Court Opinion

ID: 9548991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:11:40.741981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:42.767021
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with much of what is stated by my brother, Judge Brett, I cannot agree with his conclusion that the inventory search in this case was proper.
Judge Brett’s majority opinion correctly states that “[t]he inventory search, unlike any other police intrusion, is not limited by the warrant or probable cause requirements of either the Fourth Amendment or the Oklahoma Constitution. It is constitutionally reasonable because it is conducted pursuant to regularized policy or law. ” Supra at p. 2. To me, this means that “[w]hat is needed in the vehicle inventory context, then ... is not probable cause but rather a regularized set of procedures which adequately guard against [police] arbitrariness.” II LaFave, Search & Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 74(a), p. 576. A predicate must be made prior to admission of evidence seized by an inventory search, that the inventory was conducted pursuant to municipal ordinance or police regulation.
In this case, the State wholly failed to meet this burden. The majority states that this inventory was conducted under the authority of Tulsa Revised Ordinances, Title 37, § 126(A). However, this municipal ordinance states:
A. Members of the Police Department are hereby authorized to remove or cause to be removed a vehicle from a street or highway to the nearest garage designated or maintained by the Police Department or otherwise maintained by the City of Tulsa under the circumstances hereinafter enumerated:
1. When a vehicle has been declared a nuisance and ordered impounded by the court under the provisions of Title 37, Tulsa Revised Ordinances, Section 189:
2. When a vehicle is left unattended upon any bridge, viaduct or causeway or in any tube or tunnel where such vehicle constitutes an obstruction to traffic;
3. When a vehicle upon a street or highway is so disabled or defective as to constitute an obstruction or hazard to traffic and/or the person or persons in charge of the vehicle are by reason of physical injury incapacitated to such an extent as to be unable to provide for its custody or removal;
4. When a vehicle is left unattended upon a street by reason of arrest of the driver or otherwise, or is so parked upon a street, highway or other public way as to constitute a definite hazard or obstruction to the normal movement of traffic;
5. When a vehicle is parked or left standing in excess of twenty-four (24) hours in violation of Title 37, Tulsa Revised Ordinances, Section 204.
I fail to find any language in this ordinance requiring seizure or inventory of an automobile under the circumstances found in this case. Because the inventory was not authorized pursuant to regularized police policy or law, it was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Okla. Const, art. 2, § 30.
Therefore, I respectfully DISSENT.