People v. Wallace
A149049
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Police stopped Wallace for traffic/registration issues; Officer Ambrose arrived because Wallace was also wanted in a recent domestic violence matter.
- Ambrose and Sergeant Reeves removed Wallace, handcuffed him, placed him in Ambrose’s patrol car, and Ambrose then searched Wallace’s vehicle where he saw and seized a 24-inch wooden baton.
- Ambrose testified the department had a policy to tow and inventory unattended vehicles (CHP 180 form), but he did not testify that he or Reeves decided to tow, did not fill out a CHP 180, did not know whether the car was towed, and did not document an inventory.
- The magistrate denied Wallace’s motion to suppress, concluding Ambrose’s search was an inventory/community-caretaking search; the trial court affirmed on section 995 review.
- Wallace pleaded no contest to Penal Code §22210 possession of a baton, preserving the suppression issue on appeal; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding no substantial evidence the search was a valid inventory or that discovery of the baton was inevitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ambrose’s warrantless search was a valid inventory search | Police followed department policy to tow and inventory unattended vehicles; Ambrose was performing an inventory when he discovered the baton | Ambrose did not follow or complete any standardized inventory procedure, did not decide or document towing, and had no responsibility for the vehicle | Court: No substantial evidence the search was a valid inventory search; suppression should have been granted |
| Whether the baton’s discovery was inevitable (Nix exception) | Even if Ambrose didn’t find it, the vehicle would have been towed and inventoried later and the baton would have been found | Record is silent whether impound/towing decision was made, who decided it, whether CHP 180 was completed, or whether an inventory would have occurred | Court: Inevitable discovery not supported by substantial evidence; People’s argument speculative |
| Remedy after erroneous denial of suppression | Evidence was admissible; conviction stands | Denial of suppression was prejudicial because plea followed erroneous ruling; defendant should be allowed to withdraw plea | Court: Reversed; vacate suppression denial, allow withdrawal of plea, remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches in custody/impound context)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches must follow standardized criteria to avoid pretext)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (police discretion in inventories must be guided by standard criteria)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- People v. Williams, 20 Cal.4th 119 (inventory-search pretext and need to show standardized procedures)
- People v. Torres, 188 Cal.App.4th 775 (requiring evidence of adherence to inventory procedures)
- People v. Evans, 200 Cal.App.4th 735 (rejecting inventory justification where standardized procedure compliance not shown)