185 So. 3d 659
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Riviera Beach officer stopped a vehicle; driver was arrested for driving with a suspended license; officer found marijuana on the driver during a search incident to arrest.
- Officer could not locate the vehicle owner and arranged for the vehicle to be towed; he conducted an inventory of the vehicle before impoundment.
- In the trunk the officer found a suitcase with the appellant’s name; inside an open pocket of the suitcase was a knotted sock containing 17 live rounds of ammunition.
- Officer testified he was trained to inventory all vehicle contents and that the department required an inventory log when a vehicle is towed; the department’s impoundment policy was introduced but contained no standardized written procedures for opening containers.
- Appellant (passenger) was arrested after admitting the suitcase and contents were his; he pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the ammunition.
- Trial court denied suppression; Fourth District reversed, holding the state failed to prove a standardized inventory procedure authorizing opening closed containers.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the suitcase/sock fell within the inventory-search exception | Search invalid because state did not prove department had standardized procedures authorizing opening containers | Inventory-search exception applies; officer followed department practice and training to log and inventory all contents before towing | Reversed: state failed to prove existence of standardized inventory procedures permitting opening of containers; suppression required |
| Standing to challenge the search | Appellant had possessory interest in suitcase and contents | No dispute the appellant could contest search despite not owning vehicle | Held: appellant had standing to contest search |
| Whether impoundment was pretextual | Impoundment was pretextual only if to create opportunity to search; appellant argued impoundment was pretextual | State argued impoundment justified because owner could not be located and policy provides for towing after arrest | Held: impoundment was justified and not pretextual (court noted no indication of pretext) |
| Whether probable cause developed during encounter justified the search | Argued state failed to show probable cause to open containers based on marijuana found on driver | State alternatively argued probable cause arose from discovery of marijuana on driver | Held: Court declined to affirm on this basis because record did not develop totality-of-circumstances for probable cause analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hernandez, 718 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (standing to challenge search based on possessory interest)
- Kilburn v. State, 54 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (state bears burden to prove inventory-search exception; officer testimony alone may be insufficient)
- Williams v. State, 903 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (inventory searches must be conducted in good faith and according to standardized procedures)
- Leary v. State, 880 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (requirement of standardized criteria for inventory searches)
- Patty v. State, 768 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (impoundment and inventory must follow standardized criteria)
- State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989) (department policy allowing opening containers can validate inventory search)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory procedures must limit officer discretion; absence of written procedures undermines Fourth Amendment justification)
- Beezley v. State, 863 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (officer testimony about policy insufficient where standardized procedures not shown)