Clarence L. Cobb v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 SC 000063
| Ky. | Aug 28, 2017Background
- Clarence Cobb was stopped by Officer Rodney Smith after Smith recognized him from a prior arrest for driving on a suspended license; Cobb gave a false name and then admitted his identity when confronted with a photo.
- Officer Smith verified Cobb’s license remained suspended and arrested him for driving on a suspended license; a neighbor/caretaker told police Cobb did not have permission to park in the elderly man’s driveway.
- Police seized Cobb’s vehicle, called a tow truck, and conducted an inventory search pursuant to department policy; officers opened the center console and discovered marijuana, rolling papers, and a loaded handgun.
- Cobb entered a conditional guilty plea but reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the vehicle evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed and Cobb sought discretionary review.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed whether the warrantless seizure and inventory search were lawful under Fourth Amendment principles and Kentucky law and ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Cobb's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of seizure/impoundment of Cobb’s vehicle | Seizure was pretextual and unreasonable; not justified by inventory exception | Vehicle lawfully seized after arrest, trespass, and illegal parking; inventory exception applies | Seizure was reasonable under the circumstances and lawful |
| Validity of the inventory search and opening of center console | Search exceeded proper scope; effectively a rummage and inconsistent with Bertine/Wells | Inventory searches are a recognized exception; opening center console is routine to inventory and allowed under policy | Inventory search and opening of console were reasonable and not a ruse for general rummaging |
| Applicability of Gant limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest | Gant restricts searches incident to arrest and renders this search invalid | This was not a search incident to arrest under Gant but an inventory search; Gant exceptions not controlling | Gant inapplicable because the search was conducted as an inventory under a separate exception |
| State constitutional claim under Section 10 | Section 10 affords greater protection than Fourth Amendment; Wagner should control | Kentucky precedent treats Section 10 as coextensive with the Fourth Amendment | Section 10 provides no greater protection here; LaFollette controls and Wagner is overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 65 (Kent. 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression factual findings)
- LaFollette v. Commonwealth, 915 S.W.2d 747 (Ky. 1996) (Kentucky Section 10 is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory searches must follow standardized criteria for opening containers)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (reasonableness test for vehicle impoundment and inventory searches)