Opinion ID: 2777005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Decision to impound the car

Text: It is “well-settled” law that “a police officer, after lawfully taking custody of an automobile, may conduct a warrantless inventory search of the property to secure and protect vehicles and their contents within police custody.” United States v. Rehkop, 96 F.3d 301, 305 (8th Cir. 1996). These searches must comply with “standardized police procedures.” United States v. Mayfield, 161 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 1998). Williams does not contest that the Raytown Police Department Tow Policy lawfully requires an inventory search before vehicles may be towed. Instead, he argues that Officer Loftis’s original decision to impound his vehicle, which then led to the search, was unlawful. The Tow Policy leaves it up to an officer’s discretion whether to tow a vehicle after an arrest. “The Fourth Amendment permits exercise of such discretion . . . ‘so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria . . . other than -5- suspicion of evidence of criminal activity.’” United States v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159, 1162 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375 (1987)). These standardized criteria, however, do not need to be part of the written policy itself, so long as “the officer’s residual judgment is exercised based on legitimate concerns related to the purposes of an impoundment.” United States v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 2004). “[A]n impoundment policy may allow some latitude and exercise of judgment by a police officer. . . .” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Officer Loftis explained the reasoning behind his decision to have the car towed. He did not want to leave the Cadillac sitting on the street in a “high crime” neighborhood when he knew that the sole owner would be in jail on a $500 bond and might not be able to retrieve it for some time. This is a legitimate explanation that has nothing to do with a desire to find evidence of criminal activity. If he had decided to leave the car, then he would have needed to seek written permission from Williams, who was handcuffed after having resisted arrest. It was lawful for Officer Loftis to decide to have the car towed rather than ask Williams to contact someone to retrieve it. Arrocha, 713 F.3d at 1164 (“Nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires a police department to allow an arrested person to arrange for another person to pick up his car to avoid impoundment and inventory.” (quotation omitted)).