101 F.4th 586
9th Cir.2024Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. deputies stopped Jonathan Anderson for an obstructed plate; he sped into a residential driveway, exited, was handcuffed, and detained; dispatch told deputies his license was expired and that he was a career criminal.
- Deputies told Anderson they would tow and inventory his truck; within 3–7 minutes a deputy found a loaded handgun under the driver’s seat; Anderson was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- SBCSD policy required deputies to complete CHP-180 inventory forms listing “any personal property contained within the vehicle.” The CHP-180 in this case noted the firearm but did not list several personal items; deputies took interior photographs but did not incorporate them into the inventory form.
- Anderson moved to suppress, arguing the search was a pretext (violated policy and was investigatory), and that impoundment/inventory lacked a community-caretaking basis; the district court denied suppression, Anderson pleaded guilty conditionally, and appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held that compliance with an agency’s inventory procedure is relevant to officers’ motive; substantial deviations can show bad faith or pretext. On the record here the deputies materially deviated and acted solely for investigatory purposes, so the inventory-search exception did not justify the search; the court reversed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of compliance with inventory procedures to motive | Anderson: failure to follow SBCSD policy (not listing personal property; inventory-by-photo not used) shows pretext/investigatory motive | Govt: substantial compliance is enough; minor administrative errors don’t show bad faith; defendant must show “something more” | Held: Compliance and how policy is applied are relevant; material deviations can show bad faith/pretext; here deviation was material and supports finding of investigatory motive |
| Validity of the inventory search under the Fourth Amendment | Anderson: search was investigatory, not administrative; suppress firearm | Govt: inventory-search exception applies; search was lawful inventory | Held: Inventory-search exception did not apply; search was not justified as an administrative inventory; suppression warranted (court reversed denial of suppression) |
| Community-caretaking justification for impoundment | Anderson: deputies searched before confirming homeowner wanted vehicle removed; no caretaking basis at time of search | Govt: deputies spoke to homeowner before search and had basis to impound | Held: Majority did not resolve impoundment question (concluded inventory-search issue dispositive); a concurrence would have reversed on community-caretaking ground as well, finding district court’s contrary factual finding clearly erroneous |
| Burden to prove pretext / inventory exception | Anderson: government must prove exception; defendant may produce objective evidence of pretext | Govt: defendant must produce objective evidence and something more than mere noncompliance | Held: Government bears ultimate burden to prove an exception to the warrant requirement; defendant must produce objective evidence of pretext to trigger inquiry into officers’ subjective intent; production requirement does not shift ultimate burden from government |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (recognizes inventory searches of impounded vehicles to protect owner, police, and public safety)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory-search exception upheld where officers followed standardized procedures and did not act in bad faith)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (inventory/search to protect public safety upheld; administrative justifications recognized)
- Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968) (upheld inventory search to protect owner’s property pursuant to department procedure)
- Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (1967) (search of impounded vehicle related to custodial reasons can be reasonable)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory policies must be designed to produce an inventory; officers’ discretion must be governed by standard criteria)
- Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964) (early articulation that car searches implicate different concerns than homes)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (generally objective test for Fourth Amendment; but noted inventory/admin context is an exception where motive can matter)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (motive normally irrelevant except in limited contexts such as inventory/administrative searches)
- Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011 (2021) (Fourth Amendment analysis considers totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Garay, 938 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2019) (incomplete inventory can be harmless where other acts show administrative purpose)
- United States v. Magdirila, 962 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2020) (minor noncompliance with inventory policy does not invalidate search when inventory was otherwise produced)
- United States v. Johnson, 889 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2018) (defendant must produce objective evidence of pretext; officers’ subjective motive can matter in inventory-search context)
- Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979) (burden on those seeking warrant-exemption to show need)