People v. Nash
947 N.E.2d 350
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Defendant Nash was stopped for a seat belt violation; license check showed suspended driving privileges and no insurance card was presented.
- She was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a squad car while a tow was arranged for impoundment.
- During an inventory search, officers found MDMA under the driver's seat, leading to a charge of attempted unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, ruling the inventory search unreasonable since there was no demonstrated need to preserve evidence of driving with a suspended license.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that impoundment was statutorily mandated and the subsequent inventory search was reasonable under the fourth amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impoundment was proper under the Vehicle Code | State: suspension + lack of insurance mandate impoundment. | Nash: vehicle did not need to be impounded; alternatives existed. | Impoundment was proper under statute 6-303(e). |
| Whether the inventory search of the impounded vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | State: inventory search served caretaking/ownership protection purposes. | Nash: search should be suppressed because the car was insured and alternatives existed. | Inventory search permissible under proper impoundment procedure and standardized procedures. |
| Whether the teenage passenger’s potential ability to remove the car affected the impoundment | State: no other licensed driver available; tow necessary. | Nash: the girl could have driven or retrieved proof of insurance; officer should have waited. | Not required to pursue or wait for alternative removal; impoundment justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gipson, 203 Ill.2d 298 (2003) (inventory searches permitted when impoundment authorized; purpose and procedures matter)
- People v. Hundley, 156 Ill.2d 135 (1993) (three-part test for valid warrantless inventory search)
- People v. Clark, 394 Ill.App.3d 344 (2009) (inventory procedures can be valid without written policy if standardized)
- People v. Mason, 403 Ill.App.3d 1048 (2010) (impoundment and inventory tied to caretaking/traffic-safety concerns)
- People v. Young, 363 Ill.App.3d 268 (2006) (policies may require querying occupants about licenses and insurance)
- Duguay v. City of Alton, 93 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 1996) (limits on impoundment policies lacking standardized procedures)
- People v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (impoundments and inventory searches serve caretaking/public-safety goals)
- United States v. Gant, 556 U.S. 335 (2009) (vehicle searches incident to arrest clarified; applicable to inventory context)
- People v. Harrington, 2006 WL 3359388 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (distinguishable; not binding official reporter depending on jurisdiction)
- Young v. City of Chicago, 344 Ill.App.3d 269 (not listed) (discusses impairment and removal options related to impoundment)