Opinion ID: 894383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Seizure and Inventory Search of Bag

Text: Smith also alleges that, even if the arrest was supported by probable cause, the bag was illegally seized and searched such that the bag and its contents should have been deemed inadmissible. We find that the seizure of the bag was justified in order to preserve evidence. A 'seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). Where law enforcement authorities have probable cause to believe that a container holds contraband or evidence of a crime, but have not secured a warrant, the [Supreme] Court has interpreted the [Fourth] Amendment to permit seizure of the property, pending issuance of a warrant to examine its contents, if the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other -8- recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). [U]nder these circumstances, the risk of the item's disappearance or use for its intended purpose before a warrant may be obtained outweighs the interest in possession. Id. at 701–02. For example, in United States v. Clutter, we upheld the seizure of a defendant's computers on multiple grounds, including because officers had probable cause to believe the computers contained evidence of child pornography offenses. 674 F.3d 980, 985 (8th Cir. 2012). We reasoned that the seizure was necessary 'to ensure that the hard drive was not tampered with before a warrant was obtained.' Id. (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009)). The district court properly determined that the agents in the current case had probable cause to believe that the laptop bag contained evidence of a crime. Every agent, and the district court, agreed that the bag looked like one used to transport a laptop. As discussed, agents determined that because e-mails were sent from various access points, a laptop likely was used to further the scheme. Also, the documents were made under username bigdaddyallday, a name linked to Smith. Further, as in Clutter, immediate seizure was necessary to prevent destruction of evidence. Smith's statements to Lewis to take the bag illustrate that he was attempting to keep the bag from the agents. See United States v. Beasley, 688 F.3d 523, 530 (8th Cir. 2012) (probable cause existed to justify temporary seizure of evidence where defendant made apparent efforts to conceal the property). Next, Smith argues that the search of the bag at the station before obtaining a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Smith claims the search was not a valid inventory search because the agent deviated from FBI inventory policy. We . . . review the district court's findings of fact regarding the circumstances of an inventory search for clear error, including the question of pretext. United States v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 461, 463–64 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). -9- Inventory searches are one exception to the general rule that searches conducted without a warrant are unreasonable. Id. at 464. The purpose of an inventory search is to protect the owner's property while it remains in police custody, as well as to protect police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property and from potential danger[s]. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976). An inventory search must be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances . . . and may not be a ruse for general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. Taylor, 636 F.3d at 464 (internal quotation marks omitted). The reasonableness requirement is met when an inventory search is conducted according to standardized police procedures, which generally remove the inference that the police have used inventory searches as a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of a crime. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). However, inventory searches need not be conducted in a totally mechanical, all or nothing fashion. United States v. Garreau, 658 F.3d 854, 858 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, [e]ven when law enforcement fails to conduct a search according to standardized procedures, this does not mandate the suppression of the evidence discovered as a result of the search. United States v. Rowland, 341 F.3d 774, 780 (8th Cir. 2003). There must be something else; something to suggest the police raised 'the inventory-search banner in an after-the-fact attempt to justify' a simple investigatory search for incriminating evidence. Id. (quoting United States v. Marshall, 986 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir. 1993)). The district court did not clearly err when determining that the inventory search was not merely a pretext to search for evidence. The district court credited Detective Mize's testimony that he complied with FBI policy when conducting the inventory search. Detective Mize stated he ruffled through documents, only attempting to look for valuable or dangerous items. We agree with the district court that it was reasonable for agents to place cell phones in airplane mode and to store the electronics in the protective bag. Further, minor deviations from procedure, such as failing to indicate which cell phone was found in the bag and which cell phones were -10- found on Smith's person, do not invalidate the inventory search. See Garreau, 658 F.3d at 858.