Court Opinion

ID: 9862195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:03:11.757834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:30:30.664012
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), inventory searches of automobiles were approved as consistent with the fourth amendment. Thus, no warrant is required for such searches and their incriminating products are admissible. Rabadi v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271. However, the necessary condition for the application of the inventory search rationale is a lawful impoundment by the police of the thing ultimately searched. The essential question presented by appellant’s claim that the trial court committed error in permitting the knife and further evidence stemming from that knife to be introduced into evidence by the prosecution is whether appellant’s truck, in which the items were found when searched at the station house, was lawfully impounded.
In Opperman, a car was towed and impounded after being twice ticketed for illegal parking. A later routine search of the car produced illegal marijuana. The Court held the marijuana admissible, stating in part:
The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.
Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369, 96 S.Ct. at 3097, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1005.
In the next case of Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983), Ralph Lafayette was subjected to a full custodial arrest for disturbing the peace while carrying a shoulder bag. The bag was impounded and subjected to a warrantless search. The Court stated:
At the station house, it is entirely proper for police to remove and list or inventory property found on the person or in the possession of an arrested person who is to be jailed.
Lafayette, 462 U.S. at 646, 103 S.Ct. at 2609, 77 L.Ed.2d at 71. And in the recent case of Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987), Steven Bertine was arrested for driving under the influence, and his van was taken into custody pursuant to express statutory authority in that State and then subjected to an inventory search.
The part of the investigation which produced the search in this case is described in the testimony as follows:
Q Would you tell the Court, this particular truck — how the police department happened to come in contact with it?
A They had — it had been spotted initially in the 600 block of LaSalle Street within a day after the homicide investigation started. There had been some periodic surveillance put on that truck and it disappeared and it was located again on the following Monday or Tuesday parked in the 1100 block of Harvey Street. Surveillance was set up on this vehicle after we ascertained through running a license plate check on the vehicle that it was registered to Mr. Foulks. One of the detectives assigned to survey liens noticed the subject come out of a house and start to get into this vehicle. This man was detained and brought down to the police station. The man gave a false name, said that Billy Foulks had given him this truck to use. At that time I felt the man was not telling us the truth as to his identity and whether or not Mr. Foulks had given him the truck to use or not. That was subject to question, so on my authority, I asked that the uniform division impound the truck and take it to the South Bend Police Department and lock it in the SWAT garage. That would have been Tuesday evening.
* * * * # *
Q When these inventory searches are done, are they normally done by somebody like Sergeant Engle?
A Not normally.
Q And are vehicles that are impounded, are they normally stored in the SWAT lock-up area?
A Sometimes they are, yes.
*379Q So if somebody gets arrested for drunken driving, their car is put in the SWAT area, is that how it works?
A No, not normally.
In my opinion, the facts and opinions in this testimony do not justify the impoundment of appellant’s car, and therefore its later search at the station house cannot be justified upon the inventory search rationale. It was therefore error, and not harmless constitutional error, for the Court to admit the product of that search.
An arrest warrant had been issued for appellant, and the police were watching for his truck, in order to locate him and serve the warrant. An arrest warrant authorizes the police to seize the person named in the warrant, and to take such person to the court which issued the warrant, so that he may answer for a crime. I.C. 35-33-2-2. The impoundment of appellant’s truck does not serve the purpose of the warrant and was not therefore authorized by it. A court cannot sanction the seizure of a vehicle simply because there is an outstanding warrant against its owner.
The truck was lawfully parked on the street. The public safety did not therefore require that it be towed away and impounded as was the case in Bertine.
Finally, the evidence of the fact that the man who was discovered to be using the truck gave a false name when first questioned by the police, does not justify the impoundment. The man said the truck had been loaned to him by “Billie Foulks” and the police knew that the truck belonged to “Willie Foulks”. The police officer testified that the man was detained and questioned at the police station. There is no evidence that the suspicions aroused by the lie of the person with respect to his identity led anywhere, much less to his arrest and custody.
DICKSON, J., concurs.