Opinion ID: 780355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Fourth Amendment Standards

Text: 15 The legal question presented on appeal is whether the evidence seized by Foster and Resto was properly admissible as evidence against Mendez under the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, under the inevitable discovery exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, or under some combination of the two.
16 When the police impound vehicles or detain suspects, they frequently perform inventory searches. See, e.g., Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 648, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (holding admissible evidence recovered during an inventory search of a shoulder bag possessed by a lawfully arrested person); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 376, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (holding admissible evidence discovered during the impoundment of an illegally parked automobile). 3 Such searches are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they serve to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). Today, the inventory search constitutes a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement. Lafayette, 462 U.S. at 643, 103 S.Ct. 2605. 17 Of course, the right to [make an] inventory ... does not carry in its wake unlimited discretion. United States v. Griffiths, 47 F.3d 74, 78 (2d Cir.1995). Under the inventory search doctrine, we have held that law enforcement officials may open closed containers as part of an inventory search so long as they act in good faith pursuant to `standardized criteria... or established routine.' Thompson, 29 F.3d at 65 (quoting Wells, 495 U.S. at 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632). The existence of such a valid procedure may be proven by reference to either written rules and regulations or testimony regarding standard practices. Id. (citations omitted). 18 A valid inventory search routine may allow the searching officers sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or should not be opened, Wells, 495 U.S. at 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, but [t]he individual police officer must not be allowed so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into `a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime,' id. (quoting Bertine, 479 U.S. at 376, 107 S.Ct. 738 (Blackmun, J., concurring)). In short, [t]he policy or practice governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory. Id.
19 Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence that was illegally obtained will not be suppressed `if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably' even if there had been no statutory or constitutional violation. United States v. Roberts, 852 F.2d 671, 675-76 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 556, 102 L.Ed.2d 583 (1988) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)). In some cases, the government successfully invokes the inevitable discovery exception on the basis of inventory search procedures. In such cases, the court typically concludes that even if the invalid search had not been conducted, the evidence would nonetheless have been discovered in the course of a valid inventory search conducted pursuant to standardized, established procedures. See, e.g., Griffiths, 47 F.3d at 78 (remanding for further findings of fact as to whether certain evidence would have been discovered pursuant to an established inventory policy, written or otherwise, including a specific procedure dealing with closed containers). In these cases, we have held that the government must prove three things: (1) that the police had legitimate custody of the vehicle or other property being searched, so that an inventory search would have been justified, see United States v. Jenkins, 876 F.2d 1085, 1088 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam) ([A]ssuming that the government could have taken custody of [the defendant's] suitcase and transported it to FBI headquarters, ... an inventory search, conducted by government agents pursuant to FBI policy, may have been permissible.); (2) that when the police in the police agency in question conducted inventory searches, they did so pursuant to established or standardized procedures, see Griffiths, 47 F.3d at 78; and (3) that those inventory procedures would have inevitably led to the discovery of the challenged evidence, see id. at 77-78; Jenkins, 876 F.2d at 1088.