971 N.W.2d 33
Mich. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Dennis Swenor was identified by Walmart loss-prevention and arrested for trespass while sitting with two shopping carts full of used personal property outside the store.
- Deputies seized Swenor’s property for “safekeeping,” transported it to a secure sheriff’s office location, and performed an inventory search.
- During the inventory, officers opened a backpack and an inner zipper bag and discovered a digital scale that tested positive for methamphetamine; a subsequent search of a safe recovered drug paraphernalia.
- Swenor moved to suppress the drugs-found via the inventory search, arguing the search was invalid because the sheriff’s written inventory policy addressed vehicles (not personal property) and there was no standardized procedure for impounding/searching personal items.
- The trial court granted suppression, concluding the inventory-exception requirements (as articulated in People v Toohey) required a written departmental procedure covering personal-property impoundment/searches and that such a policy was absent.
- On appeal the People argued a written policy is not strictly required and suppression was inappropriate; the Court of Appeals held those arguments were not preserved and affirmed the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Swenor’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a written departmental policy is required to justify an inventory search of personal property seized from an arrestee | A written policy is not strictly required; existing vehicle-focused policy and practice suffice (and best practice is to have a policy but it is supplemental) | No applicable written policy covered impoundment/search of personal property; absence of standardized written procedure makes the search unconstitutional | The court: written policy need not be dispositive, but prosecution failed to preserve the argument; trial court’s reliance on Toohey to require a written policy was not plainly erroneous, so suppression affirmed |
| Whether suppression was an inappropriate remedy because officers acted in good faith | Suppression was unwarranted because officers acted in good faith to protect property and safety | Suppression was appropriate because the inventory exception was not satisfied due to lack of proper procedures | Court declined to consider on appeal (unpreserved); would not overturn suppression for that unpreserved claim |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Toohey, 438 Mich 265 (1991) (inventory searches constitutional only if conducted in accordance with established departmental procedures and not used as pretext for investigation)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (upholding inventory of personal property found on arrestee; standardized inventory procedures serve legitimate interests)
- People v. Guy, 118 Mich App 99 (1982) (upholding opening of a briefcase during an inventory to protect property and deter false claims)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (preservation rules for appellate review; plain-error standard when issues are unpreserved)
- People v. Frazier, 478 Mich 231 (2007) (exclusionary rule is prudential and aimed at deterring misconduct; appellate courts may decline review when issues are forfeited)