N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W ILLIAM EUGENE M O ORE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50113

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00537-JLS-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

6, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, C LIFTON, a

nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. W illia m Euge ne M oore wa s c onvic te d of Tra nsporting a

n Ille ga l Alie n following a

c onditional guilty

ple a . He a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of a m otion to suppre ss the e vide nc e of the ille g a l a lie n found in the trunk of his c ar 

# FIL ED JUL 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).following a

n im p oundm e nt a

n d subse que nt inve ntory

se arc h of the ve hic le . W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . The im poundm e nt of M oore ’ s c ar wa s re a sona ble . C om m unity c are t aking is an e x c e ption to the

wa rrant re quire m e n t by

whic h “ polic e offic e rs m ay im pound ve hic le s tha

t ‘ je opa rdiz e public sa fe ty

an d the e ffic ie nt m ove m e n t of ve hic ula r tra ffic .’ ” Miranda v . C

i ty of C orne lius , 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th C ir. 2005) (quoting South Dak

ota v . Oppe rman , 428 U.S. 364, 368-69 (1976)). M oore ’ s c ar wa s loc ate d in a

no pa rking z o ne , obstruc ting a right turn la n e and de signa

te d bic y c le la ne , whic h would ha

v e c re ate d a

ha z a rdous c ondition. M oore did not ha ve a drive r’ s lic e nse . He c onc e de s tha t the offic e r ha d a

uthority to a rre s t him . The de c ision to im

pound M oore ’ s ve hic le logic a lly followe d , a

nd it wa s not unre a s ona

ble . The ava ila

bility of le ss intrusive

a lte rnative s, suc h a s a l lowing M oore to c a l l a

frie nd to c o m e ge t the c ar, doe s not m a ke the c ourse the offic e r c hose unre a sona

ble . Se e C

olorado v . Be r tine

, 4 79 U.S. 367, 374 (1987). Onc e the ve hic le wa s im

pounde d, the disc ove ry

of the unla

wful a lie n in the trunk wa s ine vita

ble . The inve n tory

se a rc h of the ve hic le wa s re a sona ble . Inve ntory se arc he s a

re a “ we l l-de fine d e xc e ption to the wa rrant re q uire m e nt of the Fourth Am e ndm e n t .” Id . at 371. B a se d on Gra y ’ s te stim ony

a s to his inventory se arc h tra ining a

nd the writte n proc e d

ure in the C a lifornia

Highwa y Pa trol m anua l, 2the d istric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t Gra y ’ s inve ntory

se arc h c om plie d with sta

n da rdiz e d inve ntory

se arc h proc e dure s. C

f. Florida v. W

e lls , 495 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1990) (holding tha t the inve ntory

“ s e arc h wa s not suffic ie ntly re gula te d to sa tisfy the Fourth Am e ndm e nt” be c a use “ the Florida Highwa

y Pa trol ha d no polic y

whate ve r with re spe c t to theope ning of c lose d c onta ine rs e nc ounte re d during a

n inve ntory

se arc h” ). “ [T] h e pre s e nc e of a n inve stiga

tive m otive doe s not invalida

te the inve ntory

se a rc h ,” Unite d State

s v . Bow hay , 992 F.2d 229, 231 (9th C ir. 1993), so e ve n if the distric t c ourt ha d found a subje c tive inve stiga tory inte nt, the inve ntory

se arc h by

the offic e r wa s va l id. AFFIRM E D .

3