Commonwealth v. Lagenella
623 Pa. 434
| Pa. | 2013Background
- At 1:42 a.m. on Dec. 31, 2008, Cpl. Wealand stopped Appellant’s Ford Mustang for a turn-signal violation; the car was parked legally two feet from the curb and not blocking traffic.
- During the stop the officer learned Appellant’s license was suspended and that the vehicle lacked an emissions sticker; he issued citations and advised the car would be towed under Department policy.
- The officer told Appellant he was required to perform an inventory of any vehicle to be towed; Appellant was permitted to observe.
- While inventorying the car’s interior the officer squeezed a jacket, found an eyeglass case with suspected drug residue and then opened it (Appellant had said to “go ahead”), leading to Appellant’s arrest; the officer later opened the trunk and found firearms.
- Appellant moved to suppress the drugs and weapons; trial court suppressed the drugs found in the eyeglass case but admitted the weapons. The Superior Court affirmed in part. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed whether the inventory search was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Lagenella’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had authority under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6309.2 to tow the vehicle immediately (vs. merely immobilize it) | Officer lacked basis to tow: vehicle posed no public safety hazard, was not blocking traffic, and a friend could retrieve it | Statute authorizes immobilization and, once immobilized, police custody justifies an inventory and tow under Department policy | The officer had authority only to immobilize; record showed no public-safety basis to tow, so immediate towing was unlawful |
| Whether an inventory search is permissible when a vehicle is merely immobilized (not impounded/towed) | Inventory search not justified absent lawful impoundment; immobilization alone does not place vehicle in police custody for inventory purposes | Once lawfully immobilized, vehicle is effectively in police custody and may be inventoried under standard policy | Warrantless inventory searches are permissible only after lawful towing/impoundment; inventory after mere immobilization is not automatically lawful (Thompson disapproved to the extent it held otherwise) |
| Whether evidence discovered during the (alleged) inventory should be suppressed | Evidence from an improper inventory must be suppressed | Evidence admissible because inventory was conducted per policy after immobilization | Weapons discovered in trunk should have been suppressed because the inventory was unlawful |
| Whether discovery of contraband in eyeglass case converted the inventory into an investigatory search requiring a warrant | If the search was investigatory after discovery, a warrant was required | If the inventory was valid, continuation was permissible | Court did not reach whether subsequent discovery converts inventory into investigatory search; primary ground of reversal was unlawful towing/inventory |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (establishes the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement where vehicles are lawfully impounded)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (upholds inventory searches when discretion to impound is exercised under standardized criteria)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 999 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 2010) (held vehicle immobilization justified inventory search; disapproved to extent it equated immobilization with impoundment)
- Commonwealth v. Henley, 909 A.2d 352 (Pa. Super. 2006) (articulates two-part test for valid inventory: lawful impoundment/custody and adherence to reasonable standardized procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Nace, 571 A.2d 1389 (524 Pa. 1990) (inventory searches protect owner’s property and police interests)