Opinion ID: 3064547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The impoundment

Text: [11] Ramirez next argues that Montez, Hornung, and Odom’s impoundment of his car was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. “The impoundment of an automobile is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2005). While Section 22651 authorizes an officer to remove a vehicle in the control of a person arrested, an impoundment pursuant to the authority of a “state statute does not, in and of itself, determine the reasonableness of the seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 864. “ ‘The quesRAMIREZ v. BUENA PARK 3815 tion in this [c]ourt upon review of a state-approved search or seizure is not whether the search (or seizure) was authorized by state law. The question is rather whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. at 865 (quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61 (1968)). [12] “ ‘A seizure conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” Id. at 862 (quoting United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2001)). Montez testified that Ramirez’s car was taken for “safekeeping” after he was arrested, and when asked whether the “only reason that [he] wanted [Ramirez’s car] removed was for safekeeping,” Montez testified, “Correct.” Therefore, the relevant exception is the “community caretaking” doctrine, which allows police officers to “impound vehicles that ‘jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.’ ” Miranda, 429 F.3d at 864 (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368-69 (1976)). [13] “Whether an impoundment is warranted under this community caretaking doctrine depends on the location of the vehicle and the police officers’ duty to prevent it from creating a hazard to other drivers or being a target for vandalism or theft.” Miranda, 429 F.3d at 864. Here, Montez’s concern that Buena Park might be held liable if Ramirez’s car was stolen, vandalized, or some harm came to it was reasonable. There is nothing in the record indicating when Ramirez could return to the drugstore to retrieve his car. Leaving Ramirez’s car in the drugstore parking lot would have made it an easy target for vandalism or theft. Therefore, we conclude that the officers’ impoundment of Ramirez’s car for its “safekeeping” was reasonable under the community caretaking doctrine. See Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[I]t was not unreasonable for the arresting officers to protect the car from vandalism or theft by having it towed” from a parking lot.); United States v. Jensen, 425 3816 RAMIREZ v. BUENA PARK F.3d 698, 706 (9th Cir. 2005) (officer’s concerns about vandalism were reasonable). [14] Having concluded that the officers’ impoundment of Ramirez’s car did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the district court properly granted the officers summary judgment on this claim. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).