Court Opinion

ID: 9521131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:58:12.007321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:49.440716
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: I conclude that the inventory examination made here was reasonable under the circumstances shown in this record. Upon the suggestion that the briefcase could have been left at the hospital, the record shows that its estimated dimensions were 2 feet by 1/2 feet by 4 inches. In the emergency room valuables were kept in a locked box. If a patient was admitted to the hospital, inventory items of value were kept in a safe. One may conclude that a briefcase of such dimensions could not be readily accommodated in the hospital security facility. As for the suggestion that the case could have been left at the hospital with the patient, it appears that the hospital did not consider such form of safe keeping acceptáble as to matters of value. Upon the suggestion that to be logical the officer, Clark, should have taken the money, wallet and rings, the record supports a conclusion that those items could be placed in a hospital property envelope. One may infer that the hospital had an interest in maintaining access to the currency. The record shows that the van was to be moved to private storage facilities which were not known to be secure. Such fact is different than that in the cited Mozetti v. Superior Court (1971), 4 Cal. 3d 699, 484 P.2d 84, 94 Cal. Rptr. 412, where the vehicle was left in a secure police storage area. Officer Clark testified to the inventory procedure of the State Police initiated some 30 years before and to the experience of pilferage and breaking into stored vehicles. He, Clark, had already been advised of the finding of a large sum of currency on defendant’s person. A briefcase is known to be used to carry sums of money and is an obvious target for pilferage from a stored vehicle. In People v. Clark (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 169, 357 N.E.2d 798, defendant argued that the car might simply have been locked and that it was unnecessary to inventory the glove compartment. The opinion noted that such procedure did not provide actual security to valuables. In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), 428 U.S. 364, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000, 96 S. Ct. 3092, it is stated: “The decisions of this court point unmistakably to the conclusion reached by both federal and state courts that inventories pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable.” ” ”.” (428 U.S. 364, 372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000, 1007, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 3098.) That opinion noted that even if an inventory procedure is characterized as a “search,” the intrusion is constitutionally permissible. The question is whether the search was reasonable under the fourth amendment. (Cooper v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 58, 61, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730, 733, 87 S. Ct. 788, South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), 428 U.S. 364, 372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000, 1007, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 3098.) The test of reasonableness cannot be fixed by per se rules but each case must be decided upon its own facts. South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), 428 U.S. 364, 373, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000, 1007, 96 S. Ct. 3092, cites Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 91 S. Ct. 2022. Although the fact of defendant’s possession of heroin appears in the record, it is to be recalled that when Clark took possession of the briefcase he was not advised that the hospital staff had discovered contraband as they examined the briefcase. He had acted throughout to protect the property of the defendant at the scene of the accident and at the hospital. The evidence is that the briefcase was opened at the bedside of the defendant incident to placing numerous keys inside the briefcase which appears to be a logical and reasonable act. Defendant was advised that such step would be taken and it does not appear that he made any comment. The record shows that the hospital considered the examination of all items of property, including the contents of the briefcase to be a reasonably necessary procedure both for the patient and for the hospital. One can see no logical reason for providing a greater standard for the police when caretaking obligations are imposed on them. In People v. Smith (1969), 44 Ill. 2d 82, 254 N.E.2d 492, a police officer providing care for an injured man took possession of his wallet, although such act was not required to establish identity. The subsequent inventory of its contents disclosed incriminating matter. The court determined that the inventory of property coming into the possession of the police was a reasonable procedure and that the discovery of incriminating matter did not convert the inventory process into an illegal search. In United States v. Gravitt (5th Cir. 1973), 484 F.2d 375, cert. denied (1974), 414 U.S. 1135, 38 L. Ed. 2d 761, 94 S. Ct. 879, the court said: “[W]hen the police take custody of any sort of container [such as] an automobile * * * it is reasonable to search the container to itemize the property to be held by the police. [This reflects] the underlying principle that the fourth amendment proscribes only unreasonable searches.” See also People v. Sullivan (1971), 29 N.Y.2d 69, 323 N.Y.S. 2d 945, 272 N.E.2d 464. Despite the authorities discussed, this court is imposing a per se rule.