Monday, March 23, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Impound, Search of Vehicle Based on Suspended License Alone Violates Constitution
Opinion Acknowledges That Seizure, Inventory Authorized by Vehicle Code, Says Statutory Validation Does Not Control Fourth Amendment Analysis
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Sixth District Court of Appeal has held that the Fourth Amendment precludes the admission of evidence obtained during an inventory search of a vehicle that was impounded solely due to the suspended status of the driver’s license and a concern that the defendant might drive off in the car after receiving a citation.
Acknowledging that Vehicle Code §22651 authorizes the removal of a vehicle from a public street if the driver is issued a citation for operating the car with a suspended license, the court declared:
“Statutory authorization, however, ‘does not, in and of itself, determine the constitutional reasonableness of the seizure.’….The prosecution bears the further burden to show that an impoundment is constitutionally reasonable under the circumstances. In other words,…the prosecution must show that the removal of a vehicle from the street is specifically justified by a community caretaking function based on the facts surrounding the vehicle itself.”
Finding that “the prosecution did not carry this additional burden,” Justice Allison M. Danner, writing for the court, announced:
“In this appeal, we examine the application of the Fourth Amendment’s community caretaking doctrine to vehicle impoundment. We consider whether a police officer’s decision to impound a driver’s vehicle pursuant to the Vehicle Code solely to prevent further illegal driving satisfies the community caretaking function. We decide that it does not.”
Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood and Justice Daniel H. Bromberg joined in Thursday’s decision.
Traffic Stop
The question arose after Eric Perez was pulled over by Milpitas Police Department Officer Eric Bernardo in May 2022 for failing to stop before crossing a driveway that traverses a sidewalk in violation of municipal law.
After a records check revealed that Perez’s license had been suspended since 1993, Bernardo demanded that the driver exit the minivan and said that the vehicle was going to be impounded. The officer claimed that he intended to cite and release Perez for violating Vehicle Code §14601, which prohibits driving with a suspended license, but that an inventory search revealed what turned out to be methamphetamine and fentanyl, cash, and a digital scale in the car.
Surveillance footage from a nearby hotel showed the defendant exiting from a room earlier that day. A warrant was obtained, and an inspection led to the discovery of a loaded firearm.
Prosecutors charged Perez with possession of a firearm by a felon as well as possession of a controlled substance for sale, among other charges. The defendant moved to suppress the items found in the car and at the hotel as fruits of an illegal seizure.
A magistrate judge denied the suppression motion in October 2022, and Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Franklin E. Bondonno rejected a renewed suppression motion submitted after the information was filed the following month. In August 2024, Perez pled no contest to possession of the firearm and the count asserting possession for sale of the narcotics.
Bondonno sentenced him to two years of formal probation. Thursday’s opinion reverses the judgment of conviction and remands with directions to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea.
Warrantless Search
Noting that “[a] warrantless search or seizure is presumed unconstitutional, and the government bears the burden of establishing that its action fell within an exception to the warrant requirement,” Danner remarked that “[o]ne such exception is the ‘community caretaking’ function, which allows police officers” to tow and impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety or the flow of traffic.
Adding that “[i]nventory searches” are a related “well-defined exception,” she explained that an officer may conduct a warrantless search to secure and protect the contents of an impounded vehicle.
Citing cases that found inventory searches to be infirm where the impound of a vehicle followed the arrest of a validly licensed driver or involved pretextual circumstances, she pointed out:
“[W]e agree with the Attorney General that the record supports an implied finding that Officer Bernardo’s decision to impound Perez’s minivan upon learning that Perez did not have a valid driver’s license was not based on an investigative motive or a pretext to conduct an investigatory search of the vehicle. We also agree with the Attorney General that Bernardo’s decision to impound the minivan under the Vehicle Code amounts to a permissible exercise of discretion….”
Legally Parked
However, she commented:
“Perez’s minivan was legally parked on a city street and was not blocking traffic….Further, the prosecution did not present any evidence that the minivan was parked in a high crime area or unregistered or that there was reason to believe Perez…would be unable to arrange for legal transport of the minivan. Given these circumstances, it does not matter here that no other person was present or immediately available to ‘remove the car to a safe location.’…The prosecution elicited no evidence of any need to move the minivan from where it was parked on the street in Milpitas.”
Under those circumstances, she opined:
“While the record supports Officer Bernardo’s concerns about Perez as a driver, the record shows no facts specific to Perez’s vehicle supporting application of the community caretaking function. Officer Bernardo’s desire to protect public safety by impounding the minivan to prevent Perez from unlawful driving without more does not satisfy the community caretaking function.”
Continuing, she wrote:
“Even though Officer Bernardo was not required to use ‘the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound’ Perez’s minivan…, Bernardo could have deterred Perez from readily returning to his vehicle and driving illegally by arresting Perez for violating section 14601.2….Bernardo also could have attempted to arrange for police to observe Perez’s parked minivan and, perhaps, eventually tow the vehicle if abandoned.”
Danner declared:
“Exercising our independent judgment under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Officer Bernardo’s decision to impound Perez’s minivan and conduct an inventory search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
The case is People v. Perez, 2026 S.O.S. 748.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company