United States v. Jesus Cervantes
703 F.3d 1135
9th Cir.
2012
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 America, UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, CERVANTES,

Jesus Antonio Ramos

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50521. Appeals,

United States Court of

Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 2010. May

Filed 2012.

Amended Nov.

Hankel observed an unidentified male ar- at, enter, rive suspected stash later, house. A few minutes the unidenti- *3 fied male suspected left the stash house with a large white placed box and the box inside his truck. Tanaka, Michael Deputy Federal Public Defender, CA, Angeles, Los for Defen- Detective Hankel learned from police his dant-Appellant. radio that the unidentified male drove to a nearby pulled street and over to the curb.

Kevin Rosenberg, S. Assistant United Hankel heard over the police radio that Attorney, CA, Los Angeles, for got unidentified male out of his truck Plaintiff-Appellee. box,

with the white walked over to a white Envoy, GMC and handed the white box to a second unknown male who was later identified as Cervantes.

Twenty later, minutes Hankel heard PREGERSON, Before: HARRY over his radio that Cervantes drove his NELSON, DOROTHY W. and SANDRA Envoy GMC to a nearby liquor store. IKUTA, S. Judges. Circuit Hankel observed exiting Cervantes the li- quor store purchase, with a getting inside Order; Opinion by Judge his Envoy, GMC and driving away. PREGERSON; by Judge Dissent IKUTA. Shortly thereafter, Hankel heard over ORDER his radio that Cervantes drove on Inter- state 5 and exited at San Fernando Mis- majority opinion and dissent in this sion point, Road. At this Hankel observed case have been and filed. The amended Cervantes drive through a residential majority has voted to entertain future neighborhood. petitions It for was Hankel’s belief rehearing. No future peti- tions for Cervantes rehearing entertained, will did not a direct be take route to and his the mandate shall issue forthwith. location. Hankel concluded that this was a driving technique “counter-surveillance”

IT IS SO ORDERED. that indicated Cervantes was engaging in narcotics point, OPINION At this trafficking. ac- Hankel, cording to cause “probable existed PREGERSON, Judge: Circuit to believe that Cervantes was engaging in Antonio Jesus Ramos appeals Cervantes drug trafficking large and had a quantity the district court’s denial of his motion to Hankel, narcotics in his possession.” suppress evidence in his found vehicle. however, did not attempt to stop Cer- jurisdiction We pursuant have to 28 U.S.C. vantes. and we reverse. P.M., At 2:00 approximately Hankel BACKGROUND police heard over his radio that Cervantes drove to a residence on Polk Street. On March Detective Todd Hankel drove the residence and saw Angeles Hankel the Los Depart- Police Envoy ment Cervantes’s and his team of GMC on narcotics detectives and Hankel conducting officers were street. over his radio surveillance heard of a suspected stash house in Cervantes narcotics remained inside the GMC En- Pacoima, P.M., California. minutes, Around 1:20 voy for got five approximately out cocaine, the discovery of After the caine. an un- handed, went inside and

empty unlawfully for arrested Cervantes known residence. Once Cervantes narcotics. transporting P.M., heard over Hankel At 5:30 station, transported an un- that Cervantes police radio identified, booked, Depart- positively Polk on left the residence known male confirmed records Motor Vehicles ment of minutes Forty-five BMW. in white Street did, fact, driver’s have valid he later, heard that Cervantes Hankel license. white in the male returned the unknown Street. on Polk the residence BMW to the co- suppress moved to Cervantes hour, returned about one

After *4 claiming Envoy, his GMC caine found in to the rear Envoy and went to his GMC in viola- his vehicle officers searched that A few minutes the vehicle. hatch of area The dis- Amendment. of the Fourth tion left the later, that Cervantes heard Hankel motion to court denied Cervantes’s trict Envoy. in the GMC residence Polk Street had law- that the officers finding suppress, po- marked a Hankel asked point, At this pursu- vehicle fully impounded Cervantes’s to reason develop lawful lice unit 12500(a), §§ Code ant to Vehicle California stop. a traffic conduct 22651(h)(1), 14602.6(a)(1), poli- LAPD request, Officer to Hankel’s response and search cy, and that the Colley stopped Cer- Officer Sanchez and community care- under the justified were the vehicle Envoy after vantes’s GMC Amend- exception to Fourth taking complete stop behind to a failed to come In the alter- requirement. ment’s warrant Cer- at an intersection. the limit line that native, court found district and, ac- the intersection vantes cleared Cer- cause to search probable had Colley, pulled to the cording to Officer and, held consequently, vantes’s vehicle when the officers appropriately curb the auto- was valid the search under that stop, San- During the traffic stopped him. Amend- to the Fourth exception mobile for Colley asked Cervantes chez and requirement. ment’s warrant insur- license, proof of registration, around, but was looked ance. Cervantes OF REVIEW STANDARD the documents. any of unable to locate court’s deni review the district We step out of the Colley asked Cervantes de evidence suppress down search for al of motion pat performed car and 418 F.3d Dorsey, Sanchez v. told Officer weapons. Cervantes novo. United previously (9th Cir.2005), for 1038, 1042 arrested overruled on oth that he had been influence, Gant, his license had 556 U.S. driving under by Arizona grounds er currently away, 1710, and he been taken 332, 343-44, 173 L.Ed.2d 129 S.Ct. finding no record After attending classes. (2009). issues are Underlying factual 485 the name Cer- license under of a driver’s States v. clear error. United reviewed for concluded the officers provided, vantes Cir.2001). 683, Summers, 686 F.3d 268 a li- driving without that Cervantes cense, impound and search decided DISCUSSION his vehicle. Exception A. The Automobile vehi- inventory search of the During the by law en searches Warrantless white card- cle, located the Colley Officer unreason per “are forcement officers se seat. A passenger in the rear board box Amendment —sub the Fourth able under con- it the box revealed search of established specifically few only to ject of co- kilograms two approximately tained

1139 exceptions.” and well-delineated Katz v. sought warrant or upon a motion to States, 347, 357, United U.S. suppress evidence obtained without a war (1967). 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 rant, Under the mere conclusions will suffice.” exception automobile to the Fourth Lafave, Wayne Search and Seizure: A warrant requirement, Amendment’s “[t]he Treatise on the Fourth Amendment police may search an automobile and the 3.5(e), 2004). See, at 297 e.g., ed. containers within it they prob where have Gates, at U.S. 103 S.Ct. 2317 able cause to contraband or evi believe (noting “wholly conclusory” state dence is contained.” v. Aceve California ments of officers are insufficient to estab do, 565, 580, 500 U.S. 111 S.Ct. probable cause); lish United States v. Ven (1991). L.Ed.2d 619 An officer will have ca, 102, 108-09, tres probable cause to search if “there is a fair (1965) 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (noting “purely probability that contraband or evidence of conclusory” officers, statements of without a crime particular will be found in a place, detailing any of the underlying circum ‘based on the totality circumstances.’” stances, will be insufficient to establish Seattle, City Dawson v. cause); Nathanson v. United *5 (9th Cir.2006) 1062 (quoting Illinois v. States, 41, 47, 290 U.S. 78 Gates, 213, 238, 103 76 (1933) L.Ed. (noting that an officer’s (1983)). L.Ed.2d “mere suspicion affirmance of or belief Here, government contends that the without disclosure of supporting facts or probable officers had cause to search Cer- circumstances” is insufficient to establish (1) vantes’s vehicle based on Hankel’s cause). probable conclusory statement that the box in Cer- Thomas, In United we noted possession vantes’s “suspect- came from a that a conclusory allegation by law-en- (2) house,” ed narcotics stash and Hank- forcement that a particular house was a el’s observation that Cervantes “did not suspected house, narcotics stash was enti- take a direct route his to location.” As (if tled any) weight to little determining in below, explained assertions fail to these whether officers had satisfied the lower probable establish cause. suspicion reasonable required standard stop a leaving vehicle the house. 211 F.3d Suspected 1. The Narcotics Stash Cir.2000). 1189-90 We ex- House plained conclusory allegation, The government asks to place heavy us facts, any without foundational was akin to reliance on Hankel’s conclusory statement and, anonymous an tip consequently, was that, based on training expe- Hankel’s and entitled to little weight. Id. at 1190. rience, the white in pos- box Cervantes’s session came from a “suspected narcotics Here, Thomas, as in Hankel’s stash house.” But any in absence of nothing statements amount to more than underlying facts as why Hankel suspect- conclusory assertions. Hankel failed house,” ed the house was a “stash this any he, provide underlying why facts as to little, statement is entitled to if any, weight officers, any or other suspected the house probable analysis. cause was a “narcotics stash location.” While training Hankel’s experience are fac

“One of the which through themes runs considered, tors to be “it decisions on the Fourth is incumbent Amendment probable upon arresting cause or requirement searching is that when officer to ultimate explain cause determination the nature of expertise expe made, whether magistrate a when a rience and how it upon bears the facts counter-surveil- observed none of the to arrest or cers

which the officer prompted Vizo, and in Del Lafave, techniques present lance Search and Sei- Wayne search.” which the dis- upon Hankel’s the Fourth Amend- A Treatise on zure: declaration — 2004) (internal no further indi- provides trict court 3.2(c), at 45 ed. ment relies— omitted). driving be- why as to Cervantes’s Conclusory cation marks quotation suspicious. havior should be considered general exper- a claim of statements Id; Thomas, 211 F.3d tise will not suffice. activity by Hank- Much of the described at 1189-92. perfectly with innocent be- el is consistent notes in his example, havior. For Hankel Take a Di- Failure to Cervantes’s po- heard over [his] declaration “[he] rect Route to His Location nearby drove to lice radio Cervantes us to urges also in front. saw liquor [He] store and Hankel’s observation that Cer rely on liquor out of the store come Cervantes a direct route to his vantes “did not take GMC, purchase, get with a inside unremarkable driv location.” Cervantes’s in- seemingly again.” start While however, any fall short of ing practices, may carry a mes- nocent conduct different activity. of criminal indicia officer, Vizo, Del sage to trained what imagine it F.2d at is difficult Vizo, v. Del we found In United States officer could draw from inference a trained probable cause to arrest that officers had than that activity, other trafficking narcotics after Del Vizo for and exited with liquor entered store anonymous tip and ob- they received purchase. Del and his associates over the served Vizo *6 (9th 821, 822 days. course of five 918 F.2d sum, regarding In Hankel’s observations Cir.1990). days During their five of sur- tactics, travel when benign Cervantes’s veillance, Del Vizo and officers observed conclusory with Hankel’s state- coupled trips to vari- multiple his associates make posses- in ment about the box Cervantes’s Offices, engage in ous Western Union sion, probable are insufficient to establish driving techniques counter-surveillance Thomas, at 1192. See 211 F.3d cause. (which area, U-turns, circling the included only request reinforced Hankel’s This is the curb to speeding, pulling and over to Colley develop and Sanchez that Officers their go by), frequently let traffic check Had stop lawful reason to Cervantes. mirrors, payphones, and rear view use Cervantes, stop probable cause existed to 822-23, in Id. at 826. In drive tandem. develop no need to there would have been facts, we reviewing the aforementioned independent pull reason to Cervantes question probable that the cause noted Thus, the court erred when over. district one,” a “close but nevertheless found was was valid under the it held that the search cause to arrest that officers had the Fourth exception automobile at Del Vizo. Id. requirement. Amendment’s warrant myriad driving In contrast Community Caretaking Excep- B. The Vizo, travel tactics cited in Del the obser- tion in vations of officers this case were exceed- impound- next consider whether the Specifically, suspi- Hankel’s We ingly limited. inventory search of subsequent ment and large part in on the cions were based justified by the vehicle were “did not take Cervantes’s observation Cervantes community caretaking exception to the route to his location” because Cer- direct require- warrant freeway and drove Fourth Amendment’s vantes exited the govern- ment. contends the Offi- through neighborhood. a residential words, ment failed to meet its burden establish- other In “a valid caretaking pur- ing impoundment of his vehicle pose” required. Id. justified under this exception. We Following both Opperman and our deci- agree. Miranda, in sion we have held that inventory [Warrantless searches of ve-

Because warrantless searches hicles are only lawful if conducted pur- unreasonable, per seizures are se suant police to standard procedures that government bears the burden of showing are aimed at protecting the owner’s that a warrantless search or seizure falls property and at protecting the police exception within an to the Fourth Amend from the owner charging them with hav- warrant requirement. ment’s United stolen, lost, ing damaged Hawkins, (9th proper- 867, 249 F.3d ty. Additionally, a Cir.2001). vehicle can be im- the community Under caretak- pounded under [California Vehicle ing Code] exception, “police may im 22651(h)(1) only if pound jeopardize vehicles that public safe serves some “community caretaking ty the efficient movement of vehicular function.” Cornelius, traffic.” Miranda v. City of (9th Cir.2005) (internal 429 F.3d Caseres, United States v. 533 F.3d omitted). quotation marks Once a Cir.2008) (internal vehicle 1074 citation omit- has been legally impounded, ted). Caseres, we found the inventory may search, conduct an inventory long as search to be unconstitutional —even though as it conforms to the procedures standard the driver suspended on a of the local police department. South Da license—because present- Opperman, 364, 375-76, kota v. ed no evidence that the impoundment (1976); 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 see any served caretaking function. Id. at Wanless, also States v. United Caseres, 1075. As we if stated “the Cir.1989). However, “an government fail[s] establish communi- inventory search must not be a ruse for a ty caretaking impound- function for the general rummaging in order to discover ment” then it “fail[s] establish the con- *7 Wells, incriminating evidence.” Florida v. stitutional reasonableness of the seizure 1, 4, 110 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d subsequent inventory and search.” Id. (1990). Neither nor Colley pro Sanchez Cornelius, City Miranda v. we any testimony vided that Cervantes’s vehi of considered “whether cause to be- cle was illegally, posed a safety lieve that the driver committed a traffic hazard, or was vulnerable to vandalism or violation justification is sufficient by itself theft. To the contrary, Officer Colley tes to make the impoundment of the vehicle tified that appropriately pulled reasonable under the Fourth Amend- over to the curb he stopped when was ain ment.” 429 F.3d at Quoting the neighborhood. residential itWhile is true Supreme Court’s in Opperman, decision that Cervantes’s vehicle was in not close we answered in the negative, concluding proximity to his at home the time it was the reasonableness of impound- the impounded, Caseres, 533 F.3d at 1075 cf. depended ment on the impound- “whether (noting that defendant’s vehicle was two ment fits within ‘authority the of police home), away houses from govern the seize and remove from the streets vehicles presented ment no evidence that the vehi impeding traffic threatening or public safe- cle would be vulnerable to vandalism or ty and convenience....’” (quoting Op- Id. theft if it were left in its residential loca 3092). perman, tion, U.S. at 96 S.Ct. posed hazard, or that it a safety and vehicle, the the of to show that must consider location to meet its burden thus failed actually was and whether the vehicle ap exception community caretaking the threatening public traffic or ‘impeding Id; City Garden Hallstrom v. plied. of streets, the safety and convenience’ on F.2d 1477 n. 4 Cir. City, 991 impoundment was warranted.” such that 1993) a car from a towing the (upholding 428 U.S. at (quoting Oppennan, Id. at 865 street, lot, not a residential parking public 3092). showing No such was caretaking except community the under made here. ion).1 Moreover, it is clear that Officers not justify government Nor can the with Colley complied and Sanchez even the citing to sec simply impoundment they Vehicle when im- California Code Code and of the California Vehicle tions According vehicle. pounded Cervantes’s and policy impoundments on the LAPD’s 22651(h)(1), § Vehicle to California Code im- that an inventory searches. The fact impound remove a may an vehi- officer statute or complies with a state poundment a person an officer arrests cle “[w]hen by itself, insufficient to policy, is a vehicle for an driving or control of the commu under justify is, by offense the officer this alleged Miranda, caretaking nity exception. See law, required permitted or other code (“We begin prem at with the 429 F.3d take, take, into person and does custo- ise, by the De recognized not apparently (em- 22651(h)(1) § Vehicle dy.” Cal. Code fendants, pur impound that the decision to added). Pursuant to California Ve- phases city a ordinance authority suant to the 14602.6(a)(1), hicle a “[w]henever Code itself, not, in and of state statute does person peace officer determines that was of the sei determine reasonableness her driving a vehicle while his or Amendment....”). under the Fourth or revoked ... privilege suspended zure a vehicle after impound peace may immediately decision officer either “[T]he person the removal regulation has a vehicle arrest that and cause the driver violated government any argument support argument that the has waived 1. To dissent’s burden, heavy government has met photograph its that the this demonstrates depicts photograph to a dissent refers legally impounded have Cervantes's ve could nothing more than wide street in residen- safety hazard. United hicle as sign neighborhood illegible on the and an tial Vizcarra-Martinez, photo- of this side of the street. The focus 1995). argument Even were the Cir. stopped graph not where waived, single enough photograph is not Cervantes, Colley which testified Officer heavy government’s burden to meet *8 Rather, is top of the focus [the] "at the hill." that the of Cervantes's vehi establish seizure Canyon Boulevard the Polk on Street/Laurel Hawkins, States v. cle was warranted. United fact, photograph In does not intersection. the 867, Cir.2001) (9th (holding 872 249 F.3d top where the the hill is. Based even show of per is the the "burden on Government photograph, the solely this on inconclusive die district court that a seizure comes suade car in this infers that abandoned ”[a]n dissent specifically a under one of few established to other would have been a hazard location (in requirement” exceptions to the warrant drivers, damage, van- as well as vulnerable to omitted)); quotation citation ternal marks and dalism, gov- and theft.” at 1145. The Dissent 552, Howard, v. 828 F.2d 555 United States however, to, cite, ernment, failed to refer has (9th 1987) (describing "heavy” Cir. this as any mention the exhibit in of or even attached and one can not be "satisfied burden which fact, In concedes its briefs. the by speculation”). engi our role to "It is not developed is as to wheth- that "the record meet path for neer the Government actually impeding er defendant's vehicle was burden____” Rodgers, United States 656 posing safety hazard when officers traffic or ” Thus, 1023, (9th Cir.2011). 1028 stop.... their the F.3d n. 5 conducted traffic or, and seizure if that vehicle the left vehicle unattended because the driver has of collision, is involved in a traffic cause the placed been under arrest. No complex removal and seizure of the vehicle without legal analysis required. is The police necessity arresting person....” the of the merely have to determine whether it’s nec 14602.6(a)(1) § Cal. Vehicle Code (emphas- essary to remove the vehicle from a public added). es purported While the for reason location in order “prevent it from [1] the impoundment of Cervantes’s car was creating a hazard to other drivers or [2] alleged license, his driving without a in being a target for vandalism or theft.” violation of California Vehicle Code Cornelius, Miranda v. City 429 F.3d of 12500(a), officers, according to both Cer- Cir.2005); see also United vantes was arrested and taken into custo- Jensen, States v. dy only impounded the vehicle was after Cir.2005) (holding that once an arrest is and the already search had inventory re- made, community caretaking doctrine in discovery sulted of narcotics. law “allow[s] enforcement officers to seize sum, record, on this any and remove vehicle may impede which of justified Cervantes’s vehicle was not by traffic, public safety, threaten or be sub community caretaking exception to the vandalism”). ject to If the officers deter Fourth require- Amendment’s warrant mine either prong simple this test ment. The district court’s contrary hold- met, they may impound the vehicle in ing was error. furtherance of their community caretaking Miranda, function. See 429 F.3d at 863-

CONCLUSION 65S. Evidence seized violation of the today, But the majority muddies this Amendment, Fourth including any “fruit of simple The rule. facts of this case meet tree,” poisonous may not be in a used community caretaking perfectly, test criminal proceeding against the victim of yet majority holds that the doc- the illegal search and seizure. Wong Sun trine applicable. is not the ma- Because States, 471, 487, v. United 371 U.S. jority cannot articulate distinguishes what (1963); 9 L.Ed.2d 441 Mapp v. case, it appears that the majority’s Ohio, 643, 656, today decision is a mere fact-bound foot- (1961). L.Ed.2d 1081 Accordingly, RE we long note to our line precedents estab- VERSE the district court’s denial of Cer lishing community caretaking doctrine. vantes’s suppress motion to RE MAND for proceedings further consistent Let’s start with the of this facts case. opinion. with this court district that the po- determined

MANDATE TO ISSUE FORTHWITH. lice made a lawful properly traffic stop arrested the defendant for without IKUTA, Judge, Circuit dissenting: a valid driver’s license.1 The district court given police We’ve found that simple, many common- Cervantes’s car was miles sense rule to with deal vehicles that are from home and there no licensed *9 majority database, 1. The dispute po- does not that license him the for in their Cervantes lice officers had cause to Cer- arrest told the officers that he had arrested for been influence, driving vantes for driving without a valid license the under that his license they impound when to away, taking decided his vehicle. had taken been and that he was circumstances, produce copy Cervantes could any not of his classes. In these reason- upon request, license and when the able officers officer would have arrested Cervantes to they told him prevent could not find a valid illegally. driver’s him from off 1144 community caretaking the car to his doesn’t meet our to drive back

passenger two clearly majority gives are not erro standard. The reasons findings home. These Feldman, conclusion, and of States v. 788 for neither reaching neous. See United (“We Cir.1986) First, 544, uphold scrutiny. the ma- F.2d 550 them withstands sup of at a findings jority fact the fact the district court’s relies on they clearly unless are pression hearing testify that the expressly officers not did denied, 1067, erroneous.”), cert. illegally, posed a safe- “parked vehicle was (1987). L.Ed.2d 1003 hazard, to ty vulnerable vandalism or was concluded, Therefore, the district court as theft.” at 1141. But we have Maj. op. or the to im it reasonable for officers testimony lack of on never held that the it pound protect car to from vandalism flaw; rather, the points these is a fatal we or theft. a vehicle left unat- have concluded that exposed public tended in an or location affirm. compels

Our us to precedent custody when the into driver is taken City For in Ramirez v. Buena example, of or necessarily vulnerable vandalism Park, impounded man’s vehicle an officer Ramirez, 1025; F.3d theft. at See arresting for him on sus- safekeeping after Hallstrom, Here, 4. F.2d at 1477 n. the driving. 560 F.3d picion of drunk clearly arresting record the shows Cir.2009). The legal- car was 1016-19 impound good reason to Cer- had ly parked drugstore parking in a lot a little suppression hearing, vantes’s the car. At over from the man’s Id. at a mile home. the a photograph introduced impoundment 1019. We held that (attached here) showing the exact location justified community caretaking doc- (1) over. pulled where Cervantes was One of trine there was in the “nothing because officers testified that he arresting when re- indicating record Ramirez could car,” “just turn at of drugstore pulled top to the retrieve Cervantes over (2) Ramirez’s in the “[ljeaving photograph,” car the hill see in the you drugstore lot would have made it parking left after had turned from Polk easy target for vandalism or theft.” Id. Street side of Laurel onto the southbound appli- at 1025. The exact same factors are Canyon pho- in Pacoima. The Boulevard id.; cable in this case. See see also Hallst- danger of tograph reveals the the situa- City, rom City Garden tion: Cervantes’s car would have been (9th Cir.1993) (holding n. 4 that offi- at a four-lane the curb of boulevard cers’ of an car arrestee’s parking where no lane apparent there was from lot private parking protect “to shoulder, posted speed or and where car or theft” from vandalism was reason- only limit was hour. per 40 miles Not community able caretaking under doc- would an car this location abandoned trine).2 damage, have been vulnerable to vandal- ism, found, theft, all or as the district court

Because this case is on fours with our it have been a precedent, surprising that the ma- but also would hazard it’s other jority explain why is unable to this case drivers.3 majority attempts distinguish majority attempts 3. The to distract attention Hallst- ground impound- photographic rom that it from evidence that Cer- on the involved lot, parking maj. op. pulled major on a a vehicle from a vantes’s car was over thor- ment of explanation oughfare provides by arguing photograph at no that the itself but as to target why prove is an easier for vandal- does not that Cervantes’s car would a vehicle safety Maj. private parking impede pose a ism theft in a lot than it traffic or hazard. herring, op. at a red would on the street. 1142 n.l. This is be *10 Second, majority the argues driving the that cause to arrest Cervantes for with- out a valid license. The therefore court impound officers were entitled to Cer- reasonably impound- concluded that they vantes’s car state law because under contemporaneous ment with and was inci- impounding after arrested Cervantes arrest, dent to the decision to accor- too, vehicle, This, of before. is instead both dance with the California Vehicle incorrect. California Vehicle Code Under Angeles Department Code and Los Police 22651(h)(1) 14602.6(a)(1), §§ the im- policy. arrest, poundment be incident to an must short, majority’s neither of the rea- specifies ar- but neither section whether reversing the sons for district court’s well- happen rest or should first.4 supported conclusion water. holds Be- The found that district court contrary decision cause this both case impound and Cer- officers did not search sense, respectfully law and common I dis- they until vantes’s vehicle had sent. course, government person driving obli- because has no officer arrests or in control gation safety prove a car would be a alleged of a for an vehicle offense and the requirements hazard in to meet the order is, law, required officer this code or other Rather, caretaking community doctrine. take, take, permitted per- or and does only to show a car needs custody”); son Vehicle into Cal. Code easy target” would be "an for vandalism or 14602.6(a)(1) ("Whenever peace § officer may theft —which be the case even if it's person driving determines that a vehi- Ramirez, parking in a lot. F.3d at privilege cle while his or her government easily carried revoked, suspended peace ... officer burden, majority’s and the asser- strenuous may immediately person ... arrest contrary by any unsupported tions to the are removal and of that cause the seizure vehi- case law. .”). cle... (the 22651(h)(1)

4. See Cal. Vehicle Code police may impound a vehicle ”[w]hen

Read the detailed case summary