People v. Brown, 2018 CO 27

Carl A. Brown was stopped after officers observed traffic infractions and an anonymous report; officers discovered he was driving on a suspended license.
Officers decided to issue a summons (not arrest) but, relying on Aurora ordinance and departmental discretion, ordered the vehicle impounded.
While awaiting tow, officers conducted an inventory search and found crack cocaine in the car; Brown was then arrested and convicted of possession with intent to distribute.
Brown moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the impoundment and inventory violated the Fourth Amendment; district court denied suppression, finding the search an authorized inventory under department policy.
The court of appeals reversed, holding impoundment of a non-arrested driver’s vehicle could not be justified solely by departmental policy and that the community caretaking exception did not apply.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals: the record did not show the seizure was justified as a caretaking function or otherwise reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether impoundment of a vehicle driven by a cited (not arrested) driver was a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment’s community caretaking exception	Seizing the car pursuant to an Aurora ordinance/police policy permitting impoundment is sufficient to justify the seizure and ensuing inventory	Impoundment was unjustified because Brown remained able to control the vehicle and the record lacks facts showing risk to public safety or need for government custody	Court held policy compliance alone does not justify impoundment; record lacked caretaking justification, so seizure/inventory violated the Fourth Amendment
Whether an inventory search conducted after impoundment is lawful when impoundment is unsupported	Inventory searches conducted according to department policies are reasonable absent bad faith	The inventory search was premised on an unlawful seizure and thus evidence must be suppressed	Court held inventory cannot validate an unlawful initial seizure; suppression required because impoundment was not shown reasonable

Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (police discretion in impoundments must be circumscribed by standardized criteria)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches of impounded vehicles can be reasonable caretaking measures)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (community caretaking functions distinguished from criminal investigations)
Pineda v. People, 230 P.3d 1181 (Colo. 2010) (discussing inventory searches and bad-faith concerns)