Court Opinion

ID: 9522543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:28:21.055653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:12.155786
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the officers testified that the inventory was made by the established State police procedure when vehicles are required to be towed away by persons other than police personnel. As to such officers the procedure was a requirement. It is a legitimate constitutional objective to inventory the contents of a vehicle to protect against claims or disputes over property contained therein. (South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), 428 U.S. 364, 369, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000, 1005, 96 S. Ct. 3092.) The opinion in People v. Clark (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 169, 357 N.E.2d 798, states that an inventory search is reasonable under the Constitution of Illinois. That opinion rejected the argument that the contents of the vehicle might be protected by simply locking the doors, for such security is uncertain absent an attending guard. An automobile trunk may be considered as a receptacle for valuable property. There is little persuasion in the stated conclusion that the arresting officers, while on a major highway in the early morning, should be required to conduct a plenary hearing to determine all possible alternatives to the inventory of a car before it is to be towed away. It is apparent that under such circumstances the officers are dealing with individuals of unknown capabilities. In this particular instance the passenger was to be interrogated concerning possession of credit cards found in the vehicle. In People v. Drescher (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 904, 365 N.E.2d 964, the defendant driver was arrested. His companions were ordered to leave the car which was to be towed away. The court held that the inventory search was legal when made pursuant to standard police procedure. In People v. Clark (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 169, 175, 357 N.E.2d 798, 801, the court said: “The defendant suggests that what is ostensibly an inventory search may serve as a subterfuge for an investigatory search whereby the police may explore the interior of the car to look for evidence of criminal conduct. We think the short answer to this objection is that the testimony here was that inventory searches were routinely made in all cases where it is necessary to tow a car away, and there is no hint whatever of any improper motive of that sort on the part of the arresting officer.” I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for further proceedings.