Opinion ID: 2823852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Officer Morelandâs Arrest and Inventory Search Were Constitutional

Text: Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonableâi.e., it violates the Fourth Amendmentâunless the search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. People v. Kluhsman, 980 P.2d 529, 534 (Colo. 1999). One such exception permits officers to conduct an inventory search of a vehicle without a warrant based on probable cause when that vehicle is lawfully impounded by law enforcement officials. Colorado v.Â Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371â72 (1987) (noting that because inventory searches further police caretaking procedures, â[t]he policies behind the warrant requirement are not implicated in an inventory search, nor is the related concept of probable causeâ (citation omitted)). An inventory search conducted in accordance with an established, standardized policy is generally considered reasonable in the absence of evidence that the officers conducted a search with impermissible motivesâi.e., âin bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation.ââ Pineda v. People, 230 P.3d 1181, 1185 (Colo. 2010) (quoting Bertine, 479 U.S. at 373). Here, Officer Moreland testified that the APD had a policy to tow, inventory, and impound cars when officers arrest drivers. Thus, we must determine if the arrest was supported by probable cause. Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â Probable cause to arrest, which is determined by a practical and nontechnical standard, exists when the objective facts and circumstances available to a reasonably cautious officer warrant a belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested. People v. McCoy, 870 P.2d 1231, 1235 (Colo. 1994). Officer Morelandâs undisputed testimony established that there was no record associated with the license plates on the vehicle Vaughn was driving and that Vaughn was driving a vehicle that was not registered to him. Officer Morelandâs testimony further established that the officer obtained information from his in-car computer that Vaughnâs license was suspended, and that he took the additional step of verifying this suspension with the 24-hour DMV hotline. In other words, the information available to Officer Moreland would have made a reasonably cautious officer believe a traffic offense had been committed, or was being committed, by Vaughn; indeed, the trial court found that Officer Moreland would have had a good-faith basis for issuing Vaughn a citation. That Officer Moreland was not required to arrest Vaughn for driving with a suspended licenseâand could have issued a summons insteadâis irrelevant, as Vaughnâs arrest was both permissible and objectively reasonable. Â¶16Â Â Â Â Â Because he made a proper arrest, Officer Moreland also necessarily had the authority under APD policy to conduct an inventory search of the vehicle Vaughn was driving. Indeed, Officer Morelandâs inventory search was conducted pursuant to standardized APD criteria. Officer Morelandâs testimony established that (1) it is the policy of the APD to tow, inventory, and impound cars when officers arrest drivers, and (2) he followed this procedure in the present case. Specifically, he testified that the APDpolicy required officers to inventory the contents of a vehicle prior to impoundment, including opening and documenting any items in a vehicleâs glove box. Officer Moreland also explained that the policy was designed to protect officer safety as well as valuable items in the car. Moreover, the trial court found this testimony to be credible; specifically, the trial judge found that the vehicle Vaughn was driving should have been towed and that Officer Morelandâs search was conducted pursuant to the APDâs inventory search policy. In sum, Officer Morelandâs testimonyâas well as the trial courtâs own factual findingsâdemonstrate that the inventory search was conducted in accordance with an established departmental policy with standardized criteria. See Pineda, 230 P.3d at 1185â86 (holding an inventory search to be reasonable because the police officerâs undisputed testimony established that, after arresting a driver for driving without a driverâs license and with altered registration plates, the police officer searched the car according to the policies and procedures of the police department). Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Lastly, Officer Moreland conducted the search of the car in a permissible manner. Vaughn contends that the search of the vehicleâs glove box exceeded the permissible scope of an inventory search. As explained above, however, because the search of the vehicle was conducted pursuant to the APDâs inventory search policyâwhich allows police to take custody of the vehicle upon a driverâs arrest and provides standardized criteria in directing officers to search glove boxes and containersâthe search here was, by definition, not beyond the scope of a permissible inventory search. See Bertine, 479 U.S. at 375 (ââWhen a legitimate search is under way, and when its purpose and its limits have been precisely defined, nice distinctions between . . . glove compartments,upholstered seats, trunks, and wrapped packages, in the case of a vehicle, must give way to the interest in the prompt and efficient completion of the task at hand.ââ (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 821 (1982))). Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Thus, the inventory search here was proper because Officer Morelandâs undisputed testimony established that he (1) had probable cause to arrest Vaughn for driving with a suspended driverâs license, (2) had the authority to tow, inventory, and impound the car upon Vaughnâs arrest, and (3) acted in an objectively reasonable manner in adhering to the APDâs inventory search policy in taking custody of the vehicle and searching the glove box.