Inventory search of an impounded car cannot be a ruse for investigation: Court of Appeal orders gun suppressed
An inventory search of an impounded car needs a real community caretaking purpose, not an investigative one. In People v. Thomas, the Second District, Division Eight, reversed the denial of a motion to suppress a gun found in a legally parked car, holding the prosecution never showed a caretaking reason for the impound and did not carry its burden to justify the warrantless search.
What happened in Thomas
Officers saw the defendant speeding and driving over the center line, but they did not ticket him. He parked legally in a marked space in a parking lot and began walking away. The officers drove up, and the first thing one of them said was, “We know why you pulled in here.”
The officers ran the car’s plate. Because of a mistake in entering the plate number, the check returned no information, and the officers said that made them suspect the car might be stolen. They said they would impound it under Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (j), a provision for illegally parked vehicles without plates or registration. The car was legally parked and had plates. After the defendant said he had a warrant, the officers verified a misdemeanor warrant and arrested him. They then searched the car and found a pistol in a backpack.
The defendant moved to suppress the gun, arguing the search was not a valid inventory search. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, Judge Danette J. Gomez, denied the motion. He pleaded guilty to a firearms charge and appealed the suppression ruling.
Who has the burden to justify a warrantless search?
The prosecution. Treating the question as one of federal Fourth Amendment law that it reviews independently, the court began with the rule: “The burden is on the government to justify warrantless searches.” It then walked through the possible exceptions. The search was not a valid search incident to arrest, because the arrest was on a warrant and nothing suggested evidence of that offense would be in the car. It was not a valid automobile search, because there was no probable cause to believe the car held evidence of a crime. That left the inventory exception.
When is an inventory search of an impounded car valid?
An inventory search does not require probable cause, but it depends on a legitimate community caretaking reason for taking the car, such as keeping traffic flowing or enforcing parking ordinances. The court stressed the limit on that rule: “This function cannot be a ruse for criminal investigation.” The question was whether investigation was the officers’ subjective reason for the impound.
Nothing in the record supplied a caretaking reason. The car was legally parked, was not blocking traffic, and the provision the officers cited did not fit a legally parked car with plates. The officers’ own words pointed the other way, and the officer testified that her intent was “to impound the vehicle at that time and conduct further investigation.” The prosecution did not ask her about her motive, and the trial court made no findings on it. The court held that “the prosecution failed to offer evidence of a community caretaking function.”
The People also suggested that the lot belonged to a closed business, so the car could not be parked there. The court rejected that theory because no testimony supported it. As the court put it, “The burden was on the prosecution, and the prosecution did not make its case to justify this warrantless search.”
“The inventory exception does not give police a blank check to investigate their intuitions that a car search might turn up evidence of a crime.”
The court closed the point plainly: “Police must develop probable cause when they suspect someone is a criminal and they think a search will prove it.”
What the court decided
“We reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate its order denying the suppression motion and to issue an order granting the motion.” Acting Presiding Justice Wiley wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Viramontes and Scherb.
The appeal was possible because the defendant challenged the suppression ruling and pleaded guilty while keeping that issue for review. For more on criminal appeals and writs, see our criminal appeals practice.
Key takeaways
- The prosecution bears the burden of justifying a warrantless search.
- An inventory search depends on a legitimate community caretaking reason for the impound, and that function cannot be a ruse for criminal investigation.
- Where the officer testified she meant to impound the car and conduct further investigation, and no one asked about her motive, the prosecution did not carry its burden.
- An appellate theory with no testimonial support in the record, such as the claim that the lot was closed to parking, did not save the search.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to grant the suppression motion.
Why this case shows the value of appellate counsel
For anyone facing a denied suppression motion, Thomas shows how much depends on the record made at the hearing. The court decided the case on what the prosecution did and did not prove: the officer’s testimony about her purpose, the absence of any question about her motive, and the lack of trial court findings. A theory raised later without testimony behind it did not count. Reviewing a suppression ruling means working within the standard of review, identifying who bore the burden on each exception, and showing what the record does not contain. That is the work of appellate counsel.
What this post is not. This post is attorney advertising and general information about a court decision. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts and record, and appellate deadlines are short and often jurisdictional — talk to appellate counsel about your case promptly.
Facing a ruling you may need to appeal or challenge by writ? Yisrael Gelb · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864