United States v. Killblane, 662 F. App'x 615

Background

On May 21, 2015 Muskogee police stopped Killblane for a broken tag light, discovered his license was suspended, arrested him, and impounded his truck under department policy.
Officers performed an inventory search of the impounded truck; they discovered and removed multiple firearms from the back seat and recorded some but not all items found.
Officer Wisdom completed inventory paperwork from memory, listing only a wrench set and a car seat, and admitted routinely omitting items valued under $25 despite policy requiring listing of all personal property.
Killblane was indicted for being a felon in possession of firearms and moved to suppress the guns as the product of an unlawful warrantless search (challenging the inventory search).
The magistrate and district court denied suppression; Killblane entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether firearms seized during the inventory search must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment	Killblane: inventory search was conducted in violation of department procedures and may have been a pretext for investigation, so suppression is required	Government: stop, arrest, and impoundment were lawful; even if inventory was flawed, the guns would have been inevitably discovered by a proper inventory search	The court affirmed: evidence admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine because a proper inventory search of the lawfully impounded vehicle would have inevitably revealed the firearms
Whether a hypothetical proper inventory can support inevitable discovery when officers deviated from procedures	Killblane: a hypothetical inventory cannot justify inevitable discovery when officers failed to follow standards; there must be an independent lawful subsequent search	Government: precedent allows reliance on a hypothetical properly-conducted inventory so long as it would not have exceeded administrative purposes	Held: Reliance on a hypothetical proper inventory is permitted; prior Tenth Circuit decisions control
Whether officer bad faith or investigatory motive defeats inevitable discovery here	Killblane: officers’ deviations and suspected investigatory motive show bad faith, negating inevitable discovery	Government: motive/bad faith does not defeat the conclusion that a proper inventory would have uncovered the guns	Held: Court accepted that a proper inventory would have uncovered the guns regardless of officers’ conduct; bad-faith argument did not change result
Whether precedent requiring standardized procedures bars admission when procedures were not followed	Killblane: failure to follow standardized procedures makes the search unconstitutional	Government: prior cases (Horn, Haro-Salcedo, Martinez) permit admission when evidence would inevitably be found in a proper inventory	Held: Court followed those precedents and affirmed admission of evidence under inevitable discovery

Key Cases Cited

Benoit v. United States, 713 F.3d 1 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Haro-Salcedo v. United States, 107 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 1997) (inventory-search exception and inevitable discovery applied despite procedural deviations)
Horn v. United States, 970 F.2d 728 (10th Cir. 1992) (evidence admissible where impoundment and subsequent proper inventory would have revealed weapons)
Martinez v. United States, 512 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (government may rely on hypothetical inventory for inevitable discovery if it aligns with administrative purposes)
Cunningham v. United States, 413 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining inevitable discovery doctrine)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (warrant requirement baseline for Fourth Amendment searches)