Opinion ID: 163791
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dairy Bar Search

Text: Thomas argues that the Dairy Bar search was improper and all evidence seized incident to that search, except the weapon Thomas drew on the officers, should have been suppressed. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court examines the district court’s factual findings for clear error with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Haro-Salcedo, 107 F.3d 769, 771 (10th Cir. 1997). However, the reasonableness of the search and seizure is a question of law reviewed de novo. Id. Thomas contends the district court erred in concluding the vehicle search was a permissible inventory search pursuant to an impoundment. The Supreme Court has held that police are entitled to conduct an administrative search of a vehicle in order to secure and inventory its contents when the vehicle has been -7- lawfully impounded or taken into police custody. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 373 (1976). On appeal, Thomas only challenges the lawfulness of the impoundment of his vehicle and not the propriety of the inventory search. 1 He contends that, under Oklahoma law, the police could not have properly impounded his car without permission of the owner of the Dairy Bar because the vehicle was located on private property. Generally, police have the discretion to impound a vehicle if the decision is based upon standard criteria and something other than the suspicion that there is evidence of criminal activity. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375 (1987). Pursuant to Oklahoma case law, “a car on private property cannot be impounded absent a request from the property owner or other specific authorization.” McGaughey v. State, 37 P.3d 130, 143 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). Thomas claims that there was no evidence to suggest that the police had the owner’s request or permission to tow the vehicle. This court disagrees. The owner of the Dairy Bar testified that Thomas had run his vehicle into his building. After fifteen to twenty minutes, the owner checked on the vehicle and discovered Thomas slumped over the steering wheel with what appeared to be a gun in the front seat. The owner then told an employee to call the police. The 1 Moreover, Thomas does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that “the fact that the inventory search occurred prior to the actual arrival of a tow truck is immaterial.” -8- record clearly supports the conclusion that the owner implicitly requested that the vehicle be removed from the property because the vehicle was pressed against the building, the owner noticed that the car possibly contained a dangerous weapon, and the owner initiated contact with the police. Thus, the impoundment was in accordance with Oklahoma law. In United States v. Haro-Salcedo, this court held that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was reasonable when the impoundment was permissible under state law and in accordance with police department policy which required impoundment upon arrest of the driver. 107 F.3d at 771-72. Similarly, the police properly impounded Thomas’s car under Oklahoma law and, according to testimony at the suppression hearing, followed police procedure that when a defendant is arrested, his vehicle is inventoried and towed. Therefore, the impoundment of Thomas’ vehicle was reasonable and proper. Because the impoundment was constitutionally permissible and Thomas does not contest the inventory search, this court need not address whether the police inventory was reasonable. Thus, the district court did not err in determining that the inventory search pursuant to the impoundment was lawful. 2 2 Because this court’s conclusion that the inventory search pursuant to the impoundment was reasonable disposes of the issue of whether the items discovered in Thomas’ vehicle should have been suppressed, this court need not address whether the search incident to arrest was proper. -9-