968 F.3d 123
1st Cir.2020Background
- Police responded to a gas-station call about an armed person; officers encountered a crowd and observed Del Rosario leave in a parked Toyota Corolla, briefly stop, and then walk back toward the officers.
- While officers questioned him, Del Rosario ran; officers saw him discard a plastic bag (containing marijuana) and a pill bottle (later containing Xanax and Percocet) and arrested him.
- Officers recovered the discarded bag and pill bottle and confirmed a car key worked on the Corolla; the car was towed to the station and an inventory search at headquarters revealed a revolver in the front cabin and multiple small bags of marijuana under the trunk carpet.
- The ATF affidavit stated the officers opened and searched the car with Del Rosario’s consent at the scene, but the officers denied searching the car at the scene; the district court accepted the officers’ testimony after a de novo hearing.
- The government justified the warrantless seizure and inventory under the community-caretaking exception, the Puerto Rico forfeiture statute, and inevitable-discovery; the First Circuit found those justifications insufficient, reversed the denial of suppression, vacated the conviction, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether community-caretaking exception justified seizing and towing the car | Officers had noninvestigatory reasons (report of a weapon, no one else to move car, unwritten department practice) | Seizure was a pretext for an investigatory search; car was lawfully parked, no formal policy, no objective need to impound | Reversed: exception did not apply; seizure was effectively pretextual and unreasonable |
| Whether Puerto Rico forfeiture statute authorized seizure without a warrant | Forfeiture law (P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 34, § 1724f) permits seizing vehicles used to commit offenses involving controlled substances | No probable cause that the vehicle was proceeds or used to commit the drug-possession offense; mere possession on person is not use of vehicle | Rejected: government failed to show probable cause the vehicle was forfeitable |
| Whether inevitable-discovery doctrine permits admission of inventory evidence | Evidence would inevitably have been discovered lawfully (e.g., by on-scene search) | Officers disavowed any intent to search at scene; government failed to prove inevitable discovery by preponderance | Rejected: government did not demonstrate inevitable discovery with historical facts |
| Whether district court clearly erred in factual finding about an on-scene search | Government: officers did not open car at scene; affidavit discrepancy due to translation error | Del Rosario: affidavit shows officers opened/searched car at scene; officers’ testimony conflicted | Not reached on merits: court resolved case on improper impoundment grounds and did not address this alternative argument further |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (establishes community-caretaking exception for vehicles)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (upholds inventory searches as caretaking function)
- United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006) (applies caretaking framework and factors for impoundment reasonableness)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780 (1st Cir. 1991) (requires noninvestigatory reasons for impoundment)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (permits inventory searches if reasonable and pursuant to standard procedures)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (defines inevitable-discovery doctrine)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (addressing alternative Fourth Amendment justifications not raised below)
- Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (recognizes seizure/search where vehicle was demonstrably used in drug operations)