Court Opinion

ID: 9557495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:51:18.602982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:54.019334
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
The majority holds that although the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective search of the respondents’ rental vehicle, the officers exceeded the scope of the protective search by extending the search to the trunk of the vehicle. I dissent because I believe the district court properly denied the respondents’ motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the vehicle’s trunk. I would hold that, pursuant to the doctrine of inevitable discovery, the evidence found in the trunk of the respondents’ vehicle was properly admitted. Such evidence would inevitably have been discovered during an inventory search of the vehicle because, at the time of the search, the officers had decided to seize the vehicle pursuant to section 42-5-107, 17 C.R.S. (1993).
I.
On May 18, 1991, Trooper Robert Hoey (Officer Hoey) of the Colorado State Patrol stopped a red Ford Thunderbird for weaving on Colorado Highway 50 near Montrose, Colorado. The word “lease” was written on the bottom of the vehicle’s license plates, which indicated to Officer Hoey that this was a rental car. James Bracket (Bracket) was driving the vehicle and George Litchfield (Litchfield) was the passenger.
After approaching the vehicle, Officer Hoey asked Bracket to produce a driver’s license and a rental agreement. Bracket produced his driver’s license, but gave Officer Hoey a rental agreement for a Ford Mustang convertible rather than for the Thunderbird which he was driving. After Officer Hoey informed him of the error, Bracket produced a rental agreement for the Thunderbird. Officer Hoey noted that this rental agreement had not been signed. Officer Hoey testified at the suppression hearing that, in his experience, the lack of a signature on a rental agreement makes the document invalid. Officer Hoey also noted that the rental agreement stated that the ear was not to be operated outside the states of Arizona and Nevada.
Officer Hoey then called his supervisor, Sergeant John Mitchell (Sergeant Mitchell) at the state patrol office. Sergeant Mitchell responded to the location where Officer Hoey had stopped the respondents’ vehicle. Sergeant Mitchell examined the rental agreement and noted that it had not been signed even though there was an “X” placed on a line to indicate where it should have been signed. Sergeant Mitchell also noted the provision which stated that the car was only to be driven in Arizona and Nevada. The lack of the signature created some suspicion in Sergeant Mitchell’s mind that the rental vehicle could have been stolen. Moreover, when Sergeant Mitchell considered the fact that the rental agreement clearly specified *1107that the car was only to be driven in Arizona and Nevada, he felt that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that the occupants of the vehicle were not rightfully in possession of the vehicle. Accordingly, Sergeant Mitchell decided to seize the rental car pursuant to section 42-5-107 for the purpose of determining rightful possession of the vehicle. Sergeant Mitchell did not believe the respondents were in rightful possession of this vehicle and it was his intention to hold this vehicle for investigation. Sergeant Mitchell planned to accomplish this investigation of the vehicle by moving it to a state patrol office located six miles from where it was stopped.
Sergeant Mitchell then directed Bracket to move the vehicle further onto the shoulder and to step out for greater safety. Sergeant Mitchell asked Bracket what he was doing in Colorado; Bracket answered that he was a “bowling alley salesman” and that he and his friend were traveling from Tucson to Denver, going to different bowling alleys on business. Sergeant Mitchell asked Bracket if he had any materials which would substantiate this claim. Bracket produced a business card but stated that he did not have any brochures or pamphlets. Bracket had previously told Officer Hoey that he and Litchfield were “bowling alley repairmen” traveling from Phoenix to Denver to find repair jobs in the Denver area.
Sergeant Mitchell then told Bracket that he was going to seize the car pursuant to section 42-5-107, but that no arrest was being effected at this time. In this regard, Sergeant Mitchell expressed his expectation that the respondents would have to remove their belongings from this vehicle and find another vehicle. Sergeant Mitchell also informed Bracket that he would have to search the vehicle pursuant to state patrol policy and that he was particularly concerned with the presence of guns in the ear. He indicated that if there were no guns in the vehicle, Bracket and Litchfield would be allowed to drive the vehicle to the state patrol office. Sergeant Mitchell then asked Bracket and Litchfield if all items of personal property in the vehicle belonged to them and they answered in the affirmative.
Sergeant Mitchell began conducting a search of the vehicle. After he completed searching the passenger compartment of the vehicle, he opened the trunk. Immediately upon opening the trunk, Sergeant Mitchell was struck by “an extremely pungent odor of raw marijuana.” Sergeant Mitchell immediately observed a bale of marijuana of approximately thirty pounds. Sergeant Mitchell and Officer Hoey subsequently arrested Bracket and Litchfield.
The respondents were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell. They filed a motion to suppress the marijuana seized from the rental car, which the trial court denied. After a bench trial, the respondents were convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The court of appeals reversed and remanded this matter, holding that the trial court erroneously denied the respondents’ motion to suppress the marijuana.
II.
The majority holds that, because the police officers had a reasonable suspicion that Bracket and Litchfield were not rightfully in possession of the rental car, the officers were justified in conducting a protective weapons search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. I agree with this conclusion. However, the majority finds that the search of the vehicle’s trunk was not justified as a protective search or as an inventory search. The majority thus concludes that the district court improperly denied the respondents’ motion to suppress the evidence found in the trunk of the rental vehicle. I dissent because, at the time of the search, the officers had decided to seize the rental vehicle pursuant to section 42-5-107, thus making the evidence found in the vehicle’s trunk subject to inevitable discovery during an inventory search of the vehicle.
The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed primarily to deter unlawful searches and seizures by the police. People v. Burola, 848 P.2d 958, 960 (Colo. 1993); People v. Fournier, 793 P.2d 1176, 1179 (Colo.1990); People v. Schoondermark, 759 P.2d 715, 718 (Colo.1988); United States *1108v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347-48, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619-20, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). Under the exclusionary rule, evidence that has been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed from presentation during the prosecution’s case-in-chief. Burola, 848 P.2d at 961; Fournier, 793 P.2d at 1179; Schoondermark, 759 P.2d at 718 (Colo. 1988). However, not all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Bu-rola, 848 P.2d at 961. Rather, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is recognized as an exception to the exclusionary rule. Id. The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows evidence initially discovered in an unconstitutional manner to be received, but only if the prosecution can establish that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. Id. at 962. The fact that makes discovery of the evidence inevitable must “arise from circumstances other than those disclosed by the unlawful search itself.” Id. (quoting United States v. Thomas, 955 F.2d 207, 211 (4th Cir.1992)).
The United States Supreme Court has consistently sustained police intrusions into automobiles impounded or otherwise in lawful police custody where the process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 373, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3099, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). The purpose of an inventory search is to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to ensure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372, 107 S.Ct. 738, 741, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). Thus, as the majority acknowledges, an “officer who has validly taken a vehicle into custody may make an inventory search of the contents of the vehicle.” Maj. op. at 1106.
In the case before us, Sergeant Mitchell informed the respondents that the rental ear would be seized pursuant to section 42-5-107, which provides:
All peace officers are authorized to take and hold possession of any motor vehicle ... if such officer has good and sufficient reason to believe that the motor vehicle or component part is not in the rightful possession of the driver or person in charge thereof.
§ 42-5-107(1), 17 C.R.S. (1993). Sergeant Mitchell had good and sufficient reason to believe that the respondents were not in rightful possession of this rental vehicle. Bracket first produced a rental agreement for a vehicle which he was not driving, then produced an unsigned rental agreement for the proper vehicle. More importantly, both Officer Hoey and Sergeant Mitchell noted that the rental agreement restricted the use of the vehicle to Arizona and Nevada, thereby indicating to the officers that the respondents were in violation of the rental agreement. Sergeant Mitchell therefore properly believed that the respondents were not authorized to use the vehicle in Colorado and that they were not in rightful possession of the vehicle.1
The majority states that “[a]t the time of the search of the vehicle, the officers’ temporary detention of the vehicle had not yet ripened into an impoundment. Therefore, a full inventory search was not permissible.” Maj. op. at 1105. However, the question of whether a detention has ripened into an im-poundment does not preclude the inevitable discovery of evidence. The record reflects that at the time of the search, Sergeant Mitchell had already decided to seize the rental vehicle and hold it for investigation pursuant to section 42-5-107 based on his good and reasonable suspicion that the respondents were not in rightful possession of the vehicle. Upon taking custody of the *1109vehicle, it would have been proper to conduct an inventory search of the vehicle, and such a search would inevitably have been conducted as a matter of state patrol policy. Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the fact that the inventory search took place on the roadside rather than at the state patrol office does not preclude the admissibility of the evidence found in the vehicle’s trunk. I therefore dissent.
I am authorized to say that Justice SCOTT joins in this dissent.

. Section 18-4-402, 8B C.R.S. (1986), provides:
(1) A person commits theft of rental property if he:
(a) Obtains the temporary use of personal property of another, which is available only for hire, ... knowing that such use is without the consent of the person providing the personal property....
Here, the use of the rental vehicle in the state of Colorado was without the consent of the rental company. Therefore, the officers could reasonably believe that the rental vehicle was a stolen vehicle.