# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 18 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Alau na Gay e Mo rri s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 18
Fi le d: Feb ru ary 8, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, BEAM, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Alau na Gay e Mo rri s co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(A), an d 84 6. The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced he r to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Sh e ap pe al s th e de ni al of 1

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Chi ef Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of th ehe r m ot io n to su pp res s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on u n d e r 2 8 U

. S .C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t

affi rm s.

I.

In Sep te m

be r 20 16

, Dep ut y Tay lo r of th e Cl ay Co un ty Sh eri f f ’s Offi ce (“ CCSO” ) st op pe d a recr eat i on al ve hi cl e dr iv en by Mo rri s to ex ecu te an arre st

warra nt

. A f

t e r th e arre st

, Dep ut y Tay lo r an d an ot he r de pu ty im po un de d th e RV.

Dur in g an in ve nt or y se arch

, th ey fo un d m ari juan a, two gl as s pi pe s, an d a di gi ta l sc al e.
The y di d no t co m

pl et e th e in ve nt or y , te st ifyin g it “ di dn ’t se em reas on ab le to co nt in ue

se arch in g” be cau se pa rts of th e RV were “ in acce ss ib le .” The ne xt da y , wit h a se arch

warra nt

, th ey fo un d 69 .5 gr am s of m et h at he r res id en ce. The ne xt week

, wit h a

se arch warran t, t he y

fou nd 13 8 g ram s o f m et h a nd $9 ,50 0 i n c as h i n t he RV.

Mo rri s m ov ed to su pp res s “ al l ev id en ce an d ‘frui ts of t he po is on ou s tre e’

o b t ai ne d as a res ul t of th e un la wfu l se iz ur e an d se arch ” of he r RV. Afte r a

su pp res si on he ari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de nyin g th e m o t io n. The

di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e m ag is tra te ’s fin di ng s an d re co m m en da ti on

. Mo rri s ap pe al s,

arg ui ng th e in ve nt or y se arch was un la wfu l. R e v i e w in g th e de ni al of a m ot io n to

su pp res s, th is co ur t rev ie ws “ le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo an d fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear

e r r o r

. ” U n i te d St at es v. Wo od

s , 74 7 F.3 d 55 2, 55 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ A cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io n m ad e by a di st ric t co ur t aft er a he ari ng on th e m eri ts of a m ot io n to

su pp res s is v i r t ua ll y un as sa il ab le on ap pe al .” Unit ed St at es v. Fr ench er , 5 03 F.3 d

70 1, 7 01 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Hon or ab le Kell y K.E. Mah on ey , Uni te d St a t e s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-II.

Mo rri s arg ue s th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th e CCSO ha d a st an da rd iz ed

po li cy fo r im

po un di ng an d in ve nt or y in g ve hi cl es

. The reco rd do es no t co nt ai n a co py

of th e writ te n po li cy be ca u s e M or ris ob jecte d to it s ad m is si on at tri al

. Howev er, Dep ut y Tay lo r te st ifi ed ab ou t i t. Acco rd in g t o hi m , s in ce Aug us t 20 15 , t he CCSO

ha s ha d a writ te n po li cy ab ou t im po un di ng an d in ve nt or y in g ve hi cl es

. It de si gn at es

fo ur ti m es a de pu ty m ay im po un d a ve hi cl e: (1 ) ab an do nm en t; (2 ) acci de nt ; (3 ) dr iv er

arre st ; or (4 ) tra ffi c ha zard

. The po li cy al lo ws, bu t do es no t req ui re, d e p u t i es to

rel eas e a ve hi cl e to a reg is te red

, in su red dr iv er. It is CCS O p r a c t i c e to rel eas e

ve hi cl es on ly to d riv ers pre se nt at t he ti m e o f th e st op

.

Onc e im po un de d, th e po li cy req ui res de pu ti es to inv en tor y a ve hic le ’ s cont en ts

, in cl ud i n g t h e t r un k, fo r it em s va lu ed at $2 5 or m or e. Alt ho ug h no t writ te n in th e

po li cy , it is CCSO pr act ic e to in ve nt or y co nt ai ne rs if de pu ti es be li ev e th ey m ay ha ve

it em s va lu ed at $2 5 or m o r e

. Th e po li cy req ui res de pu ti es to co m pl et e a fu ll

in ve nt or y un le ss un reas on ab le to do so

.

The ab se nc e of th e writ te n po li cy in th e reco rd do es no t pr ecl ud e es ta bl is hi ng

it s co nt en t. “ W hi le a writ te n po li cy m ay be pr efer ab le

, te st im on y can be su ffi ci en t

to es ta bl is h po li ce im

po un dm en t pr oc ed ur es .” Unit ed St at es v. Bet te rt on , 41 7 F.3 d

82 6, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Bas ed on Dep ut y Tay lo r’s te st im on y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge

fo un d t ha t Dep ut y

Tay lo r:

[D]id fo ll ow th e st an da rd iz ed cri te ria ou tl in e d i n th e writ te n im po un d

po li cy an d th e st an da rd pr act ic es of th e sh eri ff’s of fic e. Dep ut y Tay lo r

was fo rth rig ht whe n he te st ifi ed

. He is fam il ia r wit h th e pr act ic es of th e sh eri ff’s of

fic e, whi ch were th e sa m e be fo re an d aft er t he im po un d

po li cy was writ te n. I fu rth er cred it Dep ut y Tay lo r’s te st im on y ab ou t th e
p ol ic y an d pr act ic es in li gh t of hi s y ears of se rv ic e wit h th e s h e r i f f ’s

-3

-of

f i c e , h is du ti es as a ro ut in e pa tro l de pu ty, an d th e fact th at he
im po un ds ve hi cl es sev eral ti m es pe r week

.

Ado pt in g th e m ag is tra te ’s fin di ng s, th e di st ric t co ur t ad de d, “ Reg ard in g hi s
de pa rtment’s po li cy , Tay lo r was un wav eri ng th at he kn e w th at th e arre st of th e

ve hi cl e dr iv er an d ex is te nc e of a ro ad si de ha zard were two in st an ces in w h i c h t h e

po li cy al lo ws of

fic ers to im

po un d a ve hi cl e.” The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng

th e CCS O had an im

po un dm en t an d i nv en to ry po li cy

.

III.

Mo rri s n ex t co nt en ds th at ei th er th e de pu ti es di d no t fo ll ow th e po li cy or th e

po li cy co nt ai ne d “ im

pe rm is si bl e, un fet te red di sc ret io n.” “ [A]n im po un dm en t po li cy

m ay al lo w so m e la ti tu de an d ex erci se of jud gm en t by a po li ce of fic er w h e n th os e
de ci si on s are ba se d on le gi ti m at e co n c ern s rel at ed to th e pu rp os es of an

im po un dm en t.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The ex er c i s e o f po li ce
di sc ret io n is no t pr oh ib it ed “ so lo ng as th a t d i s c ret io n is ex erci se d acco rd in g to

s t a n da rd cri te ria an d on th e ba si s of so m et hi ng ot he r th an su sp ic io n of ev id en ce of

cri m in al act iv it y .” Co lo ra do v. Ber ti ne , 47 9 U.S. 3 67 , 37 5 (1 98 7)

.

The m ag is tra te jud ge sai d:

I fin d th at De p u ty Tay lo r fo ll owe d th e sh eri ff’s of fic e’s po li cy in
de ci di ng to im

po un d Defen da nt ’s RV. Two co nd it io ns th at al lo w fo r im po un dm en t ex is te d in th is cas e: th e dr iv er ha d be en arre st ed an d th ere

was no ot he r av ai la bl e dr iv er, an d th e RV po se d a ha zard

. Each of th es e

co nd it io ns se rv e le gi ti m at e la w en fo rcem en t fu n c t i on s of co m m un it y

care ta ki ng an d p ro vi di ng for pu bl ic saf et y

.

Thi s fi nd in g was no t cl ear e rro r.

-4

-M o r ris arg ue s th e de pu ti es sh ou ld ha ve al lo wed he r hu sb an d to pi ck up t h e

ve hi cl e rat he r th an im

po un di ng it

. Howev er, “ [n ]oth in g in t h e F o ur th Am en dm en t

req ui res a po li ce de pa rtment to al lo w an arre st ed pe rs on to arra ng e fo r an ot he r pe rs on

to pi ck up hi s car to av oi d im po un dm en t an d in ve nt or y .” Unit ed St at es v. Ag of

sk y , 20 F.3 d 86 6, 87 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). “ Po li ce m ay ta ke pr ot ect iv e cu st od y of a ve hi cl e
whe n th ey ha ve arre st ed it s oc cu pa nt s, ev en if it is la wfu ll y p a r k e d an d po se s no

pu bl ic sa fet y ha zard .” Unit ed St at es v. Ar ro cha

, 71 3 F.3 d 11 59

, 11 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ).

W hi le th e de pu t i e s c ou ld ha ve al lo wed Mo rri s’s hu sb an d to pi ck up th e RV, th ey

were no t req ui red to do so

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at “ [g ]ive n th e

fact th at Mo rri s w a s a r r e st ed al on e in a ru ral area , Tay lo r’s de ci si on to us e hi s
di sc ret io n t o i m

po un d t he ve hi cl e was leg it im at e an d re as on ab le .”

The di st ric t co ur t al so di d no t err in fin di ng th e de pu ti es fo ll owe d th e in ve nt or y

po li cy wit ho ut “ im

pe rm is si bl e, un fet te red di sc ret io n.” “ In ve nt or y sea rch es are on e

of th e well -d efi ne d ex cep ti on s to th e warra nt req ui rem en t of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.”

Unit ed St at es v. Fr as her

, 63 2 F.3 d 45 0, 45 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ [I]nv en to ry pr oc ed ur es

se rv e to pr ot ect an own er’s pr op ert y whi le it is in th e cu st od y of th e po li ce, to in su re

ag ai ns t cl ai m s of lo s t, st ol en , or va nd al iz ed pr op ert y , an d to gu ard th e po li ce fro m

da ng er.” Ber ti ne , 4 79 U.S . a t 37 2. “ The se arch m us t be reas on ab le in li gh t of th e

t o t al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Unit ed St at es v. Bea l

, 43 0 F.3 d 95 0, 95 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ).

Onc e im

po un de d, th e po li cy req ui res de pu ti es to in ve nt or y th e co nt en ts of th e

ve h i c l e, in cl ud in g it s tru nk

, fo r it em s va lu ed at $2 5 or m or e. Co ns is te nt wit h th e

po li cy , two de pu ti es in ve nt or ie d th e RV, co m pi li n g a l i s t of it em s. Dur in g th e

in ve nt or y , th ey fo un d m ari juan a an d pi pe s in a cl os ed su ng la ss es cas e, an d a di gi ta l

sc al e in a pu rs e. Mo rri s be li ev es th e in ve nt or y was im pr op er be cau se th e po li cy do es

no t ad dr es s cl os ed co nt ai ne rs

. Thi s be li ef ha s no m eri t. Bec au se th e po li cy req ui red

an in ve nt or y of th e e n t i r e v e h i c le

, it was reas on ab le fo r th e de pu ti es to op en

co nt ai ne rs be li ev ed to ha ve it em s va l u e d a t $2 5 or m or e. Se e Unit ed St at es v.

-5

-Wa ll

ac e , 10 2 F.3 d 3 4 6

, 3 4 9 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th at a “ po li cy req ui rin g

in ve nt or y of th e co nt en ts of a ve hi cl e an d an y co nt ai ne rs th erei n co ve rs in ve nt or y of

lo ck ed tru nk s” ); Unit

ed St at es v. Co m o , 5 3 F .3d 87 , 92 (5t h C ir. 1 99 5) (“ All owi ng

an of fic er to ex erci se hi s jud gm en t ba se d on co nc ern s rel at ed to th e ob jecti ve s of an

in ve nt or y se arch do es no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.”)

. As th e m ag is tra te jud ge

fo un d, “ th e de pu ti es act ed reas on ab ly in lo ok in g in si de Defen d a nt ’s pu rs e an d th e gl as se s cas e as bo th it em s co ul d ha ve li ke ly co nt ai ne d it ems wor th m or e th an $2 5.0 0.” The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th e in ve nt or y se arch co m pl ie d wit h

po li cy an d was no t u nl awfu l.

The de ci si on to te rm in at e th e in ve nt or y al so co m pl ie d wit h po li cy

. As Dep ut y

Ta yl o r te st ifi ed

, th e de pu ti es “ co m pl et ed th e in ve nt or y to th e be st of ou r ab il it y .”

The y te rm in at ed it no t be cau se th ey wan te d to “ap p ly fo r a se arch warra nt ,” bu t

be cau se th e ba ck of th e RV was a sm al l, co nf in ed sp ace, in ac c e s s ib le du e to th e

th or ny pl an ts

, whi ch Mo rri s ha d de sc rib ed as “ ex ot ic .” Rat he r th an ris k da m ag in g th e pl an ts

, th ey de ci de d no t to pr oc eed

. The m ag is tra te jud ge fo un d th is te st im on y
cred ib le an d “ in li ne wit h th e sh eri ff’s of fic e’s in ve nt or y po li cy .” Thi s was no t cl ear

erro r.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th e de pu ties fo llo wed po li cy , reas on ab ly

ex erci si ng th ei r di sc ret io n, whe n ne ces sa ry , in im po un di ng an d in ve nt or yi n g t he

ve hi cl e.

IV.

Mo rri s m ai nt ai ns th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at “fo l l o w i ng a

st an da rd iz ed po li cy ex cu se d th e im pr op er m ot iv e an d su bs eq ue n t s e a r c h.” “ The

po li ce are no t pr ecl ud ed fro m co nd uc ti ng in ve nt or y se arch es whe n th ey la wfu ll y

im po un d th e ve hi cl e of an in di vi du al th at th ey al so ha pp en to su sp ect is in vo lv ed in

il le ga l act iv it y .” Unit

ed St at es v. Ha rr is

, 79 5 F.3 d 82 0, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). “ Rat he r,

-6

-whe n po li ce are co n d u c t i n g in ve nt or y se arch es acco rd in g to su ch st an da rd iz ed

po li ci es , th ey m ay ke ep th ei r ey es op en fo r po te nt ia ll y in cri m in at in g it em s th at th ey

m ig ht di sc ov er in th e co ur se of a n i nv en to ry sea rch , as l on g a s t he ir s ol e p ur po se is

no t to in ve st ig at e a cri m e.” Id

. (in te r n a l q u ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ The se arch of

a ve hi cl e to in ve nt or y it s co nt en ts m us t ne ve rth el es s be reas on ab le un de r th e to ta li ty

of th e c i rcu m st an ces , an d m ay no t be ‘a ru se fo r a ge ne ral ru m m ag in g in or de r to

di sc ov er in cri m in at in g ev id en ce.’” Unit ed St at es v. Tay lo r , 63 6 F.3d 46 1, 46 4 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ), qu ot in g Fl

or id a v. Wel ls

, 49 5 U.S. 1, 4 (1 99 0) (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

“ The reas on ab le ne ss re q u i r em en t is m et whe n an in ve nt or y se arch is co nd uc te d

acco rd in g t o s ta nd ard iz ed po li ce p ro ced ur es , whi ch ge ne ral ly rem ov e th e in fere nc e

th at th e po li ce ha ve us ed i n v e n t o r y se arch es as a pu rp os efu l an d ge ne ral m ean s of

di sc ov eri ng ev id en ce of a cri m e.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. “ Eve n if

po li ce fai l to ad he re to st an da rd iz ed pr oc ed ur es , th e se arch is ne ve rth el es s reas on ab le

pr ov id ed it is no t a p ret ex t fo r an in ve st ig at or y sea rch .” Id

. at 4 65

.

The po li cy req ui red th e de pu ti es to in ve nt or y al l it em s va lu ed at $2 5 or m or e.

Dur i ng th e in ve nt or y , th e de pu ti es fo un d in cri m in at in g ev id en ce. The ir su sp ic io n

Mo rri s was en ga ge d in cri m in al act iv it y do es no t es ta bl is h th at th e so le pu rp os e of th e

se arch was i nv es ti ga ti ve

. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Pa

pp as , 45 2 F .3d 76 7, 7 71 (8t h Cir.

20 06 ) (“ A va li d tra ffi c st op can no t be ch al le ng ed

, as Pap pa s al le ge s he re, on th e ba si s

th at th e s t o p w a s a c tu al ly a pr et ex t fo r an in ve st ig at io n of an ot he r cri m e.”). The

di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t e rr in fin di ng th at “ Tay lo r was well wit hi n hi s de pa rtment’s

po li cy to im po un d t he ve hi cl e fo r le gi ti m at e n on -in ve st ig at or y reas on s.”

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-