State v. KillcreaseState v. Killcrease
Defendant was charged with possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of
Two Louisiana State Police officers stopped defendant‘s pick-up truck as it was heading south on Florida Blvd. near Stevendale Rd. in Baton Rouge. Defendant was the sole occupant of the vehicle. Following a field sobriety test, defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He has since plead guilty to the DWI charge. Pursuant to a standard inventory form, the officers proceeded without a warrant to search defеndant‘s truck at the arrest scene and found a sawed-off shotgun on the floorboard of the truck.
The United States and Louisiana Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.
A valid inventory search is conducted not on probable causе to secure evidence, but merely to inventory the vehicle‘s contents in order to safeguard them, as an incident to the vеhicle‘s necessarily being taken into lawful police custody. The justification for the inventory search of a vehicle is to protect the occupant of the vehicle against loss of his property or the law enforcement agenсy against the occupant‘s claim for the failure to guard against such loss. State v. Jewell, supra; State v. Gaut, 357 So.2d 513 (La.1978).
Some circumstanсes in the instant case do indicate the police conducted the search as an inventory for valuables. An inventory list was filled out, and apparently some discussion as to valuables ensued because the police were aware that defendant had certain valuables in the truck (a tool box in the back and a CB radio). Also, the officers called for a wrecker to pick up the truck. It is not clear, however, whether the call was made before or after the search. Thе officers claim they searched the truck after the call for the wrecker, whereas the defendant testified the officers started the search during the field sobriety test, indicating the search was conducted prior to the call for a wreckеr. The police reports, which give the time of the search and the time of the call for a wrecker, also indicate the search was made prior to the call for a wrecker.
Even if the officers made the search after they cаlled for a wrecker, we believe an illegal inventory search took place. The officers made no attemрt to determine if an inventory search could have been avoided. Admittedly, they never asked the defendant if he consentеd to the search of the truck, or if he would waive his rights of a civil suit against the police department in the case of lost or stolen items, or if he could make other arrangements to have the vehicle picked up. At the motion to suppress, dеfendant testified that the officers refused his request that he be allowed to call his wife, who was three miles down the road, and ask her to come and get the truck. One officer testified that he did not remember the request, but if it was made, it would not have been grаnted.
If the defendant could have easily made arrangements for the vehicle other than having it impounded, or if he had beеn willing to waive his rights against the law enforcement agency for failure to guard against loss of his valuables, a justification for the invеntory search would not have existed. In our opinion, the totality of the facts of the case indicate the search of defendant‘s vehicle was not reasonably restricted in scope so as to constitute a true inventory search. The search without a warrant was unreasonable and in violation of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable seаrches and seizures. The trial judge committed reversible error in denying defendant‘s motion to suppress the shotgun seized in the search.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are reversed and set aside and the case is remanded for a new trial consistent with law and the views herein expressed.
Reversed and Remanded.
WATSON, J., dissents.