Court Opinion

ID: 9724369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:54:18.919581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.770605
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J., Concurring.
Ordinarily, an officer seeking to protect personal property ought to ask the possessor whether he is interested in police assistance. An intrusion into the property of another for Ms own alleged benefit without so much as a by-your-leave, when the individual is present and in a position to state a preference as to its disposition, should rarely be considered reasonable. Nevertheless, I concur here.
There was good reason to believe, as indeed turned out to be the case, that Scigliano had given the officer a false name. And the car was not registered in that name. Thus, it would have accomplished little to inquire in tMs particular instance. At the scene the officer would not have been able to satisfy himself as to the defendant’s authority, at least not within a reasonable period of time. If the officer had left this very valuable automobile and its contents to the mercy of tMeves and vandals in its unlockable condition, the mumcipality might have been liable in negligence to Scigliano or the owner of the veMcle, or both, and possibly to an insurance company or lender as well. The veMcle was lawfully impounded.
The inventory search was, as the majority states, a violation of the Fourth Amendment under California law. Since federal law is (and long has been) to the contrary, however, the exclusionary rule is not available. (In re Lance *33W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873 [210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744].) For these reasons I agree the judgment must be reversed.