Court Opinion

ID: 9707262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:07:06.425142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:30.049368
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
diésenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The facts set out in the majority opinion indicate probable cause for the officer to make an inventory search of the vehicle. The officer had been called to the Vantage Point Apartment complex in response to a complaint that shots had been fired.
*437When he arrived, he observed appellant placing a cylindrical object in the trunk of the car. He approached appellant and in a pat-down search found six 20-gauge shotgun shells He also determined that appellant was intoxicated. Appellant informed him that the automobile was a rental automobile. In order to verify this, the officer looked in the glove compartment of the car for the rental papers. He then conducted an inventory search of the automobile.
In view of the reason for the officer being at that location, his observation of appellant placing an object in the trunk of the car and his discovery of shotgun shells on appellant's person gave him reason to believe that appellant was the person who had been firing shots. At that time, the officer, of course, could not know what the effect of the firing of those shots had been. This situation alone was sufficient to conduct an inventory search under the authority of the several cases cited in the majority opinion.
Further, upon the discovery that appellant was intoxicated it was proper for the officer to take appellant into custody. Although the automobile was properly parked in a private parking lot, it was not the home of appellant. When appellant told the police officer the car was a rental automobile, the officer had a duty to take steps to protect the owner's property.
Here again, under the several cases cited in the majority opinion, there was ample reason, in fact, a duty of the police officer to protect the owner's rights in the automobile. I believe there were two substantial grounds upon which to justify an inventory search of this automobile.
The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, reported at 615 N.E.2d 489, is a correct analysis of this situation.
I would deny transfer in this case.