NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. JOEL RALPH TURNBOW; TRACY METHOD,
Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 10130
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 00001

- MMD

- WGC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 15, 2020 * * San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL, ** * District Judge. The government appeals the district court’s grant of Joel Turnbow’s motion
to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment

. Reviewing

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

de novo the district court ’s legal conclusions and for clear error its underlying factual findings, United States v. Gust , 405 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2005) , we
affirm. Ample evidence supported the district court’s finding that Officer English’s
decision to impound Turnbow’s car was pretextual

. See United States v. Johnson , 889 F.3d 1120, 1126 (9th Cir. 2018). As the district court explained, the record
showed that Officer English’s suspicions of illegal activity began the moment he spotted Turnbow’s car , and he took numerous steps to justify searching it until he finally settled on an inventory search. Specifically, when Officer English first saw the car, he decided to check the license plate because he believed Tracy Method,
the passenger and co

- defendant, acted suspicious ly

. Even after the license plate came back clear, Officer English ’s suspicion persisted, so he decided to request a
warrants check on Turnbow’s name and discover ed he had an outstanding warrant
for his arrest

. Officer E nglish also saw th at Method was “moving a lot” and suspected she may have concealed an item in the backseat of the car. Because he
did not have probable cause to search the car, Officer English asked his supervisor
to call a K

- 9 unit so that he could esta blish probable cause through a K

- 9 alert.
When the dog failed to alert , Officer English told Method he was going to impound the car but asked her if he could search her purse before she departed on
foot , which he would not have done had he not been looki ng for incriminating3

evidence . When she consented, he found a large sum of money in $20 bills

. Officer English also failed to note any of his caretaking concerns in his police report, which suggested his true motivation to impound the car was to search i t for
contraband

. In light of the above findings , the district court inferred that Officer English ’s intent from the beginning was to search the car for drugs and only relied on the inventory search exception once it was clear that there was no other
available means to satisfy the Fourth Amendment requirement. On this record , we cannot say the distric t court’s factual findings or the inferences it drew were implausible or unsupported. See Gust , 405 F.3d at 799. Further, we are not persuaded that the district court clearly erred when it disregard ed Officer English ’s purported reason to impound the c ar . Although Officer English testified he was going to impound the car as soon as he confirmed
Turnbow’s arrest warrant and that Method’s driver’s license was suspended, the district court acted well within its discretion not to credit that testimony

. As the district court noted, Officer English ’s community caretaking concerns were not
well

- founded: it was daylight, the parking lot where the car was parked was not in a particularly high crime area , and even though the car was not parked in a specific park ing spot, it was not blocking traffic

. Further , even though Method did not
have a valid driver’s license , Officer English could have left the car in her custody4

to arrange for its safekeeping, which would have mitigated Officer English ’s purported concern s about incurring liability. 1 We are similarly not persuaded by the government’s argument that because Officer English ’s decision to impound conformed to his standard practice and was supported by his department’s policies, he necessarily acted with a dua l motive. As a threshold matter, compliance with state or local policy alone “is insufficient to justify an impoundment under the community caretaking exception.” See
United States v. Cervantes , 703 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, considering the facts discussed above, the district court did not clearly err in rejecting Officer English ’s testimony that he impounded the car to comply with departmental policies. That finding is buttressed by the fact that Officer English
failed to not e a commun ity caretaking concern or departmental policy in his police
report.
AFFIRMED.

1 Although Turnbow and Method could not immediately produce proof of insurance, the government cited no local or state law authorizing impoundment under those circumstances. See United States v. Torres , 828 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2016). Further, even if impoundment were authorized under local or state law, the government fails to explain why towing the car would have served a caretaking role, as Method would have been presented with an identical dil emma at the tow yard as at the parking lot.