Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. David ROME, Defendant-Relator
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-01-30
Citations: 354 So. 2d 504
Docket Number: No. 60129
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. David ROME, Defendant-Relator.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents with written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 354
Pages: 504–508

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. David ROME, Defendant-Relator.
No. 60129.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 30, 1978.
Ronald P. Herman, Metairie, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Division, Asst. Dist. Atty., for respondent.

Opinion:
TATE, Justice.
The defendant is charged with possession of phencyclidine, La.R.S. 40:967, a felony. He moved to suppress the drug, claiming that it was the product of an illegal search of his vehicle following a stop for an alleged traffic violation.
We granted his writ application, 349 So.2d 875, to review the trial court's denial of his motion. The issue before us is whether the drugs were found as a result of a valid "inventory search."
The defendant was stopped shortly after midnight on a rainy evening. The state trooper had observed him driving slightly in excess of the speed limit, with his rear tires spinning and his vehicle fishtailing as he had accelerated on the wet pavement.
The trooper stopped the vehicle and caused it to pull over in a service station area. He asked the defendant, the driver, to step to the rear of the vehicle. Noticing that the defendant had stumbled and that there was "a hint of alcohol" on his breath, Tr. 16, he gave him a "field sobriety test"— asked him to touch the tip of his nose with his eyes closed, walk in a straight line. Feeling that the results indicated intoxication, the trooper then arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated and for failing to maintain reasonable control of his vehicle.
The trooper then proceeded to make an inventory search of the vehicle. The italicized portion of the following statement of facts are indicia that the search did not meet the constitutional test for validity thereof, to be summarized below.
Without asking the defendant whether he could make other arrangements for his vehicle (such as with the service station personnel, or by calling a member of his fami ly), the trooper determined to take the vehicle into custody. Accordingly, he called a private wrecker service and proceeded to make what he called a routine or mandato-rily required inventory search.
The trooper did not request permission of the defendant before doing so. In the console area of the front seat, the trooper found two aluminum packets. The trooper thereupon opened them, found they contained a white powdery substance, and sent them on for laboratory analysis. (Such subsequent laboratory analysis is the basis of the present charge.)
In State v. Jewell, 338 So.2d 633 (La.1976), we noted that the warrantless search of a vehicle or its contents, without probable cause to suspect its contents and exigent circumstances, offends constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, we noted there that true inventory searches may not offend the constitutional prohibition, if restricted to the practical purposes which necessitate them. We cautioned, however, that law enforcement officials may not use this procedure as a subterfuge for a warrantless search without probable cause, for the primary purpose of seizing evidence for criminal proceedings. See also State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 270 (La.1975).
In Jewell, we distinguished inventory from other searches as follows, 338 So.2d 636:
"As contrasted with a search of a vehicle based upon probable cause that its contents offend the law, an inventory search is conducted not to secure evidence but merely to inventory the vehicle's contents in order to safeguard them, as an incident to the vehicle's being taken into lawful custody (impounding) by the police for the purpose of storage or safekeeping until the owner is located or until, if he is arrested, he is released. The search should be by virtue of a standard procedure and reasonably limited in scope to accomplish only the sole purpose for which authorized."
In that case, we struck down as constitutionally invalid what was claimed to be an inventory search. Pertinent to the present facts, we observed that no attempt was made to obtain the consent of the motorist (or an alternative to impounding from him), and we further noted that no inventory-search value was served by inspecting inside an innocuous closed container (here, the aluminum packets) to discover their contents and whether their possession offended the criminal statutes. Such circumstances, we noted, were indicia that the search was not reasonably restricted in scope so as to constitute a true inventory search.
For similar reasons, we find the present "inventory" search to be unreasonable and in violation of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and invasions of privacy. Upon arrest for a traffic violation, the motorist's vehicle cannot constitutionally, solely because of the traffic arrest, become the subject of an unlimited criminal investigation in order, if possible, to charge the motorist with more serious crimes.
The police officer in the present case claimed that he was mandatorily required by department regulation to take the vehicle into custody and to make the inventory search. If so, under the circumstances shown, the search was nevertheless invalid. "Unconstitutional searches cannot be con-stitutionalized by standardizing them as part of normal police practice." Jewell, 338 So.2d 640.
Accordingly, we grant the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence unconstitutionally seized from his vehicle, after he was stopped and arrested for a traffic offense; we reverse the trial court ruling to the contrary. The case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents with written reasons.
SUMMERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by the Chief Justice.
MARCUS, J., concurs.
. In actual fact, the subsequent formal PEI test indicated an alcoholic level of .056, well below the .10 which gives rise to a presumption of intoxication. La.R.S. 32:662 (1970). The statute provides that a level of .05 or less gives rise to a presumption "that the person was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages."