Opinion ID: 700966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suppression of the Handgun

Text: 7 We review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence for clear error, considering the testimony introduced at the pre-trial suppression hearing and at the trial. United States v. Woody, No. 94-1387 at  18 (7th Cir. May 5, 1995); United States v. James, 40 F.3d 850, 874 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, Williams v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 948 (1995), and cert. denied, Allison v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 1160 (1995). Because the resolution of a motion to suppress evidence is highly fact-specific, we must give particular deference to the district court that had the opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witnesses. James, 40 F.3d at 874. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, based upon the entire record the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. United States v. Willis, 37 F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir. 1994). 8 There are two searches at issue: the search of Henderson's person, and the search of the trunk. After Wilson arrested Henderson, Wilson was allowed to search Henderson's person to prevent harm befalling the officers. United States v. Rodriguez, 995 F.2d 776, 778 (7th Cir), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 648 (1993); see generally 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment Sec. 5.2 (2d ed. 1987). The search of Henderson revealed the key to the trunk. 9 Henderson cites in his brief several dated cases from various state jurisdictions, seemingly for the proposition that the search was illegal because it was not necessary to a traffic violation stop. See State v. Curtis, 190 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1971); State v. O'Neal, 444 P.2d 951 (1968); Barnes v. State, 130 N.W.2d 264 (Wis. 1964). Curtis and Barnes involved defective taillight and brakelight violations and are distinguishable because minor traffic violations generally do not involve a custodial arrest and therefore a search was not necessary. In O'Neal, the officers asked for the defendant's wallet, which the court found was an illegal search because the papers in the wallet could not pose a bodily threat to the officer's safety. Here the officers were allowed to perform a pat-down search after they stopped Henderson to ensure their own safety. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1882 (1968) (police may conduct a warrantless protective search for the discovery of weapons); see also Minnesota v. Dickerson, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 (1993) (contraband which did not feel like a weapon discovered during pat-down search admissible). Furthermore, the officers arrested Henderson for driving without a license. The full body search then was authorized pursuant to a custodial arrest, and not a Terry stop. See Woody, supra at  18 (reasonable for officers to search for weapons when effecting a custodial arrest). 10 The search of the trunk was done pursuant to the inventory search of the car. Inventory searches are a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643, 103 S. Ct. 2605, 2608 (1983). Inventory searches are allowed to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 2, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 1635 (1990) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 3097 (1976)). However, inventory searches must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The policy or practice governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory. Florida, 495 U.S. at 2, 110 S. Ct. at 1635 (citing Bertine, 479 U.S. at 376, 107 S. Ct. at 743). To find the inventory search unconstitutional, the officers must have acted out of bad faith, for the sole purpose of investigation. Bertine, 479 U.S. at 372-73, 107 S. Ct. at 742-43. 11 Henderson contends that the inventory search was pretextual because Wilson did not produce the inventory report at trial, and the car was not impounded or towed so that the inventory search was not required. Henderson's first argument, that an inventory report was never produced, does not prove that the inventory search was pretextual. Officer Wilson testified that he filled out an inventory report but lost it in a recent residential move. 12 Henderson's second argument, that the car was not towed, revises the time when the officers knew if the car would be towed. We must analyze whether at the time of the inventory search Officer Wilson reasonably believed that the car would be towed. The later appearances of Henderson's friend and wife are irrelevant to this consideration. Indiana Code Sec. 9-21-16-3 provides for an automobile standing upon a highway and left unattended to be impounded. Public highway is defined broadly to include a street, alley or road. Ind. Code Sec. 9-25-2-4. Henderson was the only one in the car at the time he was arrested and was ineligible to move the car for want of a driver's license and because he was under arrest. Because none present could move the car, the car was unattended. See United States v. Velarde, 903 F.2d 1163, 1166-76 (7th Cir. 1990) (impoundment reasonable where neither occupant had a valid license and owner not present); Moore v. State, 637 N.E.2d 816, 819 (Ind. App. 1994) (car unattended because driver arrested), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1132 (1995). 13 Henderson's brief cited Reed v. State, 395 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990), to support his argument that the inventory search was not necessary. Reed is distinguishable because in Reed a passenger in the car could have moved the car and therefore the car was not unattended after the arrest. Had Henderson's friend come earlier, then perhaps this case would resemble Reed.