United States v. George Harris
795 F.3d 820
8th Cir.2015Background
- Officer stopped George B. Harris for speeding after observing him reach beneath the driver’s seat/center console.
- Officer smelled marijuana while approaching but could not locate its source; marijuana was later found in Harris’s wallet.
- Officer arrested Harris for driving with a revoked license and, because the vehicle was parked on the left shoulder, called for a tow under department towing policy.
- Per department policy, the car was towed and a standardized inventory (tow-in) report was completed.
- Inventory search uncovered a loaded 9mm handgun under the driver’s seat; Harris, a convicted felon, admitted knowledge and prior handling of the gun.
- Harris pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm as an unlawful pretextual inventory search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the search that found the gun an unlawful pretextual inventory search? | Harris: officer used inventory as pretext to seize evidence rather than perform caretaking function. | Government: vehicle was lawfully impounded under standard policy because driver was in custody and vehicle posed a safety hazard; inventory followed departmental procedures. | Court: Held inventory was lawful; tow and inventory pursuant to standard policy and safety, not pretext. |
| Did excessive officer discretion render the impoundment invalid? | Harris: policy gave the officer too much discretion to decide to tow. | Government: discretion is permissible if exercised under standard criteria and not motivated by evidence-suspicion. | Court: Held discretion was acceptable; impoundment based on standardized policy and safety concerns. |
| Does an officer’s concurrent suspicion of crime negate an inventory search? | Harris: officer suspected criminal activity (marijuana) so inventory was investigatory. | Government: suspicion of crime does not preclude inventory when impoundment and inventory follow standard procedures. | Court: Held suspicion alone does not invalidate standardized inventory; allowed to remain alert for contraband so long as purpose is caretaking. |
| Does the tow-in report’s alleged incompleteness show lack of bona fide inventory? | Harris: report’s limited entries and checked minor damage indicate lack of serious caretaking. | Government: report included items (radio, CD player, hubcaps); Harris points to no specific inaccuracies. | Court: Held report adequate; unlike cases with clear falsification or misreporting, no evidence here undermined the inventory’s legitimacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness and police community-caretaking function)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches reasonable when impounding vehicles for safety)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (officer discretion in impoundment acceptable if based on standard criteria)
- United States v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2004) (impoundment policies may allow officer judgment tied to impoundment purposes)
- United States v. Pappas, 452 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2006) (inventory searches permissible even when police suspect criminal activity)
- United States v. Marshall, 986 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. 1993) (officers may observe incriminating items during standardized inventories provided purpose is caretaking)
- United States v. Garner, 181 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 1999) (same principle)
- United States v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2011) (inventory invalidated where officer admitted sole purpose was to find narcotics)