889 F.3d 1120
9th Cir.2018Background
- On April 10, 2014, Multnomah County deputies located Mark Johnson (subject to an outstanding warrant) and Portland officers stopped his vehicle after following him; the car was boxed in and parked in a traffic lane.
- Officers arrested Johnson on the warrant, searched him incident to arrest (finding a folding knife and $7,100), and impounded the vehicle because it blocked traffic and Johnson could not provide owner contact information.
- Pursuant to PPB policy, officers performed an inventory of the car before towing and seized items from the cabin and trunk (two bags, two cellphones, a pipe, a stun device, etc.); some items were recorded as "evidence."
- Officer Corona later swore an affidavit (citing a prior police report) and obtained a warrant to search the seized bags and phones; the backpack search uncovered a safe with meth, scales, syringes, and paperwork; a phone contained drug-related texts.
- Johnson was indicted and convicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; he moved to suppress the car and person evidence, arguing the impound/inventory was pretextual and the later warrant lacked probable cause. The district court denied suppression; the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the stop/impound (pretext claim) | Stop and impoundment were objectively justified (blocking traffic; owner unreachable) | Officers staged the stop/box-in to manufacture an impound/search pretext | Stop and impoundment would have occurred absent improper motive; stop/impound valid |
| Validity of inventory search doctrine when officers seek evidence | Inventory-search doctrine justifies impoundment search if done under standardized policy | Inventory was a ruse; officers acted to find evidence not to safeguard property | Inventory-search doctrine inapplicable where officers admit seizure was to gather evidence; suppression required |
| Use of officers' subjective intent in administrative-search analysis | Subjective intent usually irrelevant; but Orozco permits probing motive where objective evidence of pretext exists | Officers' subjective motives mattered because record shows admissions and selective seizure | Under Orozco, the court may consider subjective motive when objective indicia suggest pretext; here officers explicitly treated items as evidence, so search invalid |
| Harmless error / effect on conviction | Evidence central to prosecution; government did not argue harmless error | Sought new trial based on newly discovered items and inheritance proof (denied below) | Error not harmless; conviction and sentence vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory searches cannot be a ruse for general rummaging)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is judged objectively; programmatic-purpose inquiry does not probe individual officer mindset)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer’s subjective intent generally irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (seizure of evidence in plain view during a lawful search may be permissible with probable cause)
- United States v. Orozco, 858 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2017) (administrative-search context may permit inquiry into an officer’s subjective purpose when objective evidence suggests pretext)
- United States v. Penn, 233 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing validity of PPB inventory policies when complied with)
- United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1986) (evidence from invalid inventory search requires suppression)