Opinion ID: 2377737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Items Removed from the Car

Text: This conclusion, however, does not end our analysis because Thompson further argues that once he removed the eyeglass case from the vehicle, it was no longer subject to being inventoried. We disagree. As previously explained, an inventory search is conducted for the dual purpose of protecting the owner's property and the police from false claims of theft or vandalism. See Colorado v. Bertine, supra ; Welch v. State, supra . Accordingly, Ark. R.Crim. P. 12.6 provides that an officer may conduct the inventory to the extent reasonably necessary for safekeeping of the vehicle and its contents, and Policy 504 declares that officers will inventory all items in the vehicle. In the case before us today, Officer Walter was in the midst of the inventory and exercised some dominion and control over the eyeglass case before he allowed Thompson to remove it from the wooden box located inside the hatchback area. Under such circumstances, we find it reasonable that Officer Walter would need to record the contents of the case to protect himself from a possible claim that he removed, damaged, or destroyed the contents before he handed it over to Thompson. Moreover, Officer Walter's actions were in accordance with the standard police procedure of inventorying all items found in the vehicle. Based on the limited facts of this case, we hold that Officer Walter did not violate Thompson's Fourth Amendment rights when he opened the eyeglass case. Even if we had concluded otherwise, Thompson's convictions could have been affirmed pursuant to the inevitable discovery rule which provides that suppressed evidence is admissible if the State proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the police would have inevitably discovered the evidence by lawful means. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); Brunson v. State, 296 Ark. 220, 753 S.W.2d 859 (1988); Mitchell v. State, 294 Ark. 264, 742 S.W.2d 895 (1988). We think that the State sustained its burden in this case as it is apparent that Officer Walter would have inevitably and lawfully discovered the other drugs and paraphernalia in the wooden box and the leather case during his inventory search even if he had never opened Thompson's eyeglass case. For the forgoing reasons, the trial court's ruling is affirmed.