Court Opinion

ID: 9810863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:01:56.274803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:17.022942
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 32] Although common sense should play some part in these decisions, it is sometimes necessary to state the obvious. Here, the caretaking function was different than if the vehicle had been owned by
*534Pogue. In that instance it would have been her responsibility to take care of her own vehicle and the State would need to justify its reason for impoundment. But Pogue did not own the vehicle and the vehicle registration had expired. Coupled with the false information given by Pogue, a reasonable person might well believe the vehicle to have been stolen. In that instance if the vehicle had been damaged or vandalized the police most probably would be charged with some form of negligence for not having taken action to protect the vehicle. Nevertheless, I do not excuse the State’s failure to request a hearing to explain why it was a caretaking function to impound the vehicle. "While it could be argued the justification for the caretaking function was obvious without the need for further evidence of policies and procedures, the State should not have left the trial court to rely on its own sound judgment. I concur in the result.
[¶ 38] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.