Opinion ID: 2633502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inclusion of Mr. Johnson's Belongings in the Inventory Search

Text: [¶ 9] Mr. Johnson claims that his belongings were impermissibly searched because he was not under arrest at the time of the search and Trooper Dyer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search for evidence of a crime. To support his contention, Mr. Johnson states that a traffic stop is a seizure of both the person and the vehicle stopped and, therefore, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent was required for Trooper Dyer to detain Mr. Johnson. Further, Mr. Johnson states that detentions must not be unnecessarily prolonged and they must be reasonable under all the circumstances. He asserts that Trooper Dyer had no objectively reasonable reason to suspect Mr. Johnson of doing anything wrong other than speeding and violating a rental contract. He claims that absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, Mr. Johnson should have been able to proceed on his way. In making his claim, Mr. Johnson does not contend that it was improper to impound the rental car or that an inventory search of the vehicle was impermissible. Rather, he contends he should have been permitted to retrieve his baggage prior to the search. [¶ 10] As Mr. Johnson correctly notes, searches and seizures are governed by a standard of reasonableness under the circumstances. See O'Boyle, 117 P.3d at 401; Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 488 (Wyo. 1999). An investigative detention must be temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, and the scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. Campbell v. State, 2004 WY 106, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 781, 784 (Wyo.2004). The detention of a driver and his vehicle must only be for a period of time reasonably necessary to complete routine matters. Id. We must consider whether the detention of Mr. Johnson was reasonable in light of the circumstances. [¶ 11] Mr. Johnson does not contest the validity of the initial traffic stop. His claim is that once he was issued the citation, he should have been permitted to retrieve his belongings and allowed to leave. We have previously held that once a driver has produced a valid driver's license and proof that he is entitled to operate the vehicle, he must be allowed to proceed without further delay. Campbell, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d at 785. However, in the course of this traffic stop, Trooper Dyer discovered that Mr. Johnson was an unauthorized driver of the rental car. At that point, it became necessary to detain Mr. Johnson while the rental company was contacted. See Lindsay v. State, 2005 WY 34, ¶ 25, 108 P.3d 852, 859 (Wyo.2005) (finding that the investigation of the potential unauthorized use of a rental vehicle was a reasonably sufficient reason to continue to detain the driver after a traffic stop). [¶ 12] Under the circumstances, we also find the length of the detention was not unreasonable. The entire stop took forty minutestwenty minutes of which were related to the impoundment and search of the vehicle. Of those twenty minutes, seven minutes expired while Trooper Dyer waited to hear how the rental company wished to handle the situation. Another five of those minutes were spent explaining to Mr. Johnson why the impoundment was necessary and the Wyoming Highway Patrol's policy on inventory searches. The remaining time was spent conducting the inventory. Compare Lindsay, ¶ 25, 108 P.3d at 859 (one hour and sixteen minute detention found reasonable to permit the officers to investigate the possible unauthorized use of a rental vehicle). [¶ 13] We disagree with Mr. Johnson that reasonable suspicion or probable cause was required to justify an inventory of the items in the vehicle. Inventory searches are a well recognized exception to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. See Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 481 (Wyo.1988). The requirement for a warrant is excused because probable cause is irrelevant when a search is undertaken for the purpose of an inventory rather than for an investigation. Id. at 482. See also Williams v. State, 557 P.2d 135, 139 (Wyo.1976) (stating that probable cause, as it is usually required, is not necessary for an inventory search.). This is so because a standardized inventory search is a routine, non-criminal administrative caretaking function. U.S. v. Hall, 391 F.Supp.2d 760, 766 (Dist.Iowa 2005). [¶ 14] Mr. Johnson's contention that his baggage should have been released to him prior to the inventory, if taken to its logical conclusion, would defeat the purpose for inventory searches. Inventory searches serve to protect the owner's property while it remains in police custody; protect police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and protect the police from potential danger. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Inventory searches of impounded vehicles are not unreasonable if conducted pursuant to standardized police procedures. See Perry v. State, 927 P.2d 1158, 1166 (Wyo. 1996); Vargas-Rocha v. State, 891 P.2d 763, 767 (Wyo.1995). [¶ 15] The Wyoming Highway Patrol has a standardized policy which states in pertinent part: Any time a Trooper takes charge of a vehicle, he/she is responsible for the safety of the contents, to a reasonable degree. A property inventory is necessary to confirm the presence and condition of personal property within the vehicle. When a vehicle is towed to a place of safe-keeping or a Trooper takes charge of a vehicle for any reason, the vehicle and contents shall be inventoried and recorded on the proper form. The inventory shall also include the inspection of closed and sealed containers. (Second emphasis added.) This policy was introduced at the suppression hearing in conjunction with testimony from Trooper Dyer concerning the policy. The policy was explained to Mr. Johnson prior to the initiation of the inventory search. Mr. Johnson does not contend that the policy itself was unreasonable or ambiguous or that Trooper Dyer failed to follow standardized procedures. [¶ 16] Mr. Johnson did not request his belongings prior to the inventory search. Even if he had, we find Trooper Dyer was not required to provide them until after the contents were inventoried. Pursuant to the Wyoming Highway Patrol's policy, once a Trooper takes control of a vehicle, he or she is responsible for the safety of its contents. Trooper Dyer took control of the vehicle upon determining that Mr. Johnson was an unauthorized driver. At that point, Trooper Dyer was required to conduct the inventory. Trooper Dyer had no way of knowing whether the contents in the car belonged to Mr. Johnson or a third party. By taking an inventory of the items prior to releasing them, Trooper Dyer was protecting against future claims. Trooper Dyer also protected himself from the possibility of hidden weapons that Mr. Johnson would have acquired if the baggage was returned to him prior to inspection and inventory. [¶ 17] In sum, we find that Mr. Johnson was not unreasonably detained during the traffic stop. Due to the non-investigatory nature of the inventory, individualized suspicion was not required for Trooper Dyer to temporarily keep Mr. Johnson's belongings with the vehicle until the inventory was concluded. Furthermore, in order to fulfill the purposes behind inventory searches, it is reasonable to conduct an inventory before releasing any items from an impounded vehicle. As a result, the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress on this issue.