Court Opinion

ID: 9698178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:44:07.293151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.150542
License: Public Domain

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
CERCONE, Judge:
The facts of this case as summarized by the lower court, are as follows:
“Patrolman Caldwell, a Mt. Lebanon Township police officer, received a radio message on November 11, 1975, indicating that there had been an attempt to cash a stolen check at an area bank. The check passer was described as a black female, afro hairstyle and light colored cap, wearing a dark pantsuit. The suspect allegedly entered a maroon convertible with a dirty top. The officer observed a vehicle, similar to that described in the radio dispatch, occupied by three blacks. The officer stopped the vehicle and as he approached the car he observed one passenger wearing a dark pantsuit, with an afro hairstyle wig and a light colored cap sitting at the passenger’s feet.
“The occupants were placed under arrest and were transported to the Mt. Lebanon Police Station. Immediately thereafter, the vehicle was towed at the police station where a vehicle inventory search took place. Patrolman Caldwell testified that the Mt. Lebanon Police Department has a standard procedure to complete a Vehicle *420Inventory Sheet whenever a police tow is ordered. This procedure is used in every case where a vehicle is impounded regardless of what charges are made against drivers or passengers, according to the officer. The glove compartment, the seating area and the contents of the trunk are inventoried as a matter of course and the same procedure was employed in the instant case. A search of the trunk revealed a box containing a 12 gauge sawed-off shotgun. Further, unendorsed and blank checks were strewn about the trunk.”
The lower court suppressed all evidence which was seized from the vehicle at the Mt. Lebanon Police Station finding that, “the inventory search of the defendant’s car was more realistically an investigative search without warrant and consequently violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.” We agree.
In Commonwealth v. Brandt, 244 Pa.Super. 154, 366 A.2d 1238 (1976) we were faced with the question of whether warrantless inventory searches are per se unreasonable, and held that the reasonableness of the search turns on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. We also noted that absent probable cause, a search of an automobile is reasonable provided that the Commonwealth prove that the vehicle was lawfully within the custody of the police and that the search was in fact an inventory search, not an investigative search. Commonwealth v. Brandt, 244 Pa.Super. at 162, 366 A.2d at 1242. As to this second element, the mandate of Brandt is clearly 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.” Id.
After analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case at bar, the hearing judge concluded that the search of appellee’s automobile was an investigative search rather than an inventory search. Initially, we find that a lower court’s determination that a purported inventory is in fact an investigative search is better characterized as a conclu*421sion of law rather than a finding of fact. This conclusion, however, is based upon findings of fact and issues of credibility which are determined by the lower court.
In the case at bar, the police officer testified that after arresting appellee and the other occupant of the automobile, “The vehicle was secured. I remained with the vehicle, a tow was ordered to clear Route 19 for the through traffic to get the suspect vehicle off the roadway. The vehicle was towed to the Mt. Lebanon Police Station where a vehicle inventory was fulfilled.” The officer also testified that such an inventory is standard procedure which is followed in all cases when an automobile is secured. Notwithstanding this testimony, the lower court was not convinced that the search was an inventory. The circumstances revealed and the lower court found that there was a search of a locked trunk, that appellee and the other occupants of the automobile were in custody and were not asked about disposition of the automobile, nor were they asked whether an inventory was necessary, that the police had indicia sufficient for them to believe that incriminating evidence may well be discovered by a search of appellee’s car, and that there was no valuable personal property in plain view. Taking all of these circumstances into consideration the lower court correctly concluded that the search of appellee’s automobile was an investigatory search and not a search incident to the police’s caretaking function. Moreover, the instant case is easily distinguished from those cases cited by the Opinion in Support of Reversal. In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), the inventoried automobile was in police custody as a result of repeated parking violations. The Opperman Court concluded:
“The Vermillion police were indisputably engaged in a caretaking search of a lawfully impounded automobile. . The owner, having left his car illegally parked for an extended period, and thus subject to impoundment, was not present to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of his belongings. The inventory itself was *422prompted by the presence in plain view of a number of valuables inside the car. . . . (T)here is no suggestion whatever that this standard procedure . . . was a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive.” 428 U.S. at 375, 96 S.Ct. at 3099.
In Brandt, supra, the inventoried automobile was lawfully in police custody and we noted that “appellee was incapable of either maintaining custody of his vehicle or supervising its removal from the scene” because appellee had been transported to a hospital. 244 Pa.Super. at 158, 366 A.2d at 1240, n. 1. It must also be noted that in Brandt, contrary to what the lower court found in the instant case, there was no indication that the police’s intrusion was coupled with an intent of discovering evidence of a crime.
The Opinion in Support of Reversal also cites Commonwealth v. Scott, 469 Pa. 258, 365 A.2d 140 (1976) in support of its finding in the case at bar. In Scott, our Supreme Court noted that:
“(T)here was expensive stereo equipment in plain view to the public in the car and ... it was parked in a high crime area. . . . ” 469 Pa. at 267, 365 A.2d at 144, n. 7.
Thus, in all of these cases, not only was an inventory standard police procedure, but there were also additional facts and circumstances which could lead a court to conclude that the search was an inventory rather than an investigative search.*
We find no error in the conclusion of the lower court. Upon careful consideration we find that the search in the case at bar was “coupled with the intent of discovering evidence of a crime,” and thus not an inventory within the Brandt analysis. 244 Pa.Super. at 160, 366 A.2d at 1241. To *423conclude otherwise would be to allow police examination of all the contents of every automobile which is lawfully in their custody, under the pretext that they are conducting an inventory. As Justice Powell noted in his concurring opinion in Opperman, “Upholding searches of this type provides no general license for police to examine all contents of such automobile.”
We would, therefore, affirm the order of the lower court.
HOFFMAN and SPAETH, JJ., join in this opinion.
WATKINS, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

 It is also appropriate to note that our holding in Brandt was not that the search in Brandt was an inventory. Rather, our holding was that a warrantless automobile search is not per se a violation of the Fourth Amendment. We remanded Brandt so that the lower court could make a determination as to whether the search was a subterfuge for criminal investigation or a routine inventory pursuant to police caretaking functions.