Court Opinion

ID: 9551816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:59:53.497781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:45.254559
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J.
I concur with the result reached by the majority herein, for I agree that the opening of petitioner’s suitcase and inspection of its contents constituted an unreasonable search, violating her reasonable expectation of privacy. (People v. Bradley, 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [81 Cal.Rptr. 457, 460 P.2d 129]; People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1104-1105 [80 Cal. Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713].) I would emphasize, however, that our decision in no way interferes with or impinges upon the customary authority of the police to inspect and inventory all items of personal property left in plain sight within an automobile or other vehicle in police custody.
As pointed out in the numerous Court of Appeal cases cited by the majority, the routing practice of making such inventory inspections is reasonably necessary to safeguard the owner’s property from loss or damage,1 and to protect the police and storage bailee from unfounded claims.2 Although, as the majority point out, the foregoing considerations do not furnish the police an excuse for rummaging through closed suitcases or sealed packages, the police do have the authority, and indeed the response bility, to inspect and inventory all items of personal property in plain sight within the vehicle and, if necessary, to lock these items in the trunk or transfer them to some other secure place for safekeeping. If, in the course of such activity, the police observe contraband or other incriminatory evidence they may seize it, for it is well established that “objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. [Citations.]” (Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236 [19 L.Ed.2d *7131067, 1069, 88 S.Ct. 992].) The “plain sight” rule recognizes that no citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to unconcealed items within a vehicle in police custody. (See People v. Bradley, supra, 1 Cal.3d 80, 85.)

An actual inventory inspection would be appropriate to determine the existence of any perishables or valuables requiring for their protection measures other than simply locking them in the car.

Although the risk of successful claims may be small, the inventory would discourage the intial assertion of such claims, thereby protecting the police and storage bailee’s reputation from false accusations of theft or neglect.