2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-14-2010 

# U SA v . M undy
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4112

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . M undy " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 517. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/517T he H onor abl e Thom as S elbyE l l i s I I I , Seni orD i s t r i ct * J udge fort he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ct of V i r gi ni a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 4112

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E RI C WAYNE M UNDY,

a /k /a BOOB, a /k /a J AM ES F RA ZI ER
E r i c W a yn e M u n d y, A ppel l ant

______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00540- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J

. C ur t i s J oyner A r gued J anuary8, 2009
B e f o re : C H A G A R E S , H A R D IM A N , C irc u it J udges , and

E L L I S , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

*

____________ ( Fi l ed: Sept ember14, 2010)SARA H S. GA NN ETT ( ar gued) A s s i s t antFeder al D efe nder D A V ID L

. M C C O L G IN A s s i s t antFeder al D efe nder Super vi s i ng A ppel l at e A t t or ney M AU REEN KEA RN EY R OW LEY C hi ef Fede r al D efe nder Feder al C om m uni t yD efe nderO ffi ce f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia Sui t e 540 W es t- C ur t i s C ent er 601 W al nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ant P AT RI CK L

. M E E HAN U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney RO BERT A

. ZAU ZM ER F RA NC I S C. BA RB I E RI , J R. , E S Q. M A R Y K A Y C O S T E L L O , E S Q . ( ar gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief o f A p p e a ls A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

____________ OP I NI ON

____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge.
E r i c W ayne M undyappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence for p o ss e ss io n o f

5 0 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e w it h in ten t to di s t r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) , and for pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne i n a pr ot ect ed ar ea, i n vi o lat ion of 21 U

. S. C

. § 860( a)

. M undy cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr oneous l yadmi t t ed evi dence t hat w as s ei zed dur i ng an i nvent or y s ear ch of hi s car , i n vi ol at i on of the F o u rt h A m en d m en t. H e a lso c h all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s appl i cat i on of a U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U

. S. S. G

. ”)3 enhanc ementforposses si on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance i n a p r o t e c t e d l o c a t i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I

. On Au g u s t3 , 2 0 0 4 , M u n d ywa s s t o p p e d b yt wo Phi l adel phi a H i ghw ayPat r ol offi cer s , J ames Chabo t and G eor ge Sot o, for m ak ing a r i ghttur n w i t houtus i ng a tur n s i gnal and for exce s s i vel ydark w i ndow t i nt i ng, i n appar entvi ol at i on of the mot or vehi cl e code. T he offi cer s s t opped M undy at 18t h St r eet and H un ti n g Par k A venue i n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a, l es s t han 1, 000 fee tfr om G r at z H i gh School

. T h e off i cer s appr oache d t he v e h i c l e a n d d i r e c t e d M u n d y t o l o we rt h e d r i v e r ’ s s i d e wi n d o w. M undyw as unabl e t o do s o, and t he offi cer s i ns t ruct ed hi m t o open hi s doori ns t ead, w hi ch he di d. O ffi cerC hab o t as ked M undyfor hi s l i cens e, i ns ur ance car d, and r egi s t r at i on. A ft ers ever al m i nut es of s ear chi ng, he w as unabl e t o l ocat e document at i on forthe vehi cl e. T he off

i cer s t hen t ook s t eps t o det erm i n e w hethert he vehi cl e w as r egi s t er ed. Fi r s t , t he off i cer s r an a che ck on the vehi cl e’ s publ i c V ehi cl e I dent i fi cat i on N um ber , and a chec k of the l i cens e pl at e number , nei t herof w hi ch pr oduced a r ecor d of an ow ner . T he off

i cer s t hen cont act ed the B ur eau of M ot orV ehi cl es ( t he “BM V ”)

. T he B M V r epor t ed no r egi s t r at i on i nfor m at i on for M undy ’ s vehi cl e. T he offi cer s di r ect ed M undyt o exi thi s vehi cl e, and theypl ace d hi m i n t hei rpatr ol car b ef o re r adi oi ng fora t ow t ruck. O f

f ice r C h a b o t b e g a n to se a rc h th e in ter io r o f th e v e h icle and, us i ng a keyM undypr ovi ded, o p en ed t he l ocked trunk. T he onl yi t ems i n t he trunk w er e a t ool k it an d a g r aypl as t i c bag cont ai ni ng a cl os ed s hoebox. O ffi cer C habot r emoved t he s hoebox fr o m t he pl as t i c bag a nd pr ocee ded t o open i t
. I ns i de, he found a br ow n paperl unch bag and t w o cl ear pl as t i c zi p- l ocked ba gs fi l l ed w i t h a s ubs t ance t hatappea red to b e cocai ne. O ffi cerC habot opened the paper l unch bag and found fourm or e cl earpl as t i c zi pl ocked ba gs , al s o cont aini ng a s ubs t ance t hatappea r ed t o be coca i ne. O ffi cerC habotr epl ace d t he i t ems, cl os ed the trunk of the veh i cl e, placed M un dy un der a rr est , and recovered $1 , 10 7 i n cash fr om hi s per s on. T he offi cer s t hen not i fi ed nar cot i cs agent s . T hey di d notcompl et e a Tow i ng R eportl i s t i ng t he i t ems found dur i ngM u n d ydoes notchal l enge the l egal i t yof the s t op on 1 appea l

. M undyB r . at10- 11. Sect i on 841( a) offe ns es ar e l es s er - incl uded off ens es of § 2 860( a) offe ns es . See U ni t ed St at es v. J acks on, 443 F. 3d 293, 294- 4 th e s e a rc h

. O f f ice r T ra p p ler o f th e N a rc o tics F ield U n it w a s a ss ig n e d to the in v esti g ati o n . H e o b tai n ed an d ex ec u ted a sea rch an d seizu re w arr ant for M undy ’ s vehi cl e and r ecove r ed fr om t he trunk, among ot hert hi ngs , s i x cl ear pl as t i c bags c ont ai ni ng a s ubs t ance s us pect ed t o be coc ai ne. O ffi cerT r appl eral s o r ecove r ed fr om t he i nt er i orof t he vehi cl e tw o pl as t i c j ar s , a s m al l amount of m ar i j uana, and document s . T he Phi l adel p hi a C hemi cal L abor at or yt es t ed the s ubs t ance found i n t he cl earpl as t i c bags and conf ir m ed tha tt he subst ance w as cocaine. T he co cai ne w ei gh ed 7 46

. 9 g ram s. M u n d yw a s c h a rg e d w ith o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 0 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e , 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), (b )(1 )(B ), an d o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f e e t o f a s c h o o l z o n e , 2 1 U .S .C . § 860( a)

. M undym oved t o s uppr es s t he evi dence found dur i ng t he s ear ch, ar gui ng t hat bot h t he s t op and the ens ui ng s ear ch vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s undert he Four t h A m endment

. A tt he hear i ng on t he 1 m ot i on t o s uppr es s , O ffi cerC habott es t i fi ed thathe fou n d t he c o ca ine d u ri n g a ro u ti n e inv en torysea rch o f M u n d y ’s ca r. Phi l adel phi a pol i ce pol i cypr ovi des thatbefor e a ve hi cl e i s t ow ed, i t s cont ent s m us tbe i nvent or i ed i n or dert o pr ot ectt he pol i ce f r om cl ai m s of m i s s i ng pr oper t yand damage. M undyar gued, i n r el evant par t , t hatt he off

i cer s di d nothave pr obab l e ca us e t o s ear ch the v e h icle , an d th a t th e in v e n to ry s e a rc h p o licyd id n o t su f f icie n tly reg u lat e the o ff

ice rs ’ discre ti o n w ith resp ec t t o clos ed co n tai n ers f o u n d in th e v e h icle . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n to s uppr es s , concl udi ng t hatt he s ear ch w as conduct ed p u r s uantt o a v a l i d i n v e n t o r y s e a r c h i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h d e p a r t m e n t a l p o l i c y. M undy ’ s cas e w as t r i ed t o a j ur ybegi nni ng on J ul y17, 2007 and , on Jul y19 , 20 07 , t he juryreturned g uil t yverd icts against M u n d yo n b o th co u n ts. O n O ctob er 9 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d M undyon C ountT w o, t he § 8 6 0 (a) vi ol at i on, to 29 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).
T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overt he under l y i ng 3 cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on pur s uant t o 18 U

. S. C

. § 3231. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 and 18 U

. S. C

. § 3742. 5 s eventy - ei ght m ont hs i n pr i s on, ei ghty ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a f in e o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d a sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. M u n d yf iled a tim e ly n o tice o f a p p e a l. 3 II.
M undy cont ends t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t err ed in adm i t t i ng into e v iden ce the c o ca ine s eiz e d d u rin g a w arran tl ess in v en tory sear ch o f his car. In r eview i ng t he d enial of a m oti on t o sup press al l egi ng vi ol at i ons o f t he Four t h A m endment , w e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs for c l earerr orand exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons . U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 417 F. 3d 373, 376 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. “B eca us e t he basi s for deni al of the m ot i on w as a det erm i nat i on tha tt he s ear ch thatpr oduced the evi dence w as val i d, w e mustr evi ew t he pr opr i etyof the w arr ant l es s s ear ch thatl ed t o t he di s covery o f i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence

. ” I d.
A

. T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed that“[t ] he t ouchs t one of t he Four t h A m endmenti s r eas onabl enes s . ” Fl or i da v. J i m eno, 500 U

. S

. 2 4 8 , 2 5 0 (19 9 1 ). W arran tl ess s ea rc h es a n d seizu res a re pr es um pt i vel y unr eas onabl e and ar e t her efor e prohi bi t ed undert he Four t h A m endment , unl es s an exc ept ion appl i es . C al i forni a v. A c e v e d o , 5 0 0 U .S

. 5 6 5 , 5 8 0 (1 9 9 1 ) (“ It re m a in s a c a rd in a l p rin c ip le t hats ear ches c onduct ed out s i de the j udi ci al pr oces s , w i t houtpr i or appr oval byj udge or m agi s t r at e, ar e per s e unr eas onabl e undert he Four t h A m endment – s ubj ect onl y t o a few s peci fi cal l yes t abl i s hed and w el l

- del i neat ed exc ept i ons . ” ( quot at i on m arks o m itt ed) ) ; s ee al s o K at z v. U ni t ed St at es , 389 U

. S. 347, 357 ( 1967)

. “Such e x c e p tio n s a re b a se d o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e ter m in a ti o n th a t a p arti cu lar searc h is r ea so n ab le, that is, that the g o v ern m en t’ s leg iti m a te in ter e sts in th e se a rch outw ei gh the indi vidu a l’s le g iti m a te6 expec t at i on of pr i vacy i n t he obj ectof the s ear ch. ” U ni t ed St at es v. S alm o n , 9 4 4 F

. 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 2 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ).
T he Supr eme C our thas det erm i ned that one except i on t o t he w a r r a n tr e q u i r e me n ti s f o ri n v e n t o r ys e a r c h e s o f l a wfu l l ys ei zed a u to m o b iles . C o lo ra d o v . B e rtin e , 4 7 9 U .S . 3 6 7 , 3 7 1 (1 9 8 7 ); Illino is v. L afa y et t e, 462 U

. S. 640, 643 ( 1983) (“[ T ] he i nvent or ys ear ch co n sti tutes a w ell -de fin ed ex ce p ti o n to the w arran t r eq u ir em en t. ”); Sout h D akot a v. O pperm an, 428 U

. S. 364, 372 ( 1976) (“[ I]n v en tori es p u rsua n t t o stan d ard p o li ce p roc ed u res a re r eas onabl e. ”)

. I nv ent or ypr ocedur es s erve thr ee “ s t r ong g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e sts ” : “[ 1 ] t o p ro tec t a n o w n e r’s p ro p e rtyw h ile it i s in th e c u sto d y o f th e p o lice , [ 2 ] to in su re a g a in st c laim s o f lo st, s t ol en, orvandal i zed pr oper t y , and [3] t o guar d t he pol i ce f r om danger

. ” B er t i ne, 479 U

. S. at372.
L a w f u l in v e n to ryse a rc h e s m u st b e “ c o n d u c ted a c c o rd in g to s t a n d a r d i z e d c r i t e r i a ” o r e s t a b l i s h e d r o u t i n e , c o n s i s t e n t wi t h t he p u rp o se o f

a n o n -in v e stig a tiv e se a rc h . Id . at 3 7 4 n .6 . T h is re q u ire m e n t “te n d [ s] to e n su re th a t th e in tru sio n w [ ill ] be lim ited in s c o p e to th e e x te n t n e c e s s a ry to c a rr yo u t th e c a re ta k in g f u n c tio n .” O pperm an, 428 U

. S. at375. T he cr i t er i a orr out i ne m us tl i m i tan offi cer ’ s di s cr et i on i n t w o w ay s: fi r s t , as t o w hethert o s ear ch the vehi cl e, and s econd, as t o t he s cope of an i nvent or y s ear ch. Sal m on, 9 4 4 F

. 2 d at 1 1 2 0 -21 (cit ing F lori d a v . W ell s, 4 9 5 U

. S

. 1 , 4 -5 (1 9 9 0 ); B erti n e, 47 9 U

. S

. at 37 4 & n .6 , 3 7 5 -7 6 ). T h ese li m it ati o n s en su re t h a t o f f i c e r s p e r f

o r mi n g t h e s e c a r e t a k i n g f u n c t i o n s a r e “ ‘ not [] al l ow ed s o m uch l at i tud e that i nvent or ys ear ches ar e tur ned i nt o a p u rpo sef u l and g en era l m ea n s o f d isco v ering ev iden ce o f a crim e.’” Id. at 1 1 2 0 (qu o ti n g W ell s, 4 9 5 U

. S

. at 4 (q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)); s ee a l s o W el l s , 495 U

. S. at4 ( “[A ] n i nvent or ys ear ch mustnotbe a rus e fora gene r al rum m agi ng i n or dert o di s coveri ncr i m i nat i ng e v id e n c e .” ).
M undyar gues t hatt he coc ai ne s ei zed f r om t he s hoebox i n t he t runk of hi s cars houl d have be en s uppr es s ed bec aus e i tw as “the fru ito f a n il lega l i n v en torysea rch .” M u n d yB r. at 13 -14

. In par t i cul ar , M undycont ends t hatal t hough t he Phi l adel phi a P o li ce D e p a rtm e n t d id h a v e a p o licyo n in v e n to ry se a rc h e s, th e p o licyd id7 notaddr es s expl i ci t l yhow cl os ed cont ai ner s w er e t o be tr ea ted. Sever al deci s i ons s et t he backgr ound for our anal y s i s of thi s i s s ue. I n C ol or ado v . B er t i ne, t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed w hether , and underw hatci r cumst an ces , pol i ce mayi nvent or yt he c o n ten ts o f

c lo se d c o n tain e rs f

o u n d in v e h icle s law f

u llytak e n in to t hei r cus t ody

. D ur i ng t he i nvent or y s ear ch of B er t i ne’ s i m pounded vehi cl e, an i nves t i gat i ng offi cer opened a cl os ed bac kpack, a ny l on bag w i t hi n t he bac kpack, and cl os ed m et al cani s t er s l ocat ed i ns i de t he ny l on bag. 479 U

. S. at3 6 9

. T he off i cerfound contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s , coca i ne par aphernal i a, and a l ar ge amount of cas h i n t he ca n ist ers. I d

. R ev ers in g s u p p ression o f th is ev iden ce , the C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t “r e a so n a b le p o li c e re g u latio n s re latin g to in v e n to ryp ro c e d u r e s a d m in iste re d in g o o d f a ith sa tisf

yth e F o u rth A me n d me n t
. ” I d

. a t 3 7 4

. Th e Cou r t r e j e c t e d t h e s u g g e s t i o n t hat pol i ce, befor e i n vent or y i ng a cont ai ner , “w ei gh t he s t r ength of the in d iv id u a l’s p riv a c yin ter e st i n th e c o n tain e r a g a in st th e p o ss ib ili ty t hat t he cont ai ner m i ght s erve as a r epos i t or y for danger ou s or val uabl e i t ems. ” I d. R ather , t he C our tobs erved, “[a ] s i ngl e fa m i l i ar s t andar d i s es s ent i al t o gui de pol i ce offi cer s , w ho have onl yl i m i t ed t i m e and e xper t i s e t o r efl ect on and bal ance t he s oci al and i ndi vi dual i nt er es t s i nvol ved i n t he ci r cumst ance s t heycon fro nt
. ” I d. at375 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d , a lte ra tio n in o ri g in a l)

. T he B er t i ne C our t added t hat not hi ng i n i t s jur i s prudence “pr ohi bi t s t he exe r ci s e of pol i ce di s cr et i on s o l ong as t hatdi s cr et i on i s exer ci s ed acc o rding t o s t andar d cr i t er i a and on the bas i s of s om ethi ng ot hert han s us p ici o n of cr i m i nal act i vi t y . ” I d. at375. T he C our thel d t hat t her e w as no s how i ng t hat t he i nvent or ys ear ch w as “for t he sol e purpos e of i nves t i gat i on. ” I d. at 372. Fur t her , t he C our tnot ed that s t andar d pr ocedur es governed t he i nvent or ys ear ch and thatt ho se pr ocedur es “mandat ed the openi ng of cl os ed cont ai ner s and the l i s t i ng of thei rcont ent s . ” I d. at374 n. 6. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our thel d t hatt he Fo u rth A m endmentdi d not pr ohi bi tus e of the evi dence found duri ng t he i nvent or ys ear ch of B er t i ne’ s vehi cl e. I n Fl or i da v. W el l s , t he Supr eme C our taddr es s ed how m uch di s cr et i on l aw enfor cement offi cer s m aybe af for ded t o open cl os ed cont ai ner s underi nvent or ys ear ch pol i ci es forFour t h A m endment8 p u rpo ses. T h e C o u rt m ad e clear th at w h il e l aw en fo rce m en t of fice rs m u st no t hav e “ u n ca n ali ze d d iscreti o n ” in c o n d u cti n g inv en tory s ear ches , “ther e i s n o rea so n t o i ns i s tt hatt heybe conduc t ed i n a t ot al l ym echa ni cal ‘ al l ornot hi ng’ fas hi on. ” 495 U

. S. at4. N ot i ng t he i m por t antpurpos es of i nvent or ys ear ches , t he C our tr ecogni zed th a t law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs “ m a y b e a llo w e d su f f icie n t latitu d e to det e r mi n e whe t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t a i n e r s h o u l d o r s h o u l d not be opened i n l i ghtof the natur e of the s ear ch and t he cha r act er i s t i cs of th e c o n ta in e r its e lf.” Id . T h e C o u rt f u rth e r e x p lain e d th a t “w h ile p o licie s o f o p e n in g a ll o r n o c o n tain e rs a re u n q u e stio n a b ly perm i s s i bl e, i tw oul d be equa l l yperm i s s i bl e, forexampl e, t o al l ow t he openi ng of cl os ed cont ai ner s w hos e cont ent s offi cer s det erm i ne t heyare unab l e t o ascert ai n from exam in in g the con t ai ners’ ext er i or s . ” I d. C oncl udi ng, t he C our tobs erved t hat“[t ] he a llo w a n c e o f th e e x e rc ise o f ju d g m e n t b a se d o n c o n c e rn s re late d to t he purposes of an i nv entory sear ch does not viol at e t he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.” Id . U n d e r th e f a c ts p re se n ted , the W e lls C o u rt h e ld t hat m ari j uan a dis cov ered aft er po l i ce forced op en a locked sui t case lo c a ted in th e tru n k o f a n im p o u n d e d v e h icle w a s p ro p e rly s uppr es s ed bec aus e the pol i ce de par t m enthad “no pol i cyw hat ever w i t h r es pectt o t he openi ng of cl os ed cont ai ner s encount er ed dur i ng a n in v e n to ry se a rc h .” Id . a t 4 -5

. Fol l ow i ng B er t i ne and W el l s , t hi s C o u rt i n U ni t ed St at es v. Sal m on cons i dered w hethera w eapon f ound i n a gym bag i n t he tru n k o f a v e h icle p u rsu a n t to a p u rp o rte d in v e n to ryse a rc h sh o u ld be s uppr es s ed. 9 4 4 F. 2d at1118. W e bega n ouranal y s i s of the iss u e b yre c o g n izin g th a t “p re -e x istin g c riter ia o r ro u tin e m u st lim it an offi c e r ’ s d i s c r e t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e s c o p e o f a n i n v e n t o r ys e a r c h, p a rt ic u la rl yw ith re s p e c t to th e tr e a tm e n t o f c lo s e d c o n ta in e rs .” Sal m on, 944 F. 2d at1120 (em p h asi s i n or i gi nal )

. W e not ed that al t hough t her e w as s om e evi dence t hat t he l ocal governm enthad a p o li cythat all v eh icl es se ized fo r fo rfe itu re (as in B erti n e) w ere s ear ched, w e conc l uded that“as i n W el l s , t he governm entdid not poi ntt o anys t andar di zed c r i t er i a or r out i ne governi ng t he s cope of in v e n to ryse a rc h e s.” Id . a t 1 1 2 1 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). A s a re su lt of “the l ack of

evi dence of anycr i t er i a ores t abl i s hed r out i ne r egar di ng t he s cope of

an i nvent or ys ear ch, ” w e concl uded thatt he offi cer s had exe r ci s ed “i m perm i s s i bl e d i s c r e t i o n r e gar di ng t he s copeT h e P P D L iv e S to p P o licyp ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: 4 [ T ]h e in v e s tig a tin g o f

f ic e r[ ] s h a ll . . . : 1. H ave the oper at orand occ upant s exi tt he vehi cl e and r emai n on lo c a tio n . . . . 2

. C o m p let e the T o w ing R ep o rt b yco n d u cti n g a v eh icl e inv en tory des cr i bi ng any damage and/ orm i s s i ng equi pm ent , per s onal p ro p e rt yo f

v a lu e le f

t in th e v e h ic le b yth e o p e ra to r/ o c c u p a n t s [ ,] i ncl udi ng t he trunk ar ea i f ac ces s i bl e. N O T E : N o l ocked a r eas , i ncl udi ng t he trunk ar ea, w i l l be f o r c e d o p e n w h i l e c o n d u c t i n g a n i n v e n t o r y. A pp. 46.

9 of the i nvent or y , ” and w e acc or di ngl yhel d t hatt he i nvent or ys ear ch w a s u n la w f

u l. I d

.

B

. D uri ng a l aw ful s t op based o n suspec t ed tr affic vio latio ns, P h ilad e lp h ia H ig h w a yP a tro l o f f ice rs d e ter m in e d th a t M u n d yw a s in vi ol at i on of § 1301( a) of the P en n sy l vani a vehi cl e code , w hi ch p ro h ib its d ri v in g a n u n re g is te re d v e h ic le . 7 5 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 1301( a) ( 1)

. U nderPenn sy l vani a l aw , i f an of fi cerdet erm i nes t hat a d ri v er is op era ti n g a v eh icl e in v iolati o n o f , inter ali a, § 1 3 0 1 (a), th a t v e h icle m a yb e im p o u n d e d . Id . § 6 3 0 9 .2 T h e P h ilad e lp h ia Pol i ce D epart m enthas i s s ued gui del i nes – know n as L i ve St op ( t he “PPD L i ve St op Pol i cy ”) – that i m pl ementt he i m poundm ent p ro v isio n s o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia V e h icle C o d e , § 6 3 0 9 .2 . A p p e n d ix ( “A pp. ”) 44. O nce i ti s det erm i ned thatt he dr i ver i s i n vi ol at i on of

4 § 6309. 2, t he P PD L i ve S t op Pol i cy di r ect s an i nves t i gat i ng offi cer t o i nvent or yt he cont ent s of t he vehi cl e t aken i nt o cus t ody

. A pp. 45- 4 6

. M undydoes notchal l enge the i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i cer s ’ deci s i on“T h e e x is te n ce o f . .

. a v ali d [stan d ard ized inv en tory 5 s ear ch] pr ocedur e m ay be pr oven by r efe r ence t o ei t her w ri t t en ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s o r t e s tim o n yre g a rd in g s ta n d a rd p ra c tic e s .” U ni t ed St at es v. T hom ps on, 29 F. 3d 62, 65 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( ci t at i ons o m itted); see also U n it ed S tat es v. C o m o , 5 3 F

. 3 d 8 7 , 9 2 (5th C ir

. 1995) ( uphol di ng i nvent or y s ear ch i n t he abs ence of a w ri tt en pol i cy , expl ai ni ng t hat“t es t i m onyr eg ardi ng r el i ance on s t a nd a r di z e d p r oc e du r e s i s s uf fi c i e nt ” )

. He r e , bo t h the w r i t t e n PPD L i ve St op Pol i cyand O ffi cerC habot ’ s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed the s ta n d a rd d e p a rt m e n ta l p ro c e d u re re g u la tin g in v e n to ry se a rc h e s . 1 0 t o conduct an i nvent or ys ear ch fol l ow i ng t he s ei zur e of hi s vehi cl e. I ns t ead, he ar gues t hat t he offi cer s exce eded t hei r author it y w hen t heys ear ched cl os ed cont ai ner s l ocat ed i n t he t runk of the vehi cl e. H e as s er t s t hatt hi s cas e hew s cl os el y t o Sal m on and W el l s , cl ai m i ng t hatt he PPD L i ve St op Pol i cydoes notr egul at e i nvent or ys ear ches of closed con t ai ners. O ff icer C h ab o t test ifi ed at tr ial that h e sea rch e d M u n d y ’s veh i cl e for “valuable i t em s” an d o t her ki nd s of “p ers on al effects ” befor e i tw as i m pounded, in accor dance w i t h t he PPD L i ve St op Pol i cy . A pp. 92. T he t erm s of thatpol i cy r equi r e the i nves t i gat i ng off i cer t o “[c ]om plet e t he T ow i ng R epo rtbycon du ct i ng a ve h icle i nvent or ydes cr i bi ng any. . . per s onal pr oper t yof val ue l ef ti n t he v e h icle b yth e o p e ra to r/o c c u p a n ts[ ,] in c lu d in g th e tru n k a r e a if a c c e s s i b l e . ” App

. 4 6

. Th e PP D Li v e St o p Po l i c y a l s o l i mi t s t he scope o f th e i nv entorysear ch, i nst ruct i ng t hat “[n]o l ock ed areas, i ncl u d i n g t h e t ru n k a r e a , wi l l b e f o r c e d o p e n whi l e c o n d u c t i ng an i nvent or y . ” I d. 5
M undycont ends t hat , beca us e the PPD L i ve St op Pol i cydoes n o t spe cifica ll ym en ti o n the o p en ing o f c lose d c o n tai n ers, of fice rs m ayn o t search clos ed co n tai n ers fo u n d d u ri n g a v eh icl e inv en tory se a rc h . W e d isa g re e . In v e n to ryse a rc h e s a re n o t “to tally m e c h a n ica l” p ro c e d u re s. W e lls, 4 9 5 U .S . a t 4 . S tan d a rd ize d c riter ia o r rou ti n e m ayad eq u atelyreg u lat e the o p en ing o f c lose d co n tai n ers di s cover ed dur i ng i nvent or ys ear ches w i t houtus i ng t he w or ds

“ c lo se d c o n tain e r” o r oth e r e q u iv a len t term s. W e d e c lin e to c re a te a rul e of c ons t i tut i onal di m ens i on t hat r equi r es an i nvent or ys ear ch pr ot ocol t o pr edi cteveryconce i vabl e s cena r i o an off i cerm ayA c c o rd U n ited S tate s v . M a tth e w s, 5 9 1 F .3 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 8 (4 th 6 C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ W ] i t h i n t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o f t h e [ a p p l i c a b l e ] p o l i c y, offi cer s m ayexer ci s e di s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hetherornott o open a part i cul ar cont ai ner . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H al l , 497 F. 3d 846, 852 ( 8t h C i r . 2007) ( “That t he Pol i cyal l ow s s om e di s cr et i on . . . does notm ake the i nvent or ys ear ch uncons t i tut i onal

. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T acke t t , 486 F. 3d 230, 232 ( 6t h C i r . 2007) ( “[ O ]ff ic er s m ay exerci se som e j ud gm ent based on con cerns r el at ed to the p urpose of an i nvent or ys ear ch; forexampl e, t heym aydeci de t o open p a rt ic u la r c o n ta in e rs if th e yc a n n o t d e te rm in e th e c o n te n ts .” ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T hom ps on, 29 F. 3d 6 2 , 6 5 -66 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) (“A lth o u g h the [ estab li sh ed inv en tory s ear ch] pr ocedur e m us t not be a pr et ext‘ fora gene r al rum m agi ng i n or dert o di s coveri ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence , ’ i tm ayal l o w t he s ear chi ng offi cer s s uffi ci entdi s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hetherornot to o p en a sp ec ifi c c o n tai n e r. ” (q u o ti n g W ell s, 4 9 5 U

. S

. at 4)); U ni t ed St at es v. G al l o, 927 F

. 2 d 815, 819 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) ( “The p o l i c e d e p a r tme n t ’ s i n v e n t o r yp r o c e d u r e s c a n a l l o w an o f fi cer
‘ l at i tude t o det erm i ne w hethera p ar t i cul arcont ai ners houl d or s houl d n o t b e o p ened i n l i ghtof the natur e of the s ear ch and char act er i s t i cs of the cont ai neri t s el f. ’ ” ( quot i ng W el l s , 495 U

. S. at 1 1 happen upon w hi l e conduc t i ng an i nvent or y s ear ch, and t o pr ovi de a form ul ai c di r ect i ve for ea ch an d everyone. Such a r equi r ement w oul d n o t o nl ypr ove unw or kabl e, butw oul d run contr aryt o t he l et t er and spir i t of B ert i ne and W el l s. S ee U nit ed S t at es v. A nd rew s, 22 F. 3d 1328, 1 3 3 6 ( 5t h C i r . 1994) ( uphol di ng i nvent or ys ear ch i nvol vi ng an off

i ce r’s re adi ng of i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence i ns i de a not ebook r ecove r ed pur s uant t o an i nvent or ys ear ch, r eas oni ng t hat n eith er B erti n e n o r W ell s “re q u ir es a law en fo rce m en t age n cy ’s i nvent or ypol i cyt o addr es s s peci fi cal l yt he s t eps t hatan off i cer s h o u ld ta k e u p o n e n c o u n te ri n g a c lo s e d c o n ta in e r” ).
Instea d , “re aso n ab le p o li ce reg u lat ion s relati n g to inv en tory pr oce dur es , ” B er t i ne, 479 U

. S. at374, m ean that“[t ] he pol i cyor pr act i ce” i s “des i gned t o pr oduce a n i nvent or y , ” W el l s , 495 U

. S. at 4, and thatt he cr i t er i a do notal l ow offi cer s “s o m uch l at i tude that i nvent or ys ear ches ar e tur ned i nt o ‘ a purpos eful and gene r al m eans of di s c ov e r i ng e vi de nc e of a c r i me. ’ ” I d. ( qu ot i ng Ber t i ne , 47 9 U. S. at376 ( B l ackmun, J

. , concurr i ng) )

. T hos e pr i nci pl es ar e s at i s fi ed 61) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J udge, 864 F. 2d 1144, 1145 ( 5t h C ir

. 1989) ( not i ng t hat“B er t i ne does notcondemn al l form s of pol i ce di s cr et i on, butonl y‘ evi dent i ary ’ di s cr et i on w hi ch i s exer ci s ed on the b asis o f su sp ici o n o f c ri m inal ac ti v ity ”). 1 2 h e re . T he P P D L i ve S t op P o licyexp l i ci t l yset s out i t s object i ves, namel y , t o pr ot ect t he ow ner ’ s pr oper t y and s hi el d t he off i cer s fr om cl ai m s of l os s ordamage. T he Pol i cyal s o s uffi ci ent l yr egul at es t he sc o p e o f th e se a rc h , d ire c tin g in v e stig a tin g o f f ice rs to se a rc h a ll acc es s i bl e ar eas of the v ehi cl e ( i ncl udi ng t he trunk) , pr ovi ded that th e ya re n o t f

o r c e d o p e n , to d e te rm in e if th e yc o n ta in “ a n y. . . per s onal pr oper t yof val ue, ” or ot her eff ect s . A pp. 46. A s ear ch of unl ocked c ont ai ner s t hatm ayhol d su ch pr oper t yoreff ect s , as h ap p en ed h ere , fa ll s co m fo rt ab lyw ith in the P P D L ive S top P o li cy ’s g e n e ra l d ire c tiv e , an d th e re f o re d o e s n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m endment

. See W el l s , 495 U

. S. at4.
M undy ’ s r el i ance on W el l s and Sal m on i s m i s pl ace d. I n eac h of thos e ca s es , t he cour t s found t hatt her e w as no s t andar d pol i cyor pr ocedur e governi ng t he s cope of i nvent or ys ear ches

. I n W el l s , t he cl os ed cont ai nerati s s ue w as a l ocked s ui t cas e t hat w as for ced ope n att he di r ect i on of a s t at e t r ooper , and t her e w as “no pol i cyw hat ever w i t h r es pectt o t he openi ng of cl os ed cont ai ner s . ” 49 5 U

. S. at4. T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e se a rc h o f th e su itca se w a s u n la w f u l, expl ai ni ng t hat offi cer s m ay not be gi ven t ot al di s cr et i on t o deci de w h ethert o open a c l os ed cont ai nerfound dur i ng an i nvent ory s ear ch. I d. at 4- 5. Si m i l ar l y , i n Sal m on, t he compl et e abs ence of a r el evanti nvent o rys ear ch pr ot ocol under s cor ed ourdeci s i on. In d e e d , w e e x p lain e d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d f a iled to “ p o in t to an ystan d ard ized crit eria o r rou ti n e g o v ern ing the s co p e o f in v en tory s ear ches

. ” Sal m on, 944 F. 2d at1121 ( emphasi s om i t t ed)

. W el l s and S a lm o n , th e re f

o re , e x e m p lify “ a p rim e d a n g e r of in s u f f icie n tly r egul at ed i nvent or ys ear ches : pol i ce mayus e the ex cu s e of a n
‘ i nvent ory sear ch’ as a pr et extforbr oad s ear ches of vehi cl es and th e irc o n te n ts .” W e lls , 4 9 5 U .S . a t 5 (B re n n a n , J ., c o n c u rr in g ).
I n t he pr es ent ca s e, bycontr as t , t he PPD L i ve St op Pol i cy r es t r i ct ed O ffi cer C habot fr om for ci ng open t he t runk or any o ther1 3 l o c k e d a r e a s o f

t h e v e h i c l e . T h e P o l i c y i n s t ru c t e d h i m t o i n v e n t o r y, i nt er al i a, “any

. . . per s onal pr oper t yof val ue l efti n t he vehi cl e by th e o p e ra to r/ o c c u p a n ts [ ,] i n c lu d in g th e tru n k a re a if a c c e s s ib le .” A p p . 4 6 . B ysp e c if

ica ll y a u th o riz in g th e se a rc h o f th e tru n k “ if ac c e s s i b l e , ” and byforbi ddi ng any“l ocked a r eas , i ncl udi ng t he trunk ar ea, ” fr om bei ng “for ced open, ” t he Pol i cy : ( 1) author i zed O ffi cer C habott o i nvent or y“anyper s onal pr oper t yof val ue” l eftin the tru n k o n c e M u n d yp ro v id e d th e k e y s to it; a n d (2 ) sim u ltan e o u s ly cur t ai l ed hi s aut h o ri t yt o embar k on a gene r al i zed s ear ch for i nci dent s of cr i m e. T h o u g h the PPD L i ve St op Pol i cydoes not c o n tain m a g ic w o rd s re latin g sp e c if ica lly to c lo se d c o n tain e rs, its re f e re n c e to “ a n y. . . p e rso n a l p ro p e rtyo f v a lu e ” su f

f icie n tly reg u lat ed the s co p e o f a p erm issi b le inv en tory sea rch , an d there fo re a u th o riz e d th e o p e n in g o f th e sh o e b o x in M u n d y ’s tru n k to d et erm i ne i f s uch pr oper t yw as cont ai ned ther ei n. O ffi cerC habot act ed i n acc or dance w i t h s t andar di zed cr i t er i a; t her e i s no evi dence t h a th e e x e r c i s e d u n b r i d l e d d i s c r e t i o n i n c h o o s i n g t o o p e n t he u n lo c k e d c o n ta in e r. O ur s i s t er cour t s of appeal s have r evi ew ed ques t i ons s i m i l ar to th a t p o se d h e re . In U n ited S tate s v . W ilso n , 9 3 8 F .2 d 7 8 5 (7 th C i r . 1991) , t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Seventh C i r cui thel d t hatt he in v e n to ryse a rc h p o licyg o v e rn in g th e Illino is s tate p o lice “ c lea rly es t abl i s he[d] t he pol i cyt hatcl os ed cont ai ner s can be opened, ” i d. at 790, even th o u g h t he pol i cydi d notus e the “buz z w or ds ‘ cl os ed cont ai ner , ’ ” i d. at789. T he cour thel d t hatt he pol i cy ’ s r equi r ement t hat t he i nv est i gati ng off i cer exam i ne an d inventoryt he “co ntent s” o f th e v e h icle , tog e th e r w ith th e d ire c tio n to r e s tr ic t th e se a rc h to ar eas w her e ow n ers oroper at or s w oul d norm al l ypl ace per s onal pr oper t y , s uffi ci ent l yl i m i t ed the off i cer s ’ di s cr et i on. I d. at790; s ee also U n it ed S tat es v. R icha rdso n , 1 2 1 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 5 -56 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ) (r ea ff

irm ing the h o lding in W il so n ).
I n U ni t ed S t at es v. T hom ps on, 29 F. 3d 62 ( 2d C i r . 1994) , t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it c o n sid e re d f a c ts th a t clo se ly par al l el t hi s cas e. T her e, t he cour t r evi ew ed an i nvent ory s ear ch of a l o c k e d b r i e f

c a s e ( t o w h i c h t h e d e f

e n d a n th a d p r o v i d e d t h e k e y) r ecove r ed fr om an i m p o u n d ed vehi cl e. I d. at64. A ti s s ue w as w hether the appl i cabl e i nvent or ys ear ch r egul at i ons pr ovi dedSee al s o St at e v. M es a, 717 N

. E

. 2d 329, 334 ( O hi o 1999) 7 ( upho l di ng an i nvent or ys ear ch w her e depa r t m ent al pol i cy “r equi r e[d] t hat‘ open compar t m ent s of the vehi cl e ar e t o be sea rch ed [,]’ an d that ‘l o ck ed co m p artm en ts sha ll n o t be o p en ed , ’” and conc l udi ng t hat“[b] yi t s veryt erm s , t hi s l anguag e d o es not p ro h ib it o f

f ice rs f ro m se a rc h in g c lo se d c o m p a rtm e n ts[ ,]” b u t o n ly p ro h ib its o p e n in g th o s e “ th a t a re lo c k e d ” ). 1 4 s uffi ci ent l ys t andar di zed c ri teri a t o t he off i cer s conduct i ng t he in v e n to ry se a rc h

. Id . a t 6 5

. T h e re g u latio n s sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

“ A m e m b e r o f

th e D e p a rtm e n t w h o im p o u n d s a n ym o to r v e h icle s h a ll in v e n to ry th e c o n te n ts o f th e v e h ic le a n d re c o rd th e re s u lts

. . .

. I ti s notnece s s ary to en terl ocked port i ons o f a n yv e h icle to c o n d u c t a n in v e n to ry s e a rc h w h e n k e y s to e n te r a re n o t a v a ila b le .” I d. at66 ( emphase s i n or i gi nal )

. T he c o u rt rej ect ed the ar gum ent t hatpol i ce of

fi cer s “us ed i m perm i s s i bl e di s cr et i on i n conduct i ng t he i nv entorysear ch b ecause the r egu l at i on s r efer t o ‘lo c k ed p ort i on s’ and do nots peci fi cal l ym ent i on t he t erm ‘ cl osed co n ta i ner s . ’ ” I d. C i t i ng W i l s on, t he cour t expl ai ned t hat “[t ] he t erm s ‘ cont ent s ’ and ‘lo c k e d p o rtio n s’ in th e re g u latio n s p ro v id e su f f icie n t elu c id a tio n to s at i s fyt he cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s for an i nvent or ys ear ch of a cl os ed cont ai nerw hen key s ar e ava i l abl e. ” I d. 7
M or e r ece nt l y , i n U ni t ed St at es v. M at t hew s , 5 9 1 F

. 3d 230 ( 4t h C i r . 2009) , an off i cerconduct i ng an i nvent or ys ear ch of a n i m poun d e d v e h i c l e d i s c o v e r e d , i n t e r a l i a , a s u b s t a n t i a l q u a n t i t yof packa ged coc ai ne i n a cl os ed s ui t cas e r ecove r ed fr om t he trunk. T he def endantchal l enged the i nvent or ys ear ch on the bas i s t hatt he offi cer“coul d nothave f ol l ow ed s t andar di zed c r it er i a bec aus e the D e p a rtm e n t’s p o licyd o e s n o t s p e c if y h o w a n o f

f ice r sh o u ld h a n d le c lo se d c o n tain e rs.” Id . at 2 3 6 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F o u rth C i r cui t ci t ed as author i t y W i l s on, R i char ds on, and T hom ps on , and hel d t hat“[a ] pol i ce depart m ent ’ s pol i cyon i nvent or ys ear ches does n o t h a v e to sp e c if

ica lly u se th e p h ra se ‘c lo se d c o n tain e rs’ to p e rm it t he s ear ch a n d seizur e of s uch i t ems. ” I d. T he courtr ej ect ed the defe nd ant’ s chal l eng e t o the i nv entorysear ch, reas on i ng as fol l ow s:

L ik e th e p o licie s d isc u ss e d in T hom ps on, W i l s on, and R i char ds on, t he D epart m ent ’ s pol i cy , t hough not1 5 expl i ci t l yus i ng the phra s e “c l os ed con t ai ner s , ” s uffi ci ent l yr egul at es t he openi ng of s u ch cont ai ner s t o pr ovi de sta n d a rd ize d c riter ia to ju stif yD e p u ty C l ark’ s sear ch o f M at t hew s’s b ags. T h a t p o licyre q u ire s, in re lev a n t p a rt, for“[a ] compl et e i nvent or y[t o] be t aken on al l i m pounded o r confi s cat ed vehi cl es i ncl udi ng t he i nt er i or , gl ove compar t m entand tru n k. ” O nl yby o p eni ng al l cl os ed cont ai ner s coul d a p o lice o f f ice r e f f e c tiv e lyc o m p lyw ith th is re q u ire m e n t f

o r a “ c o m p lete in v e n to ry.”

. . . T he c i r c u ms t ance s i n t hi s cas e r epr es ent t h e t yp i c a l s i tu a t i o n i n whi c h t he necessi t yof an i nv entorysear ch ari ses. A s t he pol i cyi n ques t i on r efl ect s, t he p u rpo se o f c o n d u cti n g the in v en tory se a rc h is t o p ro tec t th e o w n e r’s p ro p e rty w hi l e i n t he cus t ody of t he pol i ce f r om “l os s ort heft

. ” O nl yby per for m i ng a ful l i nventory of the ca r– w hi ch i ncludes op ening cl osed co n tai ners – coul d an off

i ceri dent i fyal l t he v e h icle ’s v a lu a b les a n d e f f e c tiv e ly s ecur e them. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hat b eca us e the D epart m ent ’ s pol i cy author i zes the o p en ing o f c lose d co n tai n ers encount er ed dur i ng an i nvent or ys ear ch and D eputyC l ark adh ere d t o t hat p o licy , D e p u tyC lar k ’s s e a rc h f a lls w ithi n t he i nvent or ys ear ch exc ept i on a n d th u s d o e s n o t v io late th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t.N o tab ly , th e M a tth e w s c o u rt d istin g u ish e d o u r d e c isio n in 8 Sal m on, emp h asizing – as w e have above – thatt her e, “the l aw en f o rc e m en t age n cyh ad ‘no w ri tt en p o li cyreg ard ing inv en tory s e a rc h p ro c e d u re s ,’ m u c h le s s o n e a d d re s s in g c lo s e d c o n ta in e rs .” M atth ew s, 5 9 1 F

. 3 d at 23 6 n . 8 (qu o ti n g S alm o n , 9 4 4 F

. 2 d at 11 2 1 ). 1 6 Id. at 23 7 -38 (cit ati o n s o m itted). 8
F or the reas on s w e hav e art i culat ed, w e agree w i t h these co u rt s. T h e in v e n to rysea rch p roto co ls atissue in tho se c ase s are cons t i tut i onal l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he PPD L i ve St op P o li cy t hatM undychal l enges her e. W e hol d t hatt he Pol i cypr ovi ded s uffi ci ent l ys t andar di zed c r i t er i a r egul at i ng t he s cope of a perm i s s i bl e i nvent or ys ear ch – i ncl udi ng s ear ches of cl os ed cont ai ner s – and thatO ffi cerC habot ’ s s ear ch ade quat el ycompl i ed w i t h t hos e cr i t er i a. M undy al s o ar gues t hatt he off i cer s ’ r el i ance on t he PPD L i ve St op P o li cyw as a pr et extforan i nves t i gat or ys ear ch bec aus e the o ff icers d id n o t com p let e a T o w ing R ep o rt an d b ec au se th e o ff icers bel i eved thatt h ey w o u l d fi nd nar cot i cs i n t he vehi cl e. Fi r s t , t he fa i l ur e of the i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s t o compl et e a Tow i ng R eport d o es notdemonst r at e thatt he off i cer s conduct ed the i nvent ory s ear ch as p retex t o ri n bad fa i th. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatO ffi cer T r appl erpr oduced a n i nvent or yof i t ems s ei zed fr om t he vehi cl e on p ro p e rty re c e ip ts, in c lu d in g th e n a rc o tics , b u t th a t th e o f f ic e r s d id notcompl et e a T ow i ng R epor t des cr i bi ng per s onal eff ect s l efti n t he v e h ic le . A p p . 6 1

. A l tho ugh compl i ance w i t h pr ocedur es “t ends t o ens ur e the i n t ru s i o n i s l i mi t e d t o c a r r y i n g o u tt h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c a r e t aki ng funct i on, ” fa i l ur e t o fol l ow t hr ough w i t h s t andar d pr ocedur es does notnece s s ar i l yr endert he s ear ch unr eas o nabl e. U ni t ed St at es v. M ay fi e l d , 1 6 1 F. 3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 5 ( 8 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a l s o W h r en v. U ni t ed St at es , 517 U

. S. 806, 816 ( 1996) ( “[I ] t i s a l ong l eap f r om t he pr opos i t i on t hatfol l ow i ng r egul ar p roce dur es i s s om e evi dence of l ack of pr et extt o t he pr opos i t i o n thatfai l ur e t o fol l ow r egul ar p ro c e d u re s p ro v e s (o r i s a n o p e r a t io n a l s u b s titu te f o r) p re te x t.” ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T rul l o, 790 F. 2d 205, 206 ( 1s tC i r . 1986) ( “W e w i l l nothol d t hatt he off i cer ’ s fai l ur e,1 7 t ec h n i c a l l y , t o f

o l l o w t h e i n v e n t o r yf

o r m pr o c e d u r e s f

o rv a l u a bl es m e a n t [ th a t] it w a s n o t an in v e n to ryse a rc h .”). T h e se a rc h in th is cas e w as under t aken pur s uantt o es t abli s hed pr ocedur es and s t andar dized cr i t er i a des i gned t o pr oduce a n i nvent or y . A ft er d isco v ering co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce s, the o ff icers en d ed the in v en tory and ca l l ed i n nar cot i cs i nves t i gat or s . “Thi s change of pl ans does not re n d e r th e se a rc h u n re a so n a b le .

. . .” U n ited S tate s v . W o o lb rig h t, 8 3 1 F .2 d 1 3 9 0 , 1 3 9 4 (8 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ).
M un d y als o ar gues t hatt he off i cer s w er e mot i vat ed byt he expec t at ion of fi ndi ng cr i m i nal evi dence i n hi s vehi cl e. O ffi cer C habott es t i fi ed that , w hi l e M undy w as l ooki ng forhi s r egi s t r at i on and i ns ur ance i nfor m at i on, he obs erved w hathe bel ie ved t o be a s m al l m ar i

juana bud on the dr i ver ’ s s i de of the ca r . A pp. 91, 95. O ffi cerSot o t est ifi ed thathe not i ced tw o vi al s “norm al l yus ed for n a rc o tics ” in th e c e n ter c o n so le. A p p . 1 0 0

. In a d d iti o n , b o th O ffi cer s C habotand Sot o t es t i fi ed thatt heydet ect ed a s t r ong odor i n t he vehi cl e, w hi ch t hey i dent i fi ed as coca i ne base d on anec dot al evi dence , i ncl udi ng i t s di s t i nct i ve s cent
. A pp. 95- 96, 1 0 0

. Such i ni t i al obs ervat i ons al one do nots ugges tt hatt he s ubs equent i nvent or ys ear ch w as conduct ed i n bad fa i t h. See U n it ed S t at es v. L o p e z , 5 4 7 F .3 d 3 6 4 , 3 7 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). A s th e c o u rt re a so n e d in L opez, T he Four t h A m endmentdoes not

perm i tpo l i ce of

fi cers t o d i sg uis e w arr ant l es s , i nves t i gat i ve s ear ches as i nvent or ys ear ches

. H ow ever , t he Supr eme C our thas notreq u i r ed an abs ence of expe ct at i on of fi ndi ng cr i m i nal evi dence as a pr er equi s i t e t o a l aw ful i nvent or ys ear ch. W hen offi cer s , fol l ow i ng stan dar di zed i nvent or ypr ocedur es , sei ze, i m pound, and sea r ch a c ari n ci r cumst ance s t hat s ugges ta pr obabi l i t yof di s cove r i ng c rim in a l ev id e n c e , the o f f ice rs w ill inevi t abl ybe mot i vat ed i n par tby cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i ve obj ect i ves . SuchC i t i ng U

. S. S. G

. § 1 B 1. 2( a) , M undyar gues t hatt he 9 “G ui del i nes r equi r e thatt he di s t r i ct cour tappl yt he gui del i ne 1 8 m o tiv a tio n , h o w e v e r , c a n n o t re a so n a b ly d i squali fy an i nv entory sear ch that is per for m ed und e r s t andar di zed pr ocedur es forl egi t i m at e cus t odi al p u rp o s e s . Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
T h e D istri ct C o u rtin the p rese n t ca se f o u n d that the o ff

icers “t ook t he norm al s t eps one w o ul d t ake” t o s ear ch the vehi cl e pr i or t o i m poundm ent
. A pp. 64. W e s ee no e r r ori n t hi s fi ndi ng, and have n o rea so n to d o u b t th at th e S u p re m e C o u rt ’s st an d ard s fo r a w arr ant l es s i nvent or ys ear ch w er e s at i s fi ed.

* * * *
W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e se a r c h h e r e d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m endment

. T he PPD L i ve St op Pol i cyadequa t el yr egul at ed the s cope of t he i nvent or ys ear ch w i t h r es pectt o cl os ed cont ai ner s , and t he search of M un dy ’s veh i cl e, con du ct ed in accordan ce w i t h those s ta n d a rd iz e d p ro c e d u re s , w a s re a s o n a b le

. III

. M undynextar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n appl y i ng a tw o -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t to h is U .S .S .G . o f f e n s e lev e l p u rsu a n t to U

. S. S. G

. § 2D 1. 2( a) ( 1)

. W e engage i n pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s l egal i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes . U ni t ed St at es v. A q u ino , 5 5 5 F

. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 n . 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). Sect i on 2D 1. 2 pr ovi ded for a tw o- l evel enhanc ementt o t he G u id e lin e s o f

f e n se lev e l f

o r, in tera lia, o f

f e n se s c o m m itt e d in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 6 0

. S ee U

. S. S. G

. § 1B 1. 2( a) ( r equi r i ng r efe r ence “t o t he St atut or yI ndex (A ppendi x A ) t o det erm i ne the C hapt erT w o offe ns e gui del i ne”) ; U

. S. S. G

. A pp. A ( 2007) ( m aki ng § 2D 1

. 2 e n h a n c e me n t a p p l i c a b l e t o o f f e n s e s c o mmi t t e d u n d e r21 U

. S. C

. § 860)

. M undyw as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of m or e than 9as s i gned t o eac h s t atut e of c onvi ct i on i n A ppendi x A , n o t i n t he c o m m e n tar y ,” a n d th a t “A p p e n d ix A lists § 2 D 1 .1 a s the a p p lica b le gui del i ne i n § 860( a) cas es . ” M undy R ep lyB r . at10. M undy m i s r eads A ppendi x A

. Sect i on 2D 1. 2 appl i es t o vi ol at i ons of 21 U .S .C . § 8 6 0 (a ). S e e U .S .S .G . A p p . A (2 0 0 7 ). S e c tio n 2 D 1 .1 appl i es t o vi ol at i ons of 21 U

. S. C

. § 860a – a s t atut e di ffe r entfr om § 860. 1 9 500 gr ams of coc ai ne w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. § 860( a)

. T he D i s t r i ct C our t , t her efor e, appl i ed t he tw olev e l en h a n c e m e n t. M undym akes tw o argument s as t o w hy§ 2D 1. 2( a) ( 1) nevert hel es s s houl d be r ead not t o appl y t o hi s pos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent to d istrib u te c o n v ictio n , n e ith e r of w h ich w e f in d p e rsu a siv e . F irst, M undyar gues t hat§ 2D 1. 2( a) ( 1) does notappl ybeca us e ther e i s no evi dence t hathe i nt ended t o di s t r i but e anydrugs w it h in 1, 000 fee t of a s chool ( t hough he di d pos s es s t hem t her e)

. H e ar gues s p e c i f i c a l l y: It is u n c o n tes te d th a t M r. M u n d yd id notchoos e t o s t o p in a pr ot ect ed lo c a tio n ; h e w a s o rd e re d to sto p w ith in 1 , 0 0 0 fe et o f a sch o o l b yp o li ce o ff icers w h o obs erved hi s al l eged c om m i s s i on of m ovi ng vi ol at i ons . B utfort he t r aff i c s t op, M r . M undyw oul d have cont i nued t hr ough t he s chool zone a nd on t o hi s ul t i m at e des t i nat i on. M u n d yBr

. a t2 7

. “ [ I ] mpo r t a n tp u b l i c p o l i c yr e a s o n s , ” M u n dy cont ends , di ct at e t hat t he G ui del i nes t r eat pos s es s or s w ho do i nt end t o di s t r i but e w i t hi n a prot ect ed ar ea di ffe r ent fr om pos s es s or s w ho i nt end t o di s t r i but e el s ew her e. I d. at25.
W e p r e v i o u s l ya d d r e s s e d a v e r ys i mi l a ri s s u e – wh e t h e r2 1 U

. S

. C. § 860 ( w hi ch tr i gger s t he § 2D 1. 2( a) ( 1) enhanc ementati s s ue her e) appl i es t o a pos s es s orw ho di d not i nt end t o di s t r i but e i n a pr ot ect ed are a – in U n it ed S tat es v. R o d ri g u ez , 9 6 1 F

. 2 d 1 0 8 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ). I n R odr i guez, t he def

endantar g u ed that § 860 does notappl yt o aW e al s o not ed that the st atut e mayappl yt o a def endant 10 w ho i nt ends t o s el l drugs i n a pr ot ect ed ar ea, even w hen ther e i s no i ncr eas ed r i s k t o s tudent s , s uch as w hen sc h o o l i s noti n s es s i on. I d. at1094- 95.

2 0 defe ndantw ho pos s es s es dru g s w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool but i nt ends t o di s t r i but e them elsew her e. 961 F. 2d at1091. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he pl ai n l anguage of t he st atut e, as w el l as t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , w e co n cl uded that§ 860 appl i es t o a def endantw ho pos s es s es drugs w i t hi n 1, 000 fee t of a s chool , even i f the def endant i nt ends t o di s t r i but e them el s ew her e. I d. at1092. W e r ej ect ed the ar gum entt hatt he s t atut e s houl d notappl yt o pos s es s or s w ho do not ev i d e n c e a n i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e i n a p r o t e c t e d a r e a , s u c h as “a defe ndantw ho s peeds bya s chool i n a t r ai n or ot her vehi cl e on the wa yt o a n a r c o t i c s s a l e . ” I d

. a t 1 0 9 4

. I n d u l g i n g t h i s a r g u me n t , we r eas oned, “w oul d m ake t he s t atut e i nappl i cabl e i n s ever al s i tuat i ons in w h ich th e m ere p o sses sion o f sizea b le q u an ti ti es o f d rug s n ea r a s chool w oul d create an i ncr eas ed r i s k fors tudent s . ” I d. Som e of t ho se r i sks in c lu d e i ncreased cha nce o f viol ence, as w el l as l oss, th e f t, or a b a n d o n m e n t o f

th e d ru g s. Id

. O u r re a so n in g in 10 R o d rig u e z , w h ich led u s to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t § 8 6 0 a p p lies to pos s es s or s w ho do noti nt end t o di s t r i but e i n a pr ot ect ed ar ea, s ugges t s t hat § 2D 1. 2( a) ( 1) – a sent enci ng enhanc ementt r i gger ed by a viol at i on of § 86 0 – app l i es t o those po sses sors as w ell. T hu s, M un dy ’s fi rs targum ent fai l s. M undy ’ s s econd a r gum entfar es no bet t er . H e poi nt s t o an A p p lica tio n N o te to § 2 D 1 .2 , w h ich p ro v id e d , in re lev a n t p a rt, “T h is gui del i ne appl i es onl yi n a cas e i n w hi ch t he defe ndanti s convi ct ed o f a s ta tu to ry v io la tio n o f d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g in a p ro te c te d lo c a tio n .” U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .2 c m t. n .1 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). “D ru g tra f f ick in g ” is not a d e f i n e d t e r m f

o r p u rp o s e s o f § 2 D1. 2

. M u n d y c o n t e n d s t hat pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e does n o t co ns t i tut e “drug t r aff i cki ng” bec au se “drug tr aff i cki ng” ent ai l s t he ac tual s al e or di s t r i but i on of drugs , and ther ef or e does nott r i ggerthe § 2D 1. 2( a) ( 1) enhanc ement
. In suppor tof hi s cont ent i on, M undy not es t hatC ongr es s , fort he purpos es of 21 U

. S. C

. § 862, defi nes
“ d ru g tr a f

f ic k [ in g ]” to re q u ir e a c tu a l d is tr ib u tio n . S e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 862. M undypos i t s t hatt he phr as e s houl d carr yt hats ame m eani ng2 1 w hen us ed i n t he A ppl i cat i on N ot e t o U

. S. S. G

. § 2 D 1

. 2 , an enhanc ement t r i gger ed by t he vi ol at i on of § 862’ s nei ghbor , § 860. M u n d yB r. a t 2 5

. M undy ’ s ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve i n l i ghtof the C om m ent aryt o § 2D 1. 2’ s unequi vocal i ns t ruc t i o n th a t§ 2 D1. 2 ( a ) ( 1) appl i es t o drug offe ns es – l i ke M undy ’ s – comm i t t ed i n vi ol at i on of § 860. See U

. S. S. G

. § 2D 1. 2 cmt

. T hus , M undy ’ s s econd a r gum ent fai l s. W e hol d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterr i n appl y i ng a tw oleve l enh an ce m en t t o M u n d y ’s G u idel in e s o ff en se lev el un d er § 2 D 1

. 2 (a)(1).
I V.
For t he r eas ons s t at ed above, w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
.