Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01166/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roosevelt Sims
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable John T. Maughmer, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1166

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri. 

Roosevelt Sims, * 

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: October 3, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Roosevelt Sims entered a conditional plea of guilty to unlawful possession of

a firearm as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), after

the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of

his van. The district court sentenced Sims to 54 months’ imprisonment, and he

appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2005 Entry ID: 1958742
-2-

I.

We recite the facts as found by the magistrate judge in a report and

recommendation that was adopted by the district court. At 7:10 p.m. on May 2, 2004,

Kansas City Police Department (“KCPD”) officers were dispatched to investigate a

reported street robbery. At the crime scene, the officers interviewed three witnesses

to the robbery who said they saw a man with a gun chasing another man up the street,

then saw the man with the gun get into a blue Pontiac Transport van. One witness

identified the assailant as Roosevelt Sims. The witnesses stated that Sims left the

crime scene in the blue van by himself. The officers went to Sims’s residence, where

Sims’s daughters informed them that he had gone to St. Luke’s Hospital to visit their

mother, who was having a baby.

The officers drove to the hospital and learned from hospital personnel that Sims

had not yet been there to see his wife. They asked the hospital personnel to detain

Sims and contact them if he arrived. While leaving the hospital, the officers drove

through the surrounding parking lots and did not see a blue Pontiac Transport van.

At 8:01 p.m., shortly after the officers departed, they were informed that hospital

security had detained Sims.

The officers returned to the hospital and saw for the first time a blue Pontiac

Transport van parked about 50 feet from the emergency room door. The officers were

met near the emergency room door by hospital security officers and Sims, and they

placed Sims under arrest for suspicion of robbery. Sims told the officers that he had

just driven to the hospital and had seen the officers in their car at the hospital ten

minutes earlier.

After Sims and his wife declined to grant consent to search the van, one of the

officers contacted his supervisor, a sergeant in the KCPD robbery unit, to discuss the

situation. The sergeant informed the officers that there was no need to obtain consent

Appellate Case: 05-1166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2005 Entry ID: 1958742
-3-

to search the vehicle. He explained that because the vehicle was suspected of use in

an armed robbery and had potential evidentiary value, it would be towed in

accordance with KCPD policy.

Section A of the KCPD’s General Towing Requirements provides that:

Vehicles will be towed when the vehicle is known or believed to have

been used in the commission of a crime and has evidentiary value,

unless it is processed at the scene and can be released to the

owner/operator.

(Gov’t Ex. 1). Having been informed by the sergeant that this policy called for

Sims’s vehicle to be towed, the officers summoned a tow truck. 

Another policy of the KCPD provides that officers shall inventory the contents

of a vehicle before it is towed. Accordingly, the officers obtained keys to the van

from Sims’s wife and searched the van. This search revealed a handgun in an open

compartment in one of the door panels.

Sims filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the

van, as well as statements he made later to an investigator, arguing that the

warrantless search was unconstitutional and that his ensuing admissions were “fruit

of the poisonous tree.” The government argued that the warrantless search was

justified either as an inventory search related to a proper impoundment or as a search

incident to arrest. Relying on the former argument, the district court denied the

motion to suppress.

Sims argues on appeal that the impoundment of the van was unconstitutional.

We recognize, of course, that police may take certain vehicles into custody, without

probable cause that they will furnish evidence of a crime, as part of the police

department’s “community caretaking functions.” South Dakota v. Opperman, 428

Appellate Case: 05-1166 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2005 Entry ID: 1958742
-4-

U.S. 364, 368 (1976). “The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets

vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond

challenge.” Id. at 369. Sims argues, however, that the officers did not impound his

vehicle based on public safety concerns or their community caretaking function, but

rather acted solely for investigative purposes. Thus, he contends, the impoundment

ran afoul of Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987), which held that police may

exercise discretion to impound a vehicle “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.” Id. at 375.

We are not persuaded by the government’s responsive contention that the

impoundment is permissible merely because the police department followed a policy

that says it will impound any vehicle that is “believed to have been used in the

commission of a crime and has evidentiary value.” Impoundments and inventory

searches are exempt from the normal requirement of probable cause precisely because

the police are acting “on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of

criminal activity.” Id.; see also Opperman, 428 U.S. at 370 n.5. A police department

may not avoid the constitutional requirement of probable cause simply by adopting

a standard policy to impound vehicles based only on a “belief” that the vehicle was

involved in the commission of a crime and has evidentiary value. A seizure based

solely on suspicion that the vehicle constitutes or contains evidence of criminal

activity must be supported by probable cause.

Nonetheless, we conclude that the impoundment of Sims’s vehicle was

consistent with the Fourth Amendment, because police did have probable cause to

seize the vehicle, and an automobile may be seized without a warrant under the

“automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S.

42, 51 (1970); United States v. Hill, 91 F.3d 1064, 1070 (8th Cir. 1996). In this case,

witnesses identified Sims as the assailant in the robbery and saw him leave the scene

in a blue Pontiac Transport van. Sims’s family informed police that Sims had

Appellate Case: 05-1166 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/03/2005 Entry ID: 1958742
-5-

traveled to the hospital, and police located a blue Pontiac Transport van in the

hospital parking lot shortly after Sims arrived. The van was found only about an hour

after the robbery, so the likelihood that evidence of the crime remained in the vehicle

was relatively high. These facts established probable cause for the seizure. Once the

vehicle was impounded, the police were justified in searching the vehicle without a

warrant based on their standard inventory policy (notwithstanding the presence of an

additional investigative motive), United States v. Garner, 181 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir.

1999), or based on probable cause to believe that the van contained evidence of the

robbery. See Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466-67 (1999).

For these reasons, the handgun in Sims’s van was not discovered as a result of

a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and Sims’s subsequent statements to law

enforcement officers were not the fruit of an unlawful search or seizure. Therefore,

the district court properly denied the motion to suppress, and the judgment is

affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1166 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/03/2005 Entry ID: 1958742