Opinion ID: 4278345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.2 It is well recognized that 1 State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912, 896 N.W.2d 148 (2017). 2 See id. - 346 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports STATE v. NUNEZ Cite as 299 Neb. 340 inventory searches conducted according to established policy are reasonable.3 [2] Inventory searches are considered reasonable because they serve at least three needs unrelated to criminal investigation: (1) to protect the owner’s property while it remains in police custody, (2) to protect police against claims that they lost or stole the property, and (3) to protect police from potential danger.4 These purposes impact our analysis of the procedures used in the case before us. [3,4] The propriety of an inventory search is judged by a standard of reasonableness, and such a search must be conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures.5 The reason for requiring standardized criteria or an established routine to regulate inventory searches is as follows: “[A]n inventory search 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. The 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 . . . .’”6 Here, Nunez argues that the search in this case was not a reasonable inventory search because the search was not conducted in accordance with the policy of the Washington County sheriff’s office. Nunez suggests that there are three ways in which the search did not comply with established policy: 3 See, Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1987); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S. Ct. 2605, 77 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1983); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1976). 4 Id. 5 State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226, 548 N.W.2d 739 (1996). 6 State v. Filkin, 242 Neb. 276, 282, 494 N.W.2d 544, 549 (1993) (quoting Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990)). - 347 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports STATE v. NUNEZ Cite as 299 Neb. 340 (1) The officers were searching for keys, which Nunez claims is not a part of the established policy; (2) the officer who completed the inventory sheet did not list the pipe and the black container on it in accordance with established policy; and (3) the officers did not fill out an evidence report in accordance with established policy. 1. Search for K eys First, Nunez argues that the written policy shows that searching for keys prior to impounding a vehicle is not an established part of the Washington County sheriff’s office’s policy. The State responds that searching for keys need not be part of the written policy in order to be established policy and that Hoffman’s testimony established it as such. The State also argues that even if the officers had not searched for the keys, the pipe and black container would still be admitted as evidence because they would have been inevitably discovered pursuant to a valid inventory search. Assuming without deciding that we do not accept Hoffman’s testimony as sufficient to supplement the written policy, we nonetheless agree with the State’s alternative argument. [5] Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, challenged evidence is admissible if the State shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the police would have obtained the disputed evidence by proper police investigation entirely independent of the illegal investigative conduct.7 Here, even if the police had not searched for the keys, as pointed out by the State, they would have discovered the pipe and black container pursuant to the inventory search. 2. Inventory Sheet and Evidence R eport Nunez also argues that certain deficiencies with the inventory sheet and evidence report show that the established policy 7 See State v. Ball, 271 Neb. 140, 710 N.W.2d 592 (2006). - 348 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports STATE v. NUNEZ Cite as 299 Neb. 340 was not followed, thereby rendering the inventory search unconstitutional. We disagree. [6,7] A failure to strictly follow established policy does not render an inventory search unconstitutional per se.8 “‘Compliance with procedures merely tends to ensure the intrusion is limited to carrying out the government’s caretaking function.’”9 Whether a search is permissible under the Fourth Amendment depends on whether it is reasonable, and “‘“[t]he test of reasonableness cannot be fixed by per se rules; each case must be decided on its own facts.”’”10 In support of his argument that the officers’ failure to follow established policy invalidates the inventory search, Nunez cites State v. Newman.11 In Newman, Lincoln police notified Nevada authorities that they were looking for a criminal suspect who was traveling by train to Nevada. The Nevada authorities arrested the defendant at a train station. At the time, he was carrying three suitcases. The authorities transported the defendant and his luggage to a detention center. They did not immediately search the suitcases, but inventoried them as bulk property. It was not until after the Nevada authorities were told that certain items were needed as evidence that two police officers went to the detention center’s property room and searched the suitcases, locating the needed evidence. Although it was the policy of the detention center to conduct an inventory search of the suitcases before placing them in the property room, we found that policy was not followed in Newman. Thus, we 8 See U.S. v. Rowland, 341 F.3d 774, 780 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating “[e]ven when law enforcement fails to conduct a search according to standardized procedures, this does not mandate the suppression of the evidence discovered as a result of the search”). 9 Id. (quoting U.S. v. Mayfield, 161 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 1998)). 10 South Dakota v. Opperman, supra note 3, 428 U.S. at 373 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971)). 11 State v. Newman, supra note 5. - 349 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports STATE v. NUNEZ Cite as 299 Neb. 340 concluded that the search of the suitcases did not fall within the boundaries of the inventory exception. Although the failure to follow established policy in Newman led to a suppression of evidence, Newman is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand. As noted above, the purpose of requiring searches to be conducted according to established policy is to ensure that inventory searches are “‘not . . . a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.’”12 In Newman, the timing of the search and the facts surrounding it raised an inference that the search was not designed to produce inventory, but to discover incriminating evidence. Here, the alleged technical errors on the inventory sheet and the lack of an evidence report do not raise the same inference. Certainly, the fact that the evidence seized was omitted from the inventory sheet does not suggest that the search was conducted solely to obtain evidence; if anything, it suggests the opposite.13 And the fact that there was no evidence report is not suggestive, either. After reviewing the facts and circumstances presented, we conclude that the failure to list the seized evidence on the inventory sheet and the failure to complete an evidence report for the seized evidence do not raise an inference that the search was conducted solely to discover evidence. Because the officers otherwise complied with the established policy, the inventory search was reasonable and Nunez’ assignment of error is without merit.