delivered the opinion of the Court.
*398 This case involves the warrantless search of an automobile. The People contend that the search was valid sincе it was conducted by police for inventory purposes. The district court granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain incriminating evidence found in the car during the search. The district аttorney instituted this interlocutory appeal to contest thаt ruling. We affirm.
The defendant was arrested in Vail, Colorado, and charged with felony theft, section 18-4-401, C.R.S. 1973. He had allegedly stolen over $200 from the cash register of a gasoline service station in Vail Village. After defendant’s arrest and incarceration, the arresting officer drove the defendant’s car to the Vail Police Department’s impound lot. Once there, and without obtaining а search warrant, two officers conducted what they styled to be an “inventory search” of the automobile. Inside the zippered cover of the automobile’s front seat armrest, thе police officers discovered fourteen twenty-dollar bills.
The ruling of the court was as follows:
“The Court grants the motion to suppress ... on the grounds that the cаr was impounded by the policemen and held by them and under their complete control for a period of four hours on a Monday at a time when a warrant could have been obtained. There were no exigent circumstances requiring or pеrmitting a search without obtaining a warrant.”
The People’s only сontention is that because the search was conducted pursuant to the police department’s standard policy concerning inventory search, the warrantless search was valid. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree. Despite the fact that the type of search coincided with an official department regulation, the searсh here was tantamount to a general rummaging. Its focus was accusatory, being an exploration seeking to discover incriminating evidence against the defendant.
Cross-examination оf one of the officers brought out the following:
“Q: While you were mаking the inventory search, you were looking for the money, werеn’t you?
“A: Yes, sir.
“Q: And you were hoping you’d find it; weren’t you?
“A: Yes, sir.
* * * *
“Q: Then, when you and [the other officer] were discussing the search, either before you made it or while you were making it, did eithеr of you remark about how you hoped you would find the money?
* * * *
“A: Just thаt it could really make my case stronger if the money would turn up inside the vehicle while we’re making a search.”
A warrantless inventory is proper if conducted within reasonable limits for legitimate purposes. These limits and purposes were set forth by this court in
People
v. Counterman,
In this case, the search was not сonducted with a view toward any of these purposes, but rathеr with the calculated intention of securing incriminating evidence against the defendant. Since the seizure here did not come within the recognized exceptions to warrant requirements, it was illegal.
Ruling affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON does not participate.