A Quick Look at Inventory Searches after an Arrest:
Getting pulled over can be an unsettling experience regardless of one’s familiarity with the law. Understanding the interpretation of both the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment and Article 1 §11 of the Indiana Constitution is instrumental when presented with a situation where a police officer searches your vehicle. While citizens have the constitutional “right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure,” this protection also applies to our vehicles with a few exceptions.
One of these exceptions is a ‘valid inventory search.’ This is a search that takes place of a lawfully impounded vehicle when the officer does not have a warrant. Police are permitted to conduct a warrantless search of a lawfully impounded vehicle if the search is designed to produce an inventory of the vehicle’s contents. Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 431 (Ind.1993). The rationale for an inventory search is three-fold:
(1) protection of private property in police custody;
(2) protection of police against claims of lost or stolen property; and
(3) protection of police from possible danger. Taylor, 842 N.E.2d at 330–31. Whitley v. State, 47 N.E.3d 640, 645 (Ind. App. 2015), transfer denied, 46 N.E.3d 445 (Ind. 2016)
To determine whether an inventory search is law, the Indiana Supreme Court has established a two-prong test:
Keep in mind that both prongs must be established in order for an inventory search to be valid. This is important because the State has to show that the inventory search is routine. The reason this is a critical step is because “when an inventory is carried out in accordance with routine police procedures, there is an assurance that the intrusion will not exceed the scope necessary to fulfill these caretaking needs.” Rabadi v. State, 541 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Ind.1989).
Additionally, proof that the inventory search is routine requires more than a police officer’s word. If the officer properly impounds your vehicle this could be your next defense. This defense was addressed in Anderson v. State, 64 N.E.3d 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
In Anderson, following a lawful traffic stop, Anderson was arrested for an outstanding warrant, along with the fact that he was driving on a suspended license. An officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department decided to perform an inventory search of the vehicle before it was towed to impound and in the process he picked up Anderson’s jacket which was heavy so the officer searched the pockets. In one of the pockets the officer found a loaded handgun for which Anderson did not have a license to carry. Anderson was subsequently charged with carrying a handgun without a license. He filed a motion to suppress the handgun which was denied. At trial, Anderson objected to the admission of the handgun but the objection was overruled he was convicted and sentenced. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that there was no evidence introduced at trial which showed that the officer followed IMPD’s procedure policy regarding towed vehicles. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found that the search of the jacket was unlawful and Anderson’s conviction was overturned.
As with any situation where an individual’s person or property is searched, the details are critical when dealing with inventory searches. Therefore, if you or someone you know has been charged with a crime following a vehicle search, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at Banks & Brower, LLC. We are available any time at 317.434.1258 or at email@example.com.
The laws governing legal advertising in the state of Indiana require the following statement in any publication of this kind: “THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.” Our website is provided to you for informative purposes only and is not intended as legal advice you should act on alone, nor should it be considered a replacement for obtaining legal counsel and representation. Furthermore, all material found on this site, and the use of any of the functions of this site, including, but not limited to, blogging and commenting, e-mail, in-person and phone call communications, as well as voice-mail, does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Please abstain from sharing confidential information with our firm until a formal agreement to retain our services has been signed and executed by both parties. Thank you.