In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00402-CR 

 

DYLAN EUGENE TAYLOR, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 274th District Court 

Hays County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CR-20-5525-C, Honorable Don R. Burgess, Presiding 

September 3, 2024 

DISSENTING OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

I agree with the majority’s analysis for issues two and three; however, I respectfully 

dissent from the majority’s analysis and opinion regarding issue one—the motion to 

suppress. I believe the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the inventory 

search; I would therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

We review a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of review. Valtierra 

v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We give almost total deference 
2

to the trial court’s findings of fact and review de novo the application of the law to the 

facts. Id. We view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and 

uphold the ruling if it is supported by the record and is correct under any theory of the law 

applicable to the case. Id. at 447–48.

The State bears the burden to establish that the police conducted a lawful 

inventory search. Moskey v. State, 333 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2010, no pet.). The State meets its burden by demonstrating that an inventory policy

exists, and the police officers followed the policy. Id. Here, it is uncontested that an 

inventory policy existed. Appellant’s argument is the inventory policy was not followed in 

that the State failed 1) to obtain Appellant’s signature upon completion of the search, and 

2) to specifically list which items were in the vehicle.

The inventory policy contains the following language:

The owner or operator of the vehicle shall be asked to remove, if

possible, all valuables from the vehicle prior to impoundment. If such 

items cannot be removed, they shall be inventoried before the vehicle is

removed, and the owner/operator shall be requested to verify the 

completeness of the inventory by signature.

Appellant’s arguments on appeal focus on the latter half of the inventory policy—

that items should be inventoried, and a signature obtained. However, this process only 

applies to items that cannot be removed. In Appellant’s vehicle, there were no other such 

valuables that necessitated his signature. There was no evidence at the suppression 

hearing of other unaccounted valuables in Appellant’s vehicle—there was no requirement 

under the inventory policy to secure his signature on the inventory report. There is no 

requirement of the inventory policy to create a form that says, “no valuables found.” 
3

Turning to Appellant’s second argument—the State failed to specifically list which 

items were in the vehicle. The inventory policy contains the following language:

A vehicle inventory report shall be completed whenever an officer assumes 

responsibility for towing a vehicle, and shall complete an inventory at the 

location where the vehicle was seized unless reasons of safety or 

practicality require the inventory to take place later.

The evidence at the suppression hearing showed that Kyle Police Department uses a 

“ticket writer”—a device similar to a phone with a photo-taking program—to conduct 

vehicle inventory searches. This practice was standard for KPD. Officer Waters testified 

that, due to the large amount of trash and miscellaneous items in the back of Appellant’s 

vehicle, he took two photos instead of itemizing each item. These photos were attached 

to the Towed Vehicle Receipt and are part of the inventory report. Waters also confirmed 

that he followed KPD policy, and that he observed no other valuables in the vehicle. 

There was no evidence that any valuables were overlooked or that KPD’s inventory 

procedure was not followed. 

While the majority asserts that the search was merely cursory, this does not align 

with the standard for evaluating the validity of inventory searches. The standard does not 

demand an exhaustive search but rather requires adherence to a standardized 

procedure.1 The trial court had before it evidence that supported the officer’s compliance 

1 While this Court recognizes it is not bound by federal precedent unless deciding questions of 

federal law, Henry v. Smith, 637 S.W.3d 226, 236 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, pet. denied), Appellant 

relies on the Fourth Amendment to support his arguments. Thus, the Court’s holding in Florida v. Wells, 

495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 198 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), that an inventory search need not be conducted in 

a hyper technical manner is instructive.
4

with the policy, and it was within the trial court’s discretion to accept this evidence as 

sufficient.

Given the trial court’s findings and the evidence supporting the procedural 

adherence, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. The inventory 

search was valid as it was conducted in accordance with a reasonable, standardized 

procedure. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s decision.

CONCLUSION

Giving deference to the trial court and viewing the record in the light most favorable 

to the trial court’s ruling, I find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. I would overrule 

all issues in Appellant’s brief and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Alex Yarbrough

 Justice

Publish.