438 F. App'x 439
6th Cir.2011Background
- Lilly was stopped March 4, 2009, in Mt. Morris Township, MI, for a cracked windshield and a seatbelt violation.
- Veach learned Lilly resided at Lilly’s mother's address and that Lilly had two outstanding Genesee County child-support warrants.
- Lilly was arrested for the warrants; the vehicle was towed and impounded per department policy requiring inventory after an arrest.
- During a routine inventory, Veach detected marijuana odor and found two duffel bags with marijuana and a separate bag with about $10,067 in cash behind the driver’s seat; a second bag contained 27 pounds of marijuana.
- The district court denied Lilly’s motion to suppress; Lilly was tried and convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inventory search violated policy and was pretextual | Lilly asserts Veach misstated policy and searched for evidence, not for inventory. | Veach’s testimony shows search complied with policy and served protective purposes. | Inventory search valid under policy; not pretextual. |
| Whether impoundment met policy prerequisites | Lilly contends vehicle wasn’t a traffic hazard/abandoned nor needed protection. | Vehicle parked in a traffic lane on a shoulderless road qualified as a traffic hazard under G.3. | Impoundment proper as traffic hazard under G.3. |
| Whether preservation/objection issues foreclose argument | Lilly argued failure to state reasons for impoundment violated policy. | Lilly did not object on that basis at magistrate stage; issue waived on appeal. | Waived due to failure to timely objection; preserved arguments rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lumpkin, 159 F.3d 983 (6th Cir. 1998) (inventory searches must be conducted in good faith, not as pretext for investigation)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches are exceptions to the warrant requirement when conducted properly)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches protect property and police from danger; valid without warrant)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory searches are permissible when routine and within policy)
- United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2007) (validity of inventory searches under standard procedures)
- United States v. Tackett, 486 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2007) (inventory searches must be conducted in good faith)
- United States v. Galloway, 316 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (reasonable exception to the warrant requirement)
- Dillard, 438 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2006) (clear-error standard for factual findings in suppression)