Moskey v. State
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8948
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Moskey's vehicle had tampered/expired inspection sticker; deputies discovered warrants and arrested him; vehicle impounded after arrest; an inventory search was conducted at a tow-site; marijuana was found in an unlocked glove compartment; Moskey moved to suppress, which the trial court denied; Moskey pled guilty to a class B misdemeanor with deferred adjudication; appeal contested inventory-search validity and Gant applicability.
- Deputies testified inventory search followed department policy: impoundment occurred due to no one to release vehicle; inventory form documented items; glove compartment opened if unlocked; if locked, supervisor approval or warrant/consent obtained; search occurred after tow to a parking lot.
- The suppression ruling rested on whether the search complied with standardized procedures and whether Gant limitations applied; trial court did not issue findings of fact; appellate standard is abuse of discretion with de novo legal review.
- The appellate court assessed standing issue but held it unnecessary to resolve for the outcome; the court ultimately upheld the inventory search as valid under policy and held Gant inapplicable.
- Conclusion: denial of motion to suppress was correct; appellate affirmance of deferred adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inventory search complied with departmental policy | Moskey | State | Yes; search followed policy and was valid. |
| Whether Gant limits apply to the inventory search | Moskey | State | Gant does not apply; inventory search is a valid exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory searches permissible after lawful impoundment to secure property)
- García v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (inventory searches may be valid under policy, not require least intrusive means)
- Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (inventory search following impoundment with documented policy)
- Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches: reasonable standard procedures; not pure rummaging)
- Opperman, 428 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1976) (foundation of inventory search doctrine; protected property; discretion to search containers)
- Gauldin v. State, 683 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (state must prove compliance with standard inventory procedures)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches must not be a pretext for general rummaging)