People v. Brown
2016 COA 150
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Police stopped Carl A. Brown for failing to stop at a stop sign; they discovered his driver's license was suspended.
- Officers issued a summons and planned to release Brown rather than arrest him, but ordered the vehicle impounded and a tow truck called.
- While waiting for the tow truck, an officer performed an inventory search of the car and discovered >2 grams of controlled substances; Brown was arrested thereafter and convicted at trial of possession and possession with intent to distribute.
- At the suppression hearing defense argued the impoundment and inventory search were unreasonable because the car was off the roadway, properly registered/insured, and Brown was not being arrested; the prosecutor relied on department policy authorizing impoundment for suspended licenses.
- The trial court denied suppression; on appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed whether the impoundment was constitutionally reasonable and therefore whether the inventory search was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impoundment of Brown's vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Impoundment was authorized by department policy for suspended-license drivers and served caretaking/public-safety functions | Impoundment was unreasonable because Brown was not arrested, car was off the roadway, ownership/registration/insurance could be verified, and alternatives (call a licensed driver/tow at owner's request) were available | Court held impoundment was not shown to be reasonable; prosecution failed to meet its burden, so impoundment was unlawful |
| Whether inventory search following the impoundment was lawful | If impoundment was lawful under policy, inventory search was permissible pursuant to the inventory-search exception | Inventory search was tainted because the initial impoundment was unconstitutional | Because impoundment was unlawful, the inventory search was unlawful and evidence should have been suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Syrie v. People, 101 P.3d 219 (Colo. 2004) (preservation rule: issue preserved when trial court had opportunity to make findings)
- Winpigler v. People, 8 P.3d 439 (Colo. 1999) (prosecution bears burden to justify warrantless searches)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches permissible to further caretaking and protect property/ police)
- Pineda v. People, 230 P.3d 1181 (Colo. 2010) (inventory-search purposes: protect property, insure against claims, protect police)
- Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005) (impoundment is a seizure; caretaking exception limited to public-safety or caretaking needs)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (caretaking/public-safety justification for impoundment and inventory searches)
- Milligan v. People, 77 P.3d 771 (Colo. App. 2003) (after valid impoundment, inventory search permitted)
- Gee v. People, 33 P.3d 1252 (Colo. App. 2001) (compliance with departmental procedures does not automatically make an inventory search reasonable)
- Duguay v. United States, 93 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 1996) (impoundment and inventory-search reasonableness are separate inquiries)
- Prescott v. People, 205 P.3d 416 (Colo. App. 2008) (evidence obtained by unlawful means must be suppressed)