Opinion ID: 2597547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Car search

Text: Groves' final argument is that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained after his car was seized. The Court of Appeals held: His argument is not persuasive. The `[p]olice may legally impound a vehicle if authorized by statute or if there are reasonable grounds for impoundment.' State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 843, 964 P.2d 681 (1998). Here, Groves' car was used as the getaway car for a purse snatching. His car had evidentiary significance regarding identification and a potential location for the purse taken from Terri Lott. Reasonable grounds for impoundment certainly encompass a car that has been used in the commission of a crime and may contain fruits or evidence of the crime. See State v. Teeter, 249 Kan. 548, 552, 819 P.2d 651 (1991). 31 Kan. App. 2d at 638. We agree this argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals. The conviction of aggravated robbery is therefore affirmed. Judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. BEIER, J., not participating. BRAZIL, S.J., assigned.