People v. Johnson, 2003 N.Y. Int. 0160 (Dec. 22, 2003).
CRIMINAL LAW — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — EVIDENCE — SEARCH AND SEIZURE — INVENTORY SEARCH — EXCLUSIONARY RULE
ISSUE & DISPOSITION
Issue(s)
Whether incriminating evidence found in a glove compartment of a car is admissible when officers lawfully stop a citizen for traffic violations and conduct the search as part of an inventory search, but fail to act according to established procedures governing such searches.Disposition
No. An inventory search must follow established departmental policies and satisfy the objectives of preserving the property of the defendant, shielding the police against claims of lost property, and protecting the police and others from any dangerous objects.SUMMARY
Two officers stopped Defendant’s rented automobile after observing him "driving kind of reckless." One of the officers observed Defendant open and then close the glove compartment. After discovering that Defendant’s license was suspended, the officers ordered Defendant out of his vehicle, conducted a pat-down search, and directed Defendant to the rear of the vehicle. The officer then opened the glove compartment and discovered a loaded handgun. The officers did not complete any inventory forms, but they stated in a stop-and-frisk report that they recovered the gun during a search incident to arrest. Defendant was indicted on several counts of criminal possession of a weapon and he subsequently moved to suppress the gun. The trial court granted the motion, finding that People did not offer any evidence regarding the procedures officers must follow during inventory searches. The Appellate Division reversed, reading People v. Robinson, 97 N.Y.2d 341 (2001), to hold that the "officer’s motives for conducting the inventory search d[o] not matter as long as the stop and the arrest were lawful." Finding the Appellate Division’s interpretation of People v. Robinson to be a misreading, the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court noted that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the objectives of an inventory search are generally to preserve the property of the defendant, to shield the police against claims of lost property, and to discover dangerous objects before they damage police personnel or others. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990). "An inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence." Id. To guard against this danger, the Court explained, officers conducting inventory searches should follow established procedure "clearly limiting" their conduct to ensure that searches are conducted "consistently and reasonably." People v. Galak, 80 N.Y.2d 715, 719 (1993). The Court said that, although incriminating evidence may be the result of an inventory search, the discovery of such evidence must not be its purpose. The Court noted that, here, there was no evidence of police department inventory search policy, the officer conducting the search failed to follow any standard procedure, and he failed to complete an inventory list — "the hallmark of an inventory search." In light of these factors, the Court reversed the Appellate Division, granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, and dismissed the indictment.
Prepared by the liibulletin-ny editorial board.