Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Monday, November 29, 2021

 

Page 1

 

Court of Appeal:

‘Inventory Search’ of Lawfully Parked Car Was Pretextual

Third District Says Fruits of the Search Must Be Suppressed

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

The exploration by sheriff’s deputies of the content of an automobile, in the absence of a warrant, cannot be justified as an inventory search incident pursuant to an impounding of the vehicle being driven by an unlicensed driver where that vehicle was in a public parking lot, the Third District Court of Appeal has held.

Acting Presiding Justice Coleman Blease wrote the opinion, filed Wednesday and not certified for publication. It orders that a peremptory writ be issued directing the Sacramento Superior Court to grant a suppression motion filed by Derrick J. Blakes, whose automobile contained controlled substances, a gun, and drivers’ licenses and credit cards in various persons’ names.

The facts adduced by the officers before the warrantless entry of the car; illegally tinted windows, defendant taking one-tenth of a mile to pull over and stop, the smell of marijuana emanating from the car, his having a suspended license, and his having a prior arrest for felon in possession of a firearm, do not provide probable cause that contraband or evidence of illegal activity was in the car,” Blease wrote. “The evidence shows the impound decision was based on an investigative pretext rather than serving a community caretaking function.”

Standard Operating Procedure

Two sheriff’s deputies testified that it was standard practice to impound an automobile being driven by a person who did not possess a current license. That, Blease found, that did not justify the denial of Blakes’s suppression motion at the preliminary hearing and again prior to trial, explaining:

“We assume there was a valid policy in place governing the impound decision. Although the evidence regarding such a policy was minimal; the detectives testified there was a policy to allow impounds for driving on a suspended license at the officer’s discretion; that plus the general authority to impound following a custodial arrest satisfies the policy requirement.

“What is not present is an adequate community caretaking function served by the impound here. There was no evidence petitioner’s car blocked traffic or was at risk of theft or vandalism; the Impala was legally parked in a parking space in a public parking lot. Although the detectives testified it was common (and thus part of the policy) to tow when the driver had a suspended license to prevent more driving under a suspended license, this policy does not provide a community caretaking function for the tow. The detectives did not afford petitioner the opportunity to call someone to drive his car to another location. More importantly, the evidence shows the impound decision was motivated by an investigatory purpose.”

Supreme Court Decision

The jurist noted that the Office of Attorney General was arguing, and the magistrate found, that under the U.S. Supreme Court 1996 decision in Whren v. United States “pretext” is irrelevant where there is an objectively reasonable basis for an impound.

“This is wrong,” Blease insisted.

In Whren, Justice Antonin Scalia (now deceased) wrote that precedents “foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved,” adding:

“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”

Blease said: “Whren establishes that an officer’s motivations or intent are irrelevant to whether probable cause for a search or seizure exists, as probable cause is determined objectively….Whren itself notes its reasoning is irrelevant in the context of impound searches; ‘we never held, outside the context of inventory search or administrative inspection..., that an officer’s motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment...’….The United States Supreme Court has thus invalidated impound searches based on the officer’s subjective motivations for the impound even though objective grounds to impound the vehicle existed.”

Answers Question

The question, the acting presiding justice said, is whether the search of Blakes’s vehicle was for an improper purpose, and he answered, “yes,” elaborating:

“The search here was motivated by a desire to further investigate petitioner and the car he drove for evidence of criminal activity. That warrantless search was not supported by probable cause and the impound rationale was no more than a pretext to justify the search. The magistrate and trial court erred in denying the suppression motion.”

He also declared that the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle did not provide a justification for the search in light of Proposition 64, enacted by voters in 2016, legalizing possession of small quantities of the substance.

The case is Blakes v. Superior Court, C093856.

 

Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company