In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act gave the U.S. president broad powers to combat terrorism. Using these powers and those he claimed were inherent presiden

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 IndexTable of Cases, Laws, and RulesResearch 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2   § 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3   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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4   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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 20 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 23 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 24 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 25 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 26 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 27 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 28 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 29 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 30 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 31 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 32 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 33 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 istherefore advised to consult the most recent legislation of his jurisdiction. Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 34 § 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 35 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 notrequired, 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 36 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 37 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 38 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 unreasonablesearches 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 1142United 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 23People 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 809State 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 238State 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 39 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 finelyhoned 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 US364, 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 40 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 claimsthat 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 41 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 unreasonablesearches and seizures. Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 42 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 98Plitko 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 promotepublic 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 discoveringcontraband 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 43 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 thepolice 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 forevidence, 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 44 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 aninventory 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 45 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 inpurpose. 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 46 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 authorizedimpoundment.

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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 47 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 protectionof 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 searchfollowed 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 48 [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 incriminatingevidence. 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 reverseda 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 anexploratory search without a warrant. The court affirmed a conviction. Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 49 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 lossand 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 50 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 fromdanger. 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 anotherwise 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 thecontainer 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 andinventory 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 51 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 toprotect 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 hadinvestigative 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 towarrant 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 52 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 inventorysearch 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 duringsearch 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 protectionof 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 53 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 54 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 55 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 ingood 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 56 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'scontents. 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 makehis 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 57 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, andwhere 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 58 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 frontseat 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 discoverincriminating 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 59 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 toguard 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 openedtrunk 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 60 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 searchwas 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 thesearch. 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'sproperty. 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 61 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 theowner. 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 unlessthe 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 62 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 918Gooden v State (1990) 196 Ga App 295, 395 SE2d 634State 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 277State v Walker (1988, Mo App) 755 SW2d 404State 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 63 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, policecustodial 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, thecourt 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 64 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 forfurther 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 removedfrom 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 65 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 andheadlamps, 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 66 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 andinventory 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 67 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 forfeitureprior 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 68 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 issuanceof 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 69 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; drugsfound 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 disregardof 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 70 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 purposesof 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 asinventory 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 71 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 bystatute. 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 72 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 withoutopening 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 basisto 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 obstructingtraffic. 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 vehiclewithout 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 searchwas 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 73 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 searchis 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 74 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 placeof 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 herproperty. 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 centertwo 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 theirdiscretion. 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 proceduresestablished 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 75 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 underthe 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 insurethe 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 76 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 havemade 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 alsolegally 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 atthe time that it was taken into custody. Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 77 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 drivetruck 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 frompotential 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 78 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 investigatorysearch 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 79 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 entryof 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 orvandalism. 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 inregard 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 80 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 1023United States v Young (DC Del) 369 F Supp 540Wilkins 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 1203United 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 81 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 186United States v Lyles (1991, CA8 Mo) 946 F2d 78U.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 1259United States v Speers (1977, DC Okla) 429 F Supp 188United States v Bosby (1982, CA11 Ala) 675 F2d 1174United States v Fuller (1967, DC Dist Col) 277 F Supp 97U.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 632Gagnon v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 337Knight v State (1968, Fla App) 212 So 2d 900Godbee v State (1969, Fla App) 224 So 2d 441State v Ruggles (1971, Fla App) 245 So 2d 692Urquhart 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 643State 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 374Moore 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 82 St. Clair v State (1967) 1 Md App 605, 232 A2d 565 Mackall v State (1969) 7 Md App 246, 255 A2d 98Plitko 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 658State 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 665People v Brnja (1979, 2d Dept) 70 App Div 2d 17, 419 NYS2d 591People v Turner (1982, 2d Dept) 91 App Div 2d 646, 456 NYS2d 831People 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 1163Harmon v State (1988, Okla Crim) 748 P2d 992Johnson v State (1988, Okla Crim) 764 P2d 530Hall 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 44State v Keller (1972, Or App) 497 P2d 868State v Weeks (1977) 29 Or App 351, 563 P2d 760 Pa Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 83 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 557Dart 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 623Manning 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 78Johnson v State (1984, Tex App Houston (14th Dist)) 684 SW2d 129Beasley 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 571State v Jones (1970) 2 Wash App 627, 472 P2d 402State 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 wasadmissible 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 inthe 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 wouldbe 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 bycommon procedure. Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 84 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 dishonestclaims 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 suchinventory 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, therebydiscovering 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 theofficers. U.S. v. Chambers, 59 Fed. Appx. 509 (4th Cir. 2003) . Lawfulness of "inventory search" of motor vehicle..., 48 A.L.R.3d 537... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 85 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 contentsof 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 86 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 thevehicle 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 othersto 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 whichhe 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 resultof 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 87 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 atparking 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 ifreasonable 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 stolenproperty. 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 preventtheft 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 assaultprosecution. 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 88 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 objectivelyreasonable. 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 89 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 themselvesagainst 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 nearbypolice 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 routineor 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 regulatedbusiness. 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 90 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 posetraffic 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 91 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 forunlawful 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 92 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 84People v Jackson (1967) 254 Cal App 2d 655, 62 Cal Rptr 208People 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 23People v Heredia (1971) 20 Cal App 3d 194, 97 Cal Rptr 488 For contrary California cases, see infra FlaFor 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 93 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 onother 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 tobe 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 94 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 beenextinguished. 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 ininterior 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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 95 [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 771United States v Thompson (1994, CA2 NY) 29 F3d 62U.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 294United States v Dudley (1994, SD Ind) 854 F Supp 570United States v Seymour (1996, DC Ariz) 933 F Supp 867Sammons v Taylor (1992, CA11 Ga) 967 F2d 1533U.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... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 96 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 641People v Dolson (1