirement permits seizure without warrant. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Kruchek, 156 Or. App. 617, 969 P.2d 386 (1998), review allowed (Or. May 25, 1999).

During an inventory search, police officers may open closed containers so long as they do so in accordance with standardized procedures. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Diltz v. State, 172 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005).

Under the state constitution, a peace officer may open a closed container as part of an inventory of an automobile pursuant to a lawful impoundment as long as the inventory is conducted in good faith pursuant to reasonable standardized police procedures. Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2004).

Search and seizure provision of Texas Constitution does not guarantee any greater privacy interest in closed containers searched pursuant to a police department's inventory search policy than that found under the Fourth Amendment to United States Constitution; overruling State v. Lawson, 886 S.W.2d 554. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9. Jurdi v. State, 980 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998), petition for discretionary review refused, (Apr. 21, 1999).

Inventory search of defendant's car was invalid, where first police officer who searched the car did not follow police department's standardized procedures for such searches; officer did not use any inventory forms, did not make written list of items found, and did not try to contemporaneously record where he found those items. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Giron, 943 P.2d 1114 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Neither search incident to arrest exception to warrant requirement nor inventory search exception applied so as to permit officer's warrantless search of inside of defendant's shaving kit bag found on seat of truck; shaving kit bag was intended to safeguard the privacy of personal effects, defendant was handcuffed in the patrol car at the time of seizure and search of the shaving kit bag, and officer could prevent destruction of evidence by holding the bag as a sealed unit until obtaining a warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § 7. State v. Wisdom, 349 P.3d 953 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 3 2015).

State failed to establish that police officers were entitled to search defendant's vehicle based on the inventory–search exception, where nothing indicated that officers had decided to impound defendant's vehicle, or that officers offered defendant an opportunity to have a friend or relative take charge of the car. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Johnston, 107 Wash. App. 280, 28 P.3d 775 (Div. 2 2001), review denied, 145 Wash. 2d 1021, 41 P.3d 483 (2002).

See State v Patterson, 8 Wash App 177, 504 P2d 1197, (search under dashboard was lawful continuation of lawful inventory search), § 8[a].

Where defendant's automobile was impounded following his arrest for attempted murder and where police thereafter obtained warrant to search automobile for certain specific items related to crime charged, officers' actions in inventorying contents of automobile simultaneously with execution of search warrant, and in playing unmarked cassette tape found in tape player for purposes of labelling tape on inventory list, were reasonable, and tape, which contained confession to another murder, was admissible under inventory exception to warrant requirement. State v Weber (1991) 163 Wis 2d 116, 471 NW2d 187, reconsideration den 164 Wis 2d 788, 476 NW2d 867.

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

§ 18. Failure to secure and catalog every item in vehicle

[Cumulative Supplement]

The following authority considered the lawfulness of an inventory search of a motor vehicle impounded by police where there was a failure to secure and catalog every item found in the vehicle.

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

Separate itemization of every single object found in an automobile is not required for an inventory search to conform with the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. U.S. v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008).

Police officer's failure to include in inventory report every item in defendant's vehicle, regardless of value, did not render inventory search invalid. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Organ, 234 P.3d 611 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010).

Inventory search of defendant's vehicle, following traffic stop for expired license-plate tags and confirmation that defendant had outstanding warrant, adequately conformed to police policy; failure to introduce inventory form at suppression hearing did not mean that police officer did not follow policy, it was for trial court to resolve any conflicting testimony as to inconsistencies in officer's testimony as to where he had completed inventory form, and officer's failure to recall at hearing every single item that was found in absence of missing inventory form did not mean officer disregarded police policy. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. Fricks v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 415, 501 S.W.3d 853 (2016).

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

Police officer's omission from tow report of items of value found in trunk in course of inventory search of defendant's impounded vehicle, specifically, spare tire, jack, jumper cables, and three pairs of tennis shoes, did not relate back to render inventory search unconstitutionally invalid or demonstrate that officer was engaged in unlawful investigatory search for contraband. U.S. Const. Amend. 4. State v. Paynter, 234 Md. App. 252, 170 A.3d 891 (2017).

Officer's inventory search of vehicle which was being prepared for towing was not rendered invalid by fact that officer, by allowing, at defendant's request, defendant's friend to take chainsaw and tools, failed to secure and catalog every item found in vehicle; officer cataloged items remaining in vehicle in effort to protect property, to protect police and garage owner against claim of lost property, and to protect police and others from any dangerous instruments. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. People v. Blair, 846 N.Y.S.2d 847 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2007).

Seizure of receipts, that were found in defendant's car and that were later determined to be evidence of purchases using stolen credit card numbers, exceeded the lawful scope of the inventory search and became an investigatory search, unsupported by any exception to the warrant requirement; officer did not recognize the receipts as either items subject to inventory or as evidence of a crime, and while he properly looked inside the bag to determine whether it contained anything of value, officer did not consider the receipts to be relevant to his inventory search and there was no indication that he did, in fact, inventory them, and officer candidly admitted that his seizure of the receipts was for investigatory purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. State v. Green, 312 P.3d 669 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013).

[Top of Section]

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]

RESEARCH REFERENCES

A.L.R. Library

• A.L.R. Quick Index, Automobiles and Highway Traffic

• A.L.R. Quick Index, Search and Seizure

• Construction and Application by State Courts of Federal and State Constitutional Standards Governing Police

Orders to Passengers in Car Lawfully Pulled over for Traffic Stop, 92 A.L.R.6th 171

• Validity of Search of Wireless Communication Devices, 62 A.L.R.6th 161

• Construction and Application of Supreme Court's Holding in Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d

485, 47 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 657 (2009), that Police May Search Vehicle Incident to Recent Occupant's Arrest Only

if Arrestee Is Within Reaching Distance of Passenger Compartment at Time of Search or It Is Reasonable to

Believe Vehicle Contains Evidence of Offense—Pretextual Traffic Offenses and Other Criminal Investigations,

56 A.L.R.6th 1

• Construction and Application of Supreme Court's Holding in Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d

485, 47 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 657 (2009), That Police May Search Vehicle Incident to Recent Occupant's Arrest Only

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

if Arrestee is Within Reaching Distance of Passenger Compartment at Time of Search or it is Reasonable to

Believe Vehicle Contains Evidence of Offense—Substantive Traffic Offenses, 55 A.L.R.6th 1

• Construction and Application of "Automatic Companion Rule" or Person's "Mere Propinquity" to Arrestee to

Determine Propriety of Search of Person for Weapons or Firearms, 47 A.L.R.6th 423

• Admissibility of Ion Scan Evidence, 124 A.L.R.5th 691

• Validity of Warrantless Search of Motor Vehicle Driver Based on Odor of Marijuana—State Cases, 123

A.L.R.5th 179

• Admissibility, in motor vehicle license suspension proceedings, of evidence obtained by unlawful search and

seizure, 23 A.L.R.5th 108

• Search and seizure: lawfulness of demand for driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of insurance pursuant

to police stop to assist motorist, 19 A.L.R.5th 884

• Lawfulness of search of person or personal effects under medical emergency exception to warrant requirement,

11 A.L.R.5th 52

• State or municipal towing, impounding, or destruction of motor vehicles parked or abandoned on streets or

highways, 32 A.L.R.4th 728

• Searches and seizures: reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of garbage or trash receptacle, 28 A.L.R.4th

1219

• Search and seizure: suppression of evidence found in automobile during routine check of vehicle identification

number (VIN), 27 A.L.R.4th 549

• Sufficiency of showing of reasonable belief of danger to officers or others excusing compliance with "knock and

announce" requirement—state criminal cases, 17 A.L.R.4th 301

• Validity of statute or ordinance making it an offense to consume or have alcoholic beverages in open package

in motor vehicle, 57 A.L.R.3d 1071

• Modern status of rule as to validity of nonconsensual search and seizure made without warrant after lawful arrest

as affected by lapse of time between, or difference in places of, arrest and search, 19 A.L.R.3d 727

• Lawfulness of search of motor vehicle following arrest for traffic violation, 10 A.L.R.3d 314

• Lawfulness of nonconsensual search and seizure without warrant, prior to arrest, 89 A.L.R.2d 715

• Comment Note.—Federal Constitution as affecting admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and

seizure, 84 A.L.R.2d 959

• Modern status of rule governing admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure, 50 A.L.R.2d

531

• Sufficiency of description in search warrant of automobile or other conveyance to be searched, 47 A.L.R.2d 1444

• Search incident to one offense as justifying seizure of instruments of or articles connected with another offense,

169 A.L.R. 1419

• Admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure, 150 A.L.R. 566

• Previous illegal search for or seizure of property as affecting validity of subsequent search warrant or seizure

thereunder, 143 A.L.R. 135

• Right of employee having control of articles for employer to avail himself of rule which excluded evidence

obtained by unlawful search and seizure, 86 A.L.R. 346

• Right of search and seizure incident to lawful arrest without a search warrant, 82 A.L.R. 782

• Right to search or seize vehicle containing contraband as affected by the fact that it was stationary at the time,

61 A.L.R. 1002

• Search of automobile without a warrant by officers relying on description of persons suspected of a crime, 60

A.L.R. 299

• Entry and search of premises for purpose of arresting one without search warrant, 5 A.L.R. 263

• Expectation of Right to Privacy in Rental Vehicles Under Fourth Amendment, 27 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 3

• Racial Profiling by Law Enforcement Officers in Connection with Traffic Stops as Infringement of Federal

Constitutional Rights or Federal Civil Rights Statutes, 91 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1

• Application of Fourth Amendment to Automobile Searches—Supreme Court Cases, 47 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 197

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

• Permissibility under Fourth Amendment of detention of motorist by police, following lawful stop for traffic

offense, to investigate matters not related to offense, 118 A.L.R. Fed. 567

Legal Encyclopedias

• Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures (1st ed) §§ 18, 19

• Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures §§ 34, 57, 106

Trial Strategy

• Police Misconduct Litigation—Plaintiff's Remedies, 15 Am. Jur. Trials 555

• Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence,(Search in or Near Automobile), 5 Am. Jur. Trials 331 § 37

Forms

• 8 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Criminal Procedure, Form 176, Form 176

Law Reviews and Other Periodicals

• Comment.—Limitations on Automobile Searches. 3 Loyola U L Rev 95 (1970)

• Nelson, Chimel v California: A Potential Roadblock to Vehicle Searches. 17 UCLA L Rev 626 (1970)

• Szwajkowski, The Aftermath of Cooper v California. 3 U Ill LF 401 (1968)

Footnotes 1 As used herein, the term "motor vehicle" includes not only privately owned passenger cars, but also

other motor vehicles such as trucks and taxicabs. The present annotation is concerned primarily with the search of the vehicle, and does not deal with the search of a person, bodily contents, clothing worn, or containers or other items carried by the person. However, if clothing, containers, or other items are in a vehicle and are not being worn or carried by a person when the vehicle is searched, the annotation includes the search of such clothing, containers, or other items as part of a search of the vehicle.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

2 For the purposes of this annotation, the term "impounded" means taken into custody for the purpose of storage or safekeeping until the owner is located or released.

3 Mapp v Ohio (1961) 367 US 643, 6 L Ed 1081, 81 S Ct 1684, 84 ALR2d 933, reh den 368 US 871, 7 L Ed 72, 82 S Ct 23. Although the constitutional protection in the Fourth Amendment applies to "persons, houses, papers, and effects," it has been extended by interpretation to include an automobile (see, for example, Gambino v United States (1927) 275 US 310, 72 L Ed 293, 48 S Ct 137, 52 ALR 1381). Moreover, the cases discussed in this annotation appear to be based on the assumption by the courts that automobiles are protected by the constitutional guaranty against "unreasonable searches and seizures," so that if a search of an automobile without a warrant is unreasonable, the evidence obtained through such search is inadmissible in a criminal trial. See the annotation entitled "Validity, under Federal Constitution, of warrantless search of automobile—Supreme Court cases," at 26 L Ed 893.

4 Preston v United States (1964) 376 US 364, 11 L Ed 777, 84 S Ct 881.

5 See generally Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures (1st ed § 18); and also 26 L Ed 893.

6 Carroll v United States (1925) 267 US 132, 69 L Ed 543, 45 S Ct 280, 39 ALR 790.

7 § 3[a], infra.

8 Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84.

9 § 3[b], infra.

10 People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE2d 464, 48 ALR3d 527.

11 For a United States Supreme Court decision that has rejected the technical and semantic approach in defining the scope of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, see Terry v Ohio (1968) 392 US 1, 20 L Ed 889, 88 S Ct 1868, wherein it was stated: "In our view the sounder course is to recognize that the Fourth Amendment governs all intrusions by agents of the public upon personal security, and to make the scope of the particular intrusion, in light of all the exigencies of the case, a central element in the analysis of reasonableness [Citations.] This seems preferable to an approach which attributes too much significance to an overly technical definition of 'search'."

12 § 4, infra.

13 § 5[a], infra.

14 § 5[b], infra. For several overruled California cases supporting this viewpoint, see § 5[c], infra.

15 § 5[c], infra.

16 § 6[a], infra. For a series of overruled California cases which support this proposition, see § 6[b], infra.

17 § 6[b], infra. Although the concept of lawful custody discussed in § 5 bears close resemblance to the concept of lawful impoundment discussed in § 6, the custody involved in each case appears to be different. In the former situation, the courts appear to be referring to a broader concept of custody, whether such custody was obtained by impoundment or not, whereas in the latter situation the courts appear to be referring to the narrower concept of custody acquired solely by impoundment.

18 Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793.

19 §§ 7, 8, infra.

20 § 7, infra.

1 Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer (1968) 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793.

2 § 8, infra.

3 Williams v United States (1969, CA5 Fla) 412 F2d 729.

4 Kimbrough v Beto (1969, CA5 Tex) 412 F2d 981.

5 § 9[b], infra.

6 § 10, infra.

7 See the discussion in "The Aftermath of Cooper v California," 1968 University of Illinois Law Forum 401, at page 407, wherein the author observes: "[I]t would be extremely difficult to impose any artificial restrictions upon the scope of the search occasioned by the inventory. If the purpose of the inventory is to record the valuables and other personal property found in the car, it would seem unrealistic to limit the search to a superficial inspection of the vehicle. In view of the fact that a person who does carry

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

valuables in his car will most probably place them in as safe and inconspicuous a place as possible, the conscientious investigator will conduct as thorough a search as the circumstances permit."

8 § 11[a], infra.

9 § 11[b], infra.

10 § 12, infra.

11 § 13, infra.

12 § 14, infra.

13 § 15, infra.

14 § 16, infra.

15 § 17, infra.

16 Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84.

17 See, for example, People v Sullivan (1971) 29 NY2d 69, 323 NYS2d 945, 272 NE2d 464, 48 ALR3d 527.

18 Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84 (overruling People v Roth, 261 Cal App 2d 430, 68 Cal Rptr 49).

19 Kaufman v United States (1971, DC Mo) 323 F Supp 623, affd (CA8) 453 F2d 798. For a general discussion of searches by private individuals, see the annotation entitled "Admissibility, in criminal case, of evidence obtained by search by private individual," at 36 A.L.R.3d 553.

20 §§ 4- 17, infra.

1 In Szwajkowski, "The Aftermath of Cooper v California," 1968 University of Ill L Forum 401, at pages 407, 408, it was stated that absent a special statutory provision, the inventory would not be conclusive in a civil action for loss of property from the vehicle, since (1) an article might be stolen before the inventory or omitted from it; (2) the inventory is prepared by the police and is to some extent a self– serving document; and (3) even if the police have the arrestee acknowledge the inventory by signing the receipt, the inventory would not be binding on a third–party claimant. See, to the same effect, Nelson, "Chimel v California: A Potential Roadblock to Vehicle Searches," 17 UCLA L Rev 626, at page 642, wherein it was concluded that the remote possibility that the officer may be charged with taking, or may have to pay for having taken, something from an impounded car, simply does not compare in importance with the preservation of basic constitutional guaranties; that the only loss which might be prevented by the inventory is an economic one, easily compensable and even insurable; and that the weight of the asserted justifications for inventories "appears to approach nothingness."

2 See, for example, United States v Lipscomb (1970, CA5 Ala) 435 F2d 795, cert den 401 US 980, 28 L Ed 331, 91 S Ct 1213, reh den 402 US 966, 29 L Ed 131, 91 S Ct 1635.

3 See, for example, Nelson, "Chimel v California: A Potential Roadblock to Vehicle Searches," 17 UCLA L Rev 626, at page 641, wherein it was stated that arrestees should be allowed to assume the risk of loss by asking to leave their own vehicle at the roadside or by requesting that someone be contacted to pick up the car, and that even when a car must be impounded, it is unreasonable to think that the owner would exchange Fourth Amendment rights for unwanted protection against theft. "In short," the author concluded, "this supposed justification turns the Fourth Amendment on its head."

4 See, for example, People v Gil (1967) 248 Cal App 2d 189, 56 Cal Rptr 88 (overruled in Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County, 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84), where the police conducted an inventory search even though the driver, after being arrested, requested that his car not be inventoried, and that it be left at the scene of the arrest for a friend to pick up.

5 Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 331 § 72. For the form of a motion to suppress evidence obtained by an illegal search, see 18 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms, Searches and Seizures, Form 18:281.

6 Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 331 § 72. For the form of an affidavit in support of a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a search of an automobile without a warrant or probable cause, see 8 Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev ed), Criminal Procedure, Form 176.

7 Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 331 § 72.

8 Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 331 § 72.

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

9 See generally Police Misconduct Litigation—Plaintiff's Remedies, 15 Am. Jur. Trials 555.

10 § 5[a], infra.

11 See Am. Jur. 2d, Injunctions § 181.

12 § 4, infra. See also Am. Jur. 2d, Abuse of Process § 12.

13 § 3[b], infra.

14 § 6[a], infra.

15 § 11[a], infra. See generally "Search and seizure: observation of objects in 'plain view'—Supreme Court cases," 29 L Ed 1067.

16 People v Simpson (1959) 170 Cal App 2d 524, 339 P2d 156; People v Roth (1968) 261 Cal App 2d 430, 68 Cal Rptr 49; People v Norris (1968) 262 Cal App 2d Supp 897, 68 Cal Rptr 582; People v Superior Court of Los Angeles (1969) 2 Cal App 3d 304, 82 Cal Rptr 766.

17 See People v Prochnau (1967) 251 Cal App 2d 22, 59 Cal Rptr 265, where the court suggested that even if the vehicle was unlawfully impounded, the police still had the right and the duty, for guidance in the ultimate disposition of the vehicle and its contents, to determine the person to whom the vehicle was registered. However, it is not entirely clear whether the court intended its statement to extend to the right of the police to conduct an inventory search, or whether the court intended to limit it to the specific situation where the police are merely taking steps to determine the ownership of an impounded vehicle.

18 The pertinent section of the regulation stated in part: "When a vehicle is brought to a station, whether impounded, stolen, abandoned, or taken from a prisoner, it shall be the responsibility of the officer who takes the vehicle in charge to thoroughly search such vehicle, including the glove compartment and trunk, and remove all property therefrom. He shall be held responsible for seeing that all such property is recorded and properly safeguarded."

19 People v Ortiz (1956) 147 Cal App 2d 248, 305 P2d 145; People v Nebbitt (1960) 183 Cal App 2d 452, 7 Cal Rptr 8; People v Myles (1961) 189 Cal App 2d 42, 10 Cal Rptr 733, cert den 371 US 872, 9 L Ed 109, 83 S Ct 140; People v Garcia (1963) 214 Cal App 2d 681, 29 Cal Rptr 609 (by implication), disapproved on other grounds Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer, 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793.

20 Cooper v California (1967) 386 US 58, 17 L Ed 730, 87 S Ct 788, reh and modif den 386 US 988, 18 L Ed 243, 87 S Ct 1283.

1 See Miller v State (1962, Fla App) 137 So 2d 21, where the evidence showed that after an investigating officer had impounded a vehicle following an accident, he proceeded to search the vehicle when, upon looking inside, he noticed something protruding from a torn place in the floormat, which he then lifted, finding incriminating evidence under it. Rejecting the contention that the search was justifiable on the ground that it was the officer's duty to safeguard anything of value in the car, the court observed that the officer would have satisfactorily performed his duty to protect the owner's property by securing valuables found in plain sight and by impounding the car. However, this case was distinguished in Godbee v State (1969, Fla App) 224 So 2d 441, on the ground that there was no lawful arrest.

2 People v Ortiz (1956) 147 Cal App 2d 248, 305 P2d 145; People v Simpson (1959) 170 Cal App 2d 524, 339 P2d 156; People v Nebbitt (1960) 183 Cal App 2d 452, 7 Cal Rptr 8; People v Myles (1961) 189 Cal App 2d 42, 10 Cal Rptr 733, cert den 371 US 872, 9 L Ed 109, 83 S Ct 140; People v Garcia (1963) 214 Cal App 2d 681, 29 Cal Rptr 609, disapproved on other grounds Virgil v Superior Court of County of Placer, 268 Cal App 2d 127, 73 Cal Rptr 793; People v Gil (1967) 248 Cal App 2d 189, 56 Cal Rptr 88; People v Harris (1967) 256 Cal App 2d 455, 63 Cal Rptr 849; People v Roth (1968) 261 Cal App 2d 430, 68 Cal Rptr 49; People v Norris (1968) 262 Cal App 2d Supp 897, 68 Cal Rptr 582; People v Laursen (1968) 264 Cal App 2d 932, 71 Cal Rptr 71; People v Sesser (1969) 269 Cal App 2d 707, 75 Cal Rptr 297; Bramlette v Superior Court of Merced County (1969) 273 Cal App 2d 799, 78 Cal Rptr 532; People v Superior Court, County of Sacramento (1969) 275 Cal App 2d 631, 80 Cal Rptr 209; People v Marchese (1969) 275 Cal App 2d 1007, 80 Cal Rptr 525; People v Hunter (1969) 1 Cal App 3d 461, 81 Cal Rptr 750; People v Havenstein (1970) 4 Cal App 3d 710, 84 Cal Rptr 528; People

Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537...

v Andrews (1970) 6 Cal App 3d 428, 85 Cal Rptr 908, cert den 400 US 908, 27 L Ed 147, 91 S Ct 152; Martinez v Superior Court of County of Los Angeles (1970) 7 Cal App 3d 569, 87 Cal Rptr 6.

3 The cases referred to have since been overruled by the California Supreme Court decision of Mozzetti v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1971) 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rptr 412, 484 P2d 84, supra.

4 The term "vehicle or traffic violation" is used herein to refer to infractions against the rules of the road regardless of whether the vehicle in question is moving or stationary, as well as to statutory requirements for the legitimate operation of motor vehicles.

5 For a definition of the term "vehicle or traffic violation" as used in this annotation, see § 7, supra.

6 For a definition of the term "vehicle or traffic violation" as used in this annotation, see § 7, supra.

7 The following cases, insofar as they involve inventory searches of objects not in plain view, were expressly overruled: People v Ortiz (1956) 147 Cal App 2d 248, 305 P2d 145; People v Simpson (1959) 170 Cal App 2d 524, 339 P2d 156; People v Myles (1961) 189 Cal App 2d 42, 10 Cal Rptr 733, cert den 371 US 872, 9 L Ed 109, 83 S Ct 140; People v Roth (1968) 261 Cal App 2d 430, 68 Cal Rptr 49; People v Norris (1968) 262 Cal App 2d Supp 897, 68 Cal Rptr 582; People v Superior Court, County of Sacramento (1969) 275 Cal App 2d 631, 80 Cal Rptr 209; People v Marchese (1969) 275 Cal App 2d 1007, 80 Cal Rptr 525; People v Hunter (1969) 1 Cal App 3d 461, 81 Cal Rptr 750; People v Havenstein (1970) 4 Cal App 3d 710, 84 Cal Rptr 528; People v Andrews (1970) 6 Cal App 3d 428, 85 Cal Rptr 908, cert den 400 US 908, 27 L Ed 147, 91 S Ct 152; Martinez v Superior Court of County of Los Angeles (1970) 7 Cal App 3d 569, 87 Cal Rptr 6. It would appear that the following case has been impliedly overruled insofar as it involved a search of an object not in plain view: People v Prochnau (1967) 251 Cal App 2d 22, 59 Cal Rptr 265.

8 The order in question provided in part: "When a vehicle is brought to a station, whether impounded, stolen, abandoned, or taken from a prisoner, it shall be the responsibility of the officer who takes the vehicle in charge to thoroughly search such vehicle, including the glove compartment and trunk, and remove all property therefrom. He shall be held responsible for seeing that all such property is recorded and properly safeguarded."