Otis Sams, Jr. v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 70
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Late-night traffic stop of Otis Sams after officer observed nonworking taillights; Sams produced an ID and was found to be driving on a suspended license.
- Officers decided to impound and tow the truck because it was parked on a public road in a snowstorm and no licensed driver was available; Sams was issued a summons and released to await a ride.
- While awaiting the tow, two officers conducted an inventory of the truck; one officer instructed the other to check a folded fast-food bag in the rear cab.
- Inside the bag was a hamburger box that contained over 25 grams of methamphetamine; officers arrested Sams and completed an inventory listing only “misc tools.”
- Sams moved to suppress the methamphetamine as the fruit of an unlawful, warrantless search; the trial court denied the motion, the jury convicted, and Sams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inventory search of the truck was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | The impoundment was lawful and inventory searches are permissible; the search complied with department policy and photographs/inventory justify admission | The inventory search was pretextual, GPD policy was not sufficiently standardized, and officers deviated from any proper procedure | The search was unreasonable and pretextual; evidence suppressed, conviction vacated |
| Whether GPD had sufficient written procedures regulating inventories | Policy directs inventory of "all personal property and vehicle accessories," and officers followed practice to protect property/liability | The written policy conflicts with an unwritten practice that inventories only items officers deem "valuable," leaving excessive discretion | The written policy conflicted with and was undermined by an unwritten standardless practice; the regime failed to sufficiently regulate searches |
| Whether officers followed their inventory policy in this case | Officers conducted an on-scene inventory and recorded items (photographs and list) after finding contraband | Officers deviated: inventory form was sparse/inaccurate, did not list many items referenced by policy, opened a trash bag only after expressing suspicion | Officers did not follow policy; major deviations and testimony show search motivated by suspicion, not administrative inventory |
| Whether administrative purposes (protecting property/liability/safety) justify the search/results | Inventory served administrative aims; photographs and towing procedures support inventory purpose | Inventory did not fulfill administrative aims: vague "misc tools" entry, no documentation of hazardous items, photos taken after contraband found | Administrative purposes were incidental; search primarily investigative and therefore unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (community-caretaking justification for vehicle inventories)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches valid to protect property and limit liability when conducted under standardized procedures)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory policies must limit officer discretion; closed-container guidance required)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (supports inventory exception to warrant requirement)
- Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. 1993) (rejecting inventory used as pretext for investigation)
- Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2005) (probable-cause requirement for vehicle searches when investigating crime)
- Berry v. State, 967 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (State bears burden to justify warrantless searches)
- United States v. Cartwright, 630 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010) (written procedures serve as a guard against pretextual inventories)
- United States v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 2005) (searches that would not occur but for officers’ suspicions are pretextual)