Jorge Zepeda v. State
12-15-00055-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 18, 2015Background
- Appellant Jorge Zepeda was stopped for a signaling/traffic violation; officer smelled marijuana and checked insurance, finding Appellant listed as an "excluded driver."
- Dispatch returned prior convictions including driving without license and failure to maintain financial responsibility; Appellant’s license was later shown to be suspended.
- Tyler Police Officer Boyce decided to impound the vehicle under TPD impoundment policy and conducted an inventory search, which revealed two baggies of marijuana.
- Officer testified he considered mitigating circumstances listed in TPD policy but believed none applied; he did not call Appellant’s father to retrieve the car.
- Appellant moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing the officer failed to follow TPD impound policy and that the policy is inconsistent; the trial court denied suppression and accepted the officer’s compliance with the mandatory portions of the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of inventory search/impoundment | Officer failed to follow TPD impound policy (did not contact owner/relative; didn’t consider mitigating factors) so inventory was invalid | Officer complied with mandatory policy provisions, considered mitigating factors, and lawfully impounded vehicle making inventory exception applicable | Trial court denied suppression; impound and inventory treated as lawful |
| Validity/clarity of TPD impoundment policy | Policy is inconsistent (uses both "shall" and "should"), so it fails to constrain officer discretion and renders inventories suspect | Policy reasonably delegates limited discretion to consider specified mitigating circumstances; not so vague as to invalidate search; issue not preserved at trial | Court found no reversible error; policy not fatal to suppression ruling |
| Timing of arrest vs. impoundment requirement | Appellant suggests arrest element for lawful impoundment was not satisfied because arrest occurred after inventory began | State argues inability to allow Appellant to drive (suspended license/excluded driver) functionally satisfies arrest element or otherwise justifies impoundment | Trial court accepted State’s theory; impoundment upheld |
| Duty to seek alternatives (call owner/relative) before towing | Appellant contends officer should have attempted to have someone retrieve vehicle | State notes policy does not require calling a relative and officers need not independently investigate alternatives absent evidence they existed | Court sustained denial of suppression; no requirement to locate alternative driver established |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles are valid if conducted in good faith pursuant to standardized procedures)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches must not be a pretext for general rummaging; officers’ discretion must be constrained by standard procedures)
- Delgado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (inventory lawful where driver arrested and no alternatives to protect property existed)
- Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (State bears burden to prove lawful impoundment and inventory)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appellate deference to trial court findings in suppression rulings; view facts in light most favorable to trial court)
- Moberg v. State, 810 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (inventory valid if impounding agency had policy and officer followed it)
- Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (elements the State may show to satisfy lawful impoundment: arrest, no alternatives, agency policy, and policy compliance)
- State v. Carter, 915 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (appellate courts must defer to trial court on suppression rulings within zone of reasonable disagreement)