Court Opinion

ID: 9698179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:44:07.298638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.154286
License: Public Domain

IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
PRICE, Judge:
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from a suppression order entered by the court below.1 The Commonwealth argues that the lower court erred in ruling that an inventory search conducted by several police officers of an in-custody vehicle was an illegal search, necessitating the suppression of seized items. We agree, would reverse the suppression order and remand the case for trial.
On November 11, 1975, Patrolman Frank R. Caldwell of the Mt. Lebanon Township Police Department received a radio dispatch concerning an attempt to pass a stolen check at an area bank. The broadcast described the suspect as a “negro, female, wearing afro-style hair with a light colored cap [and] dark pantsuit.” The suspect was seen entering a maroon convertible with a white top which travelled south from in front of the bank. A subsequent radio broadcast revealed that there were three occupants in the car. Caldwell observed a car answering the radio description, and with two back-up officers he stopped the vehicle. One of the passengers was wearing a dark pantsuit. At her feet *424were an afro-style wig and a light colored cap. The occupants were placed under arrest and immediately taken to the police station. At the scene, Caldwell seized the wig, the cap and a driver’s license, all in plain view. Appellee’s vehicle was towed to the police station, where an inventory was conducted. A box containing a 12 gauge sawed-off shotgun and many unendorsed and blank checks were found in the trunk.
In his motion for suppression, appellee contended that the intrusion into his vehicle was an unlawful search, violative of his fourth amendment rights, and that the seized items were therefore inadmissible against him. The suppression judge agreed with this assertion and granted the suppression request.
A suppression court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law in determining whether evidence was obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(i). The Commonwealth must satisfy the suppression court of the admissibility of the evidence by a preponderance of the evidence. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(h). The appellate court must “determine whether the record supports the factual findings of the court below and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings.” Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 460 Pa. 516, 522, 333 A.2d 892, 895 (1975).
The fourth amendment provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly, describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In deciding whether fourth amendment dictates have been abridged, one must consider all of the circumstances of the official intrusion, recalling that the ultimate goal of the amendment is not the protection of preferred locales, but the protection of people and their legitimate privacy expectations. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507,19 *425L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). In a series of cases, the United States Supreme Court has found automobile searches to be subject to the constitutional standard of reasonableness. Concurrently, the Court has acknowledged fundamental differences between vehicles and other property that permit warrantless searches of automobiles in circumstances in which warrant-less searches of other property would not be reasonable. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (U.S. June 21,1977); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964). In the instant case, the Commonwealth does not attempt to justify the warrantless intrusion into appellee’s automobile as a search incident to arrest, Commonwealth v. Smith, 452 Pa. 1, 304 A.2d 456 (1973), or as one required by exigent circumstances. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). The Commonwealth’s only claim is that the intrusion was not of an investigative but rather an inventory nature, as approved in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).
Opperman involved a police inventory of an automobile impounded after being discovered illegally parked. A police officer observed a watch on the dashboard, which prompted him to unlock the door and fully inventory the car, including the glove compartment. Pursuant to standard police procedures, the officer completed an inventory form. Items found, including marijuana, were taken to police headquarters for safekeeping. The defendant, charged with possession of marijuana, moved to suppress the contraband. The decision of the Supreme Court of South Dakota, that the defendant’s fourth amendment rights were thus violated, was reversed by the Supreme Court.
The Court first observed that:
“One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects. . It travels public thoroughfares where both its *426occupants and its contents are in plain view.” South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, at 368, 96 S.Ct. at 3096, quoting Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974).
The court recognized that “[t]he authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.” Id. at 369, 96 S.Ct. at 3096. The majority noted further that local police departments usually follow a routine procedure of inventorying impounded automobiles’ contents in furtherance of three goals: (1) protecting the owner’s property while in custody, (2) protecting the police against theft claims, and (3) protecting the police from potential dangers. The Court approved such caretaking procedures and noted that in Opperman the inventory was conducted only after the car was impounded for multiple parking violations. The inventory was justified because valuables were observed in plain view and the defendant was not present to protect them himself.
In Commonwealth v. Brandt, 244 Pa.Super. 154, 366 A.2d 1238 (1976), we relied upon Opperman and held that, absent probable cause, a warrantless automobile search is reasonable by fourth amendment standards if the Commonwealth establishes two things. First, the Commonwealth must show that the vehicle was lawfully in police custody. Second, “the Commonwealth must show that the search was in fact an inventory search pursuant to the objectives laid down in Opperman . . . Id., 244 Pa.Super. at 162, 366 A.2d at 1242. We specified that:
The hearing judge must be convinced that the police intrusion into the automobile was for the purpose of taking an inventory of the car and not for the purpose of gathering incriminating evidence. Those facts and circumstances which the hearing judge must consider include the scope of the search, the procedure utilized in the search, whether any items of value were in plain view, . the reasons for and nature of the custody, . the anticipated length of the custody, and any other facts *427which the court deems important in its determination.” Id., 244 Pa.Super, at 162, 366 A.2d at 1242.
In this case, the suppression judge fully analyzed the Opperman and Brandt dictates. The findings of the suppression court in such a case are, of course, subject to appellate review, which entails consideration of “whether the record supports the factual findings of the court below and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings.” Commonwealth v. Goodwin, supra, 460 Pa. at 522, 333 A.2d at 895. We find the suppression judge’s ultimate conclusion unfounded. First, the court below did find that the police had probable cause to arrest the occupants of the car. The subsequent removal of the car from a major thoroughfare was clearly justified; police custody of the vehicle was therefore lawful. The second part of the Brandt analysis deals with consideration of the surrounding circumstances to determine if in fact the intrusion was an inventory conducted pursuant to Opperman standards. The court below first noted that the intrusion occurred within twenty-five minutes of appellee’s arrest. This does not discredit the Commonwealth’s assertion that the vehicle was being inventoried to preclude future theft claims. It would be most sensible for an inventory to be conducted as soon as possible after the vehicle is taken into custody rather than to abandon it for a time, leaving it vulnerable to theft. The court also noted that in Opperman there was no real reason for the police to suspect that criminal contraband would be uncovered because the car was merely illegally parked. The court below contrasted the instant case, wherein arrests of the car’s occupants were made for attempting to pass a bad check. The court concluded that the arrests could lead police to suspect that contraband might be found in the car. Such conjecture that the police may have suspected the presence of criminal contraband does not refute the Commonwealth’s assertion that the intrusion was merely to inventory the automobile, which Officer Caldwell testified was a standard department procedure.
*428Although the search in Opperman, as noted below, was only of the passenger compartment and unlocked glove compartment, we do not find the broader scope of the instant inventory to be unreasonable. The Opperman Court said in reference to the inventory’s scope:
“The inventory was not unreasonable in scope. Respondent’s motion to suppress in state court challenged the inventory only as to items inside the car not in plain view. But once the policeman was lawfully inside the car to secure the personal property in plain view, it was not unreasonable to open the unlocked glove compartment, to which vandals would have had ready and unobstructed access once inside the car.” South Dakota v. Opperman, supra at 376 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. at 3100.
Appellee contends that unlocking the glove compartment and trunk rendered the scope of the inventory herein unconstitutional. If we accept as justification for such inventories the interest of the police in avoiding theft claims2 and in protecting personal property of the owner, which we have done in accord with Opperman, then it follows that the inventory should be permitted to extend to each of the automobile’s compartments. Strengthening that position, we would point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not interpreted Opperman narrowly. In Commonwealth v. Scott, 469 Pa. 258, 365 A.2d 140 (1976), the court upheld a lower court’s decision denying suppression of evidence obtained in an automobile inventory subsequent to the appellant’s arrest. The inventory there, as here, was standard police procedure for impounded cars. The court approved the seizure of items discovered under the front seat of the car, in the glove compartment and in a suitcase in the rear of the car. One typically places valuables in an automobile in the glove compartment or trunk. Items are rendered somewhat safer there than if flung casually in the passenger *429compartment. However, while concealing valuables means they will not entice the average passerby, locking them in a glove compartment or trunk does not render them inaccessible. Therefore, if the police wish to protect themselves and the vehicle owner fully from the possibilities of theft, an inventory of those two areas is clearly reasonable.
The court below observed that the appellee was not present at the time of the inventory. His absence does not refute the inventory nature of the police intrusion. The fact that a car owner is not present to safeguard his own belongings increases the need for a protective inventory by police officials. In this regard, we would note finally that two other officers were present and observed the inventory conducted by Officer Caldwell. Such a measure adds credibility to the inventory form as completed, and could controvert any possible claims that the officer himself removed items and failed to account for them on the inventory form.
After reviewing the suppression court’s findings, inferences and legal conclusions, we find that the court erred in suppressing evidence derived from a legitimate automobile inventory. Accordingly, we would reverse the order of the suppression court and remand the case for trial.
JACOBS, President Judge, and VAN der YOORT, J., join in this opinion.

. The Commonwealth’s appeal from this pretrial order is appropriate. The issue presented is one of law and the Commonwealth is substantially handicapped by the order. Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963).

. The lower court in its opinion stated: “We also note that the argument that inventory searches are required to protect the police from theft charges is questionable.” Such a position totally disregards the United States Supreme Court’s holding in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).