Court Opinion

ID: 9786011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:44:29.829537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:40.423847
License: Public Domain

Beier, J.,
concurring. I concur with the majority’s result on both issues in this case and with the rationale that supports its result on the second issue.
I also concur in the following rationale for its result on the first issue: K.S.A. 8-1569 and 8-1570(a) and (b) authorized the investigating deputies to enter the van and move it, thereby necessitating an inventory search for the protection of all concerned.
I would not reach the majority’s alternative rationale for its result on the first issue. I have misgivings about “reasonableness] under the totality of circumstances” as adequate support for an impoundment that will necessitate an inventory search. We do not permit general reasonableness alone to justify a warrantless search; and I do not want to be too hasty to permit it to support the prerequisite for such a search.
Moreover, even if reasonableness is the only test, I think it usually will be reasonable for law enforcement to consult with a defendant capable of consulting on the disposition of a vehicle made *301“unattended” only by the defendant’s arrest. If there is no controlling statute or exception to the warrant requirement that permits law enforcement to enter the vehicle, then the defendant retains a limited expectation of privacy in its interior. I am not sure a highly malleable reasonableness test adequately safeguards that expectation.