Court Opinion

ID: 9648816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:36:01.651508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:58.504789
License: Public Domain

PASHMAN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s ruling that the inventory of the motor vehicle’s contents was improper. As I recently stated in State v. Ercolano, 79 N.J. 25, 52 (1979) (Pashman, J., concurring), “an inventory is impermissible unless the driver consents or a ‘substantial police need’ justifies the search.” Neither condition existed here; therefore defendants’ convictions may not stand. I am writing separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the inventory was not a pretext to conduct an illegal search. I find it also appropriate to consider whether the search of the Coleman cooler was itself reasonable even assuming probable cause or an otherwise valid inventory search — an issue which the majority declined to discuss. See ante at 585 n. 4.
I
In what is essentially dicta in view of the vacation of defendants’ convictions, the Court today asserts that “it does not appear that the inventory was a subterfuge for a warrantless investigatory search.” Ante at 585. I respectfully disagree. In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), the Supreme Court identified three factors which can serve to justify an inventory subsequent to lawful impoundment: (1) “the protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody,” (2) “the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property,” and (3) “the protection of the police from potential danger.” Id. at 369, 96 S.Ct. at 3097. The majority implicitly and correctly recognizes that because defendant was physically present and capable *589of refusing consent to the inventory — thereby assuming the risk of damage or loss to his property — none of the above justifications for an inventory was present. See ante at 586; Ercolanco, 79 N.J. at 53. (Pashman, J., concurring).
I do not perceive how the majority can conclude, however, that the inventory was anything but a pretext to conduct an illegal search. The record clearly reveals the true purpose of the officers’ actions. The officers had no conceivable need to conduct the inventory, since the owner did not so consent for the protection of his property. They testified that théir usual practice was to allow the occupants of impounded vehicles an opportunity to remove their personal effects. See ante at 586. The feeble reasons the officers gave for diverting from their normal procedures support the conclusion that the inventory was merely a subterfuge to conduct an illegal search. When the officer arrived at the scene of the single vehicle accident, he noticed that defendant LaBianca was acting in an “extremely agitated” manner and appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Ante at 587. These observations, not the desire to protect defendants’ property, constituted the genuine motivations for the exploratory — not inventory — search. See State v. McDaniel, 156 N.J.Super. 347, 359-360 (App.Div.1978).
Even if the police officers had probable cause to search the Coleman cooler, that search would have violated the recent holding of the Supreme Court in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979). That case held that the warrantless search of luggage taken from an automobile violated the Fourth Amendment notwithstanding the fact that the police had probable cause for believing the luggage contained contraband. Id. at 761-763, 99 S.Ct. at 2591-2593, 61 L.Ed.2d at 243-244. As to other containers seized from automobiles, the Supreme Court noted:
*590Not all containers and packages found by police during the course of a search will deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some containers (for example a kit of burglar tools or a gun case) by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance. Similarly, in some cases the contents of a package will be open to “plain view,” thereby obviating the need for a warrant. See Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992 [993], 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968) (per curiam). There will be difficulties in determining which parcels taken from an automobile require a warrant for their search and which do not. Our decision in this case means only that a warrant generally is required before personal luggage can be searched and that the extent to which the Fourth Amendment applies to containers and other parcels depends not at all upon whether they are seized from an automobile. [Id. at 764, 99 S.Ct. at 2593, n. 13, 61 L.Ed.2d at 245 n. 13 (emphasis supplied)]
The decision in Sanders compels the understanding that for purposes of the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause, there is no difference between a beverage cooler taken from an automobile and one seized in other locations.
It is quite obvious that the marijuana contained inside the closed Coleman cooler was not open to “plain view.” Nor did the outward appearance of the beverage cooler reveal its function as a container for a cache of drugs. Therefore, regardless of the existence of probable cause, such a warrantless search could not be justified under the “automobile exception.” See United States v. Dien, 609 F.2d 1038 (2d Cir. 1979) (holding that the warrantless search of closed cardboard boxes lawfully removed by police from a van was an improper search under Arkansas v. Sanders). In essence, “[t]he word ‘automobile’ is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2035, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
II
Even assuming that the police inventory of the contents of the van was proper — for example, if the driver or owner was not *591present and there was a “substantial police need” justifying the inventory — I am of the view that the police should have inventoried the Coleman cooler as a unit. Under the present facts, no legitimate interest in an inventory would have permitted them to open the cooler and itemize its contents.
I fully concur with the majority that “despite their benign purposes * * * inventories constitute searches subject to Fourth Amendment strictures.” Ante at 583. As the California Supreme Court stated in Mozzetti v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 699, 484 P.2d 84, 88, 94 Cal.Rptr. 412, 416 (Sup.Ct.1971):
It seems undeniable that a routine police inventory of the contents of an automobile involves a substantial invasion into the privacy of the vehicle owner. Regardless of professed benevolent purposes and euphemistic explication, an inventory search involves a thorough exploration by the police into the private property of an individual. In that process suitcases, briefcases, sealed packages, purses — anything left open or closed within the vehicle — is subjected without limitation to the prying eyes of authorities. Merely because the police are not searching with the express purpose of finding evidence of crime, they are not exempt from the requirements of reasonableness set down in the Fourth Amendment. Constitutional rights may not be evaded through the route of finely honed but nonsubstantive distinctions.
An inventory search is a significant intrusion into the legitimate expectations of privacy of an owner or driver of an impounded vehicle. “As part of their inventory search the police may discover materials such as letters or checkbooks that ‘touch upon intimate areas of an individual’s personal affairs,’ and ‘reveal much about a person’s activities, associations, and beliefs.’ ” South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. at 380 n. 7, 96 S.Ct. at 3102 n. 7 (Powell, J., concurring) (quoting California Bankers Ass’n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 78-79, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1525-1526, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)). In weighing these privacy interests against the governmental inter*592ests in itemizing the contents of luggage, packages or containers found in an impounded vehicle, it is clear that the balance weighs heavily in favor of the individual.
As stated above, the commonly avowed purposes of an inventory search are: (1) the protection of the owner’s property while in police custody; (2) protection of police against claims over lost or stolen property; and (3) the protection of the police from physical danger. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369, 96 S.Ct. at 3097. In this case, since the Coleman cooler was latched, “and there was no danger of anything slipping out, the first two purposes are better served if the [container] is inventoried as a unit.” United States v. Bloomfield, 594 F.2d 1200, 1202 (8th Cir. 1979).
In this way the [container], which is locked up as a whole in police headquarters, has never been opened and its contents have never been removed, reshuffled and replaced. To our minds, this would minimize the possibility of loss and the possibility of false claims against police by the owner, [id]
Given the circumstances under which the Coleman cooler was found, it was not reasonable to believe that storing the cooler at the police station, without knowledge of its contents, would pose a danger to the police. Id. at 1203; see also State v. Pace, 171 N.J.Super. 240, 250 (App.Div.1979). I agree with the majority that “[t]he inventory search procedure should be no more intrusive than reasonably necessary to respond to the protective functions which fostered its creation.” Ante at 587. In this case, however, none of the three justifications for an inventory search supports a search of the interior of a closed container that was taken from an impounded vehicle. I therefore conclude that the officer’s handling of the container was substantially more intrusive than necessary to satisfy the interests which justify an inventory.
In Mozzetti v. Superior Court, supra, the California Supreme Court was confronted with a situation highly analogous to the present case. That case involved a warrantless search of an *593unlocked suitcase observed by police on the rear seat of a disabled automobile during a routine inventory. In the process of searching the automobile, the police discovered a bag of marijuana in the unlocked suitcase. As in the case before us, the search could not even arguably be justified on any ground other than the inventory of an impounded vehicle. The court in Mozzetti acknowledged that the police could validly “take note of any personal property in plain sight within the automobile being taken into custody.” 484 P.2d at 89, 94 Cal.Rptr. at 417. They could not, however, remove the suitcase or search its contents.
[I]tems of value left in an automobile to be stored by the police may be adequately protected merely by rolling up the windows, locking the vehicle doors and returning the keys to the owner. The owner himself, if required to leave his car temporarily, could do no more to protect his property. [Id.]
Where the owner or driver is not present, I believe this would be the proper procedure for police to follow where circumstances indicate that it would afford a reasonable measure of security.
The rule expressed in Mozzetti limiting a valid inventory search to “[a]ny objects clearly visible without probing,” id., see Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. at 465-472, 91 S.Ct. at 2037-2041, strikes an appropriate balance between the governmental interest in conducting the inventory and the vehicle owner’s rights of privacy in his personal effects. See, e. g., State v. Daniel, 589 P.2d 408 (Alaska Sup.Ct.1979); State v. Gwinn, 301 A.2d 291 (Del.Sup.Ct.1972); State v. Boster, 217 Kan. 618, 539 P.2d 294 (Sup.Ct.1975); State v. Keller, 265 Or. 622, 510 P.2d 568 (Sup.Ct.1973). I would therefore hold that where there is a “substantial police need” to conduct an inventory of a lawfully impounded vehicle and the owner or driver is not present, the police may not routinely catalog items which are contained in luggage, containers and packages where the items are not in the plain sight of the police officers conducting the inventory. Furthermore, if the owner or driver is present *594and consents to an inventory, he may restrict its scope to specified portions of the vehicle, see Ercolano, 79 N.J. at 53 (Pashman, J., concurring), and may also restrict access to containers found inside the vehicle. The officers’ conduct in this case far exceeded these bounds for a reasonable inventory search. I would bar from admission as evidence the fruits of their efforts for this reason, as well as the grounds stated by the majority. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
Justice PASHMAN concurs in result.
For affirmance — Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 6.
For reversal — None.