United States v. Alauna Morris
915 F.3d 552
8th Cir.2019Background
- Morris was stopped in an RV in Sept. 2016; Deputy Taylor arrested her on a warrant and the CCSO impounded the RV.
- Deputies began an inventory search and found marijuana, two glass pipes, and a digital scale in containers; they stopped the inventory because parts of the RV were inaccessible.
- The next day, with a search warrant, officers searched Morris’s residence and found 69.5 grams of meth; a subsequent warrant search of the RV recovered 138 grams of meth and $9,500.
- Morris moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the RV, arguing the inventory search was unlawful and the sheriff’s office policy either didn’t exist or allowed impermissible discretion.
- The magistrate and district courts found Deputy Taylor’s testimony credible, concluded the CCSO had an impoundment and inventory policy, and held the impoundment and inventory complied with that policy and the Fourth Amendment.
- This interlocutory appeal challenges the denial of the suppression motion; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCSO had a standardized impound/inventory policy | Morris: Government failed to prove a written policy; testimony insufficient | Government: Deputy Taylor’s testimony established policy and practices | Court: Testimony sufficient; district court did not err in finding a policy existed |
| Whether deputies lawfully impounded the RV or exercised impermissible discretion | Morris: Deputies should have allowed her husband to retrieve the RV; impoundment was unnecessary | Government: Arrest of driver and hazard justified impoundment under policy and caretaking functions | Court: Impoundment reasonable and lawful; deputies need not permit third-party retrieval |
| Whether inventory search (including opening containers) exceeded policy or was a pretext for investigation | Morris: Policy didn’t expressly authorize opening closed containers; search was investigatory ruse | Government: Policy required inventory of items ≥ $25; containers may be opened when officers reasonably believe they contain such items | Court: Inventory of containers was reasonable under policy; deputies acted within discretion and not as a ruse |
| Whether terminating the inventory early was improper or indicative of pretext | Morris: Stopping inventory suggested a pretext to seek warrants | Government: Deputies stopped due to physical inaccessibility and risk to property, consistent with policy | Court: Credited deputies’ explanation; early termination was reasonable and complied with policy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woods, 747 F.3d 552 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Frencher, 503 F.3d 701 (8th Cir.) (credibility findings on suppression are virtually unassailable)
- United States v. Betterton, 417 F.3d 826 (8th Cir.) (testimony can establish impoundment procedures)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S.) (inventory searches are valid Fourth Amendment exception and serve caretaking objectives)
- United States v. Frasher, 632 F.3d 450 (8th Cir.) (inventory searches as exception to warrant requirement)
- United States v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir.) (reasonableness of inventory under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Wallace, 102 F.3d 346 (8th Cir.) (policy requiring inventory of vehicle and containers covers trunks/closed containers)
- United States v. Como, 53 F.3d 87 (5th Cir.) (officer judgment consistent with inventory objectives does not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Harris, 795 F.3d 820 (8th Cir.) (officers may notice incriminating items during standardized inventory if not solely investigatory)
- United States v. Pappas, 452 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.) (suspicion of unrelated crime does not invalidate a separate valid police procedure)
- United States v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 461 (8th Cir.) (inventory searches must be reasonable and not a ruse for general rummaging)
- United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866 (8th Cir.) (no Fourth Amendment requirement to allow another person to retrieve arrested person’s vehicle)
- United States v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir.) (police may take protective custody of a vehicle when occupants are arrested)