Select Page
a

Search and Seizure for Police and Prosecutors

#

II. Inventory Search of an Impounded Vehicle

 

  1. Inventory search of an impounded vehicle.
    1. Requirements of a valid inventory search.
      1. Vehicle must be in the lawful custody of the police (lawfulness is established by a nexus between the arrest of the driver or owner and the reason for impounding the vehicle).
        1. State must establish the existence of established police procedures requiring the impounding under the circumstances, OR
        2. State must establish the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime, and therefore is itself evidence of a crime.
      2. The inventory search must be conducted pursuant to established police procedures.
        1. State must establish the existence of the police procedures, AND
        2. State must establish that the procedures were followed.
      3. The inventory search must be reasonable.
        1. Search is reasonable if conducted pursuant to police procedures and the procedures exist for one of the following reasons:
          1. to protect the vehicle and the property inside the vehicle from loss or theft
          2. to protect the police against claims of loss or theft
        2. The scope of the search must be consistent with the purposes of the procedures.
          1. Opening unlocked containers is reasonable.
          2. Opening locked or sealed containers may not be reasonable, and should be avoided.
          3. The search of the contents of a container is limited to the purposes of the inventory search.
    2. What may be seized during an inventory search.
      1. Contraband.
      2. Items immediately identifiable as evidence of a crime.
      3. All other items require a warrant.

A warrantless inventory search of a vehicle is not a Fourth Amendment violation if each of the requirements for a valid inventory search are met. The requirements for a valid inventory search of a vehicle are the same as the requirements discussed above for an inventory search of a person.9 Those requirements are (1) the object of the search, in this case the vehicle, must be in the custody or control of the police, (2) the inventory search must be conducted pursuant to established police regulations, and (3) the search must be reasonable under the circumstances.10 However, the application of those requirements differ slightly with respect to an inventory search of a vehicle.

Our Supreme Court has stated that there must be a “nexus between the arrest and the reason for the impounding.”11 The “nexus” requirement is simply a means of establishing the lawful police custody of the object of the search. 12 In the context of an inventory search of an arrestee, the nexus is automatic because the impoundment and the arrest are the same event. When a person is arrested, he and all of the possessions he is carrying at the time are impounded, and therefore are in the lawful custody of the police.

However, in the context of an inventory search of a vehicle, a nexus between the arrest of the driver of the vehicle and the need for impounding the vehicle demonstrates the lawfulness of the police custody of the vehicle and its contents.13 For example, the fact that the arrest resulted in the vehicle being left on the road and creating a traffic hazard is a sufficient nexus between the arrest and the impoundment to establish the lawfulness of the police custody of the vehicle.14 Similarly, the need to remove a vehicle illegally parked, or simply abandoned in a parking lot after the arrest of the owner, establishes the lawfulness of the police custody.15

Typically, the State meets the requirement of lawful police custody of a vehicle by establishing the existence of standard police procedures that require an arresting officer to impound a car rather than leave it abandoned on the side of the road.16 However, such a justification for taking custody and control of a vehicle does not apply if another person, such as a passenger, moves the vehicle for the driver who was arrested.17 In addition, this justification applies only if the State establishes that standard police procedures require impounding the vehicle. If police custody of the vehicle was not taken pursuant to standard procedures that require impounding the vehicle, then the State must establish some other nexus between the arrest and the reason for impounding the vehicle.18 Such a nexus exists when the vehicle impounded and searched was used in the commission of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.19

However, that nexus justifies only the impounding of the vehicle. The inventory search must comply with the second requirement of a valid inventory search, which is that the search must be conducted pursuant to established police regulations. For all inventory searches, the State must establish both the existence of the procedures and the compliance with the procedures.20 This requires testimony by a police officer regarding the details of the standard procedures and the details of the officer’s actions, demonstrating compliance with the procedures.

The third requirement of a valid inventory search – that the search must be reasonable – also applies to an inventory search of a vehicle. The reasonableness of the search is established by the purpose of the standard procedures of an inventory search.21 Recognized acceptable purposes for inventory search procedures are (1) to protect the defendant’s property, and (2) to protect the police from claims of lost or stolen property.22 Reasonableness also requires the scope of the search to be limited to the purposes for an inventory. Thus, if the police conduct the search in a manner that does not further the purposes of the inventory search, the search will be deemed unreasonable. For example, it would not be reasonable to dismantle the vehicle during an inventory search because items of value are not ordinarily kept in places that can be reached only by dismantling the vehicle.23

On the other hand, opening a container is reasonably within the scope of a proper inventory search. Therefore, police officers may open a container found inside the vehicle and search the contents of the container, as long as the standard procedures for an inventory search include opening containers to inventory the contents.24 This includes a closed container, as well as an open container such, as a briefcase, a backpack, a box, or even a folded piece of paper.25 However, the scope of the search of the contents of a container found during an inventory search of a vehicle is limited to the purposes of the inventory.26 New Mexico courts have not determined whether opening a locked or sealed container would be within the scope of an inventory search. Because this issue has not been settled, the most prudent course of action for police would be to not open locked or sealed containers. 27

Since the purposes of the inventory search are to protect the contents of the vehicle from loss or theft, as well as to avoid claims of loss and theft, seizure of items found during an inventory search is not automatic. Our Supreme Court has stated that items found during an inventory search should be left in the vehicle and a warrant should be obtained before the items are seized.28 However, that rule has been eroded by the application of the plain view doctrine to inventory searches. Under the plain view doctrine, an officer conducting a valid inventory search of a vehicle may seize any items found during the search that are immediately identifiable as contraband or other evidence of a crime.29

However, if items found during an inventory search are not immediately identifiable as contraband or evidence of a crime, those items may be seized only after a warrant has been obtained. For example, if a shotgun is found during an inventory search of an impounded vehicle, and the police have no reason to believe the shotgun is evidence of a crime at the time it is found, it should be left in the vehicle. If the police later obtain probable cause to believe the shotgun is evidence of a crime, they should then obtain a warrant before seizing the shotgun from the vehicle.30

 

ENDNOTES

9 See infra., pp. 96-97

10 State v. Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072, ¶ 5, 94 N.M. 500, 612 P.2d 1311 (1980).

11 Id.

12 Boswell, 1991-NMCA-004, ¶ 8.

13 See State v. Williams, 1982-NMSC-041, ¶ 7, 97 N.M. 634, 642 P.2d 1093.

14 Id. ¶ 6.

15 Id.

16 See Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072, ¶ 3; Williams, 1982-NMSC-041, ¶ 4; In re Jeff M., 1999- NMCA-045, ¶ 3, 127 N.M. 87, 977 P.2d 352.

17 See State v. Clark, 1976-NMCA-109, ¶ 6, 89 N.M. 695, 556 P.2d 851 (police may not conduct an inventory search of a vehicle after they have relinquished custody or control to another person).

18 See Williams, 1982-NMSC-041, ¶ 9.

19 Id.; see also Salazar v. State, 1971-NMCA-076, ¶ 7, 82 N.M. 630, 485 P.2d 741.

20 In re Jeff M., 1999-NMCA-045, ¶¶ 19, 23 (second requirement met by testimony of officer that the inventory search of the vehicle was conducted pursuant to standard operating procedures; but remanding on issue of reasonableness of opening folded newspaper because trial court failed to determine whether the paper was opened pursuant to established procedure).

21 Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072, ¶ 5. A third purpose – to protect police from potential danger – applies more to an inventory search of an arrestee than to a search of an arrestee’s vehicle.

22 Id. 

23 Cf. State v. Ramzy, 1993-NMCA-140, ¶¶ 9-10, 116 N.M. 748, 867 P.2d 418 (Court declined to decide whether a dog sniff is reasonably within the scope of an inventory search because Court determined that the State failed to establish a dog sniff is part of the established procedure for an inventory search).

24 See State v. Shaw, 1993-NMCA-016, ¶ 11, 115 N.M. 174, 848 P.2d 1101 (police may search closed containers, so long as inventory search is done under clearly established procedures); State v. Vigil, 1974-NMCA-065, ¶ 12, 86 N.M. 388, 524 P.2d 1004 (where vehicle is lawfully in police custody “an inventory of the contents of closed containers is also justified”).

25 See Jeff M., 1999-NMCA-045, ¶¶ 22-23 (remanding for trial court to determine whether the paper was opened according to established police procedure; if it was, search of folded paper in which marijuana was found was valid). 

26 Id. ¶ 16 (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 380 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring), and United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 957-60 (11th Cir. 1990)) (cursory inspection of spiral notebook during inventory search was proper, but detailed examination of matters written therein held beyond the scope of an inventory search).

27 Federal caselaw suggests that opening a locked or sealed container would be proper as long as the established police procedures require the officer to open locked, as well as unlocked, containers. See Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4-5, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 1625, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (holding that the opening of a locked container was not justified as inventory search because there was no policy or established procedure regarding opening closed containers, but not reaching the issue of whether opening a locked container is within the scope of an inventory search); United State v. Evans, 937 F.2d 1534, 1538 (10th Cir. 1991) (opening a locked container – carry-on luggage – to conduct an inventory search was proper because police department procedures require opening locked containers for the purpose of inventory). However, it is not clear whether New Mexico courts would follow the lead of federal courts. Therefore, opening locked containers should be avoided. If locked containers are opened, it is imperative that the police department procedures for inventory searches explicitly require doing so.

28 See Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072, ¶ 5.

29 State v. Foreman, 1982-NMCA-001, ¶ 8, 97 N.M. 583, 642 P.2d 186.

30 See Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072, ¶ 5.