STATE OF MARYLAND v. DANIEL A. PAYNTER
Court of Special Appeals, Moylan, Sept. 28, 2017,
Inventory Searches- Failure to list all items during an inventory search does not invalidate the search
Commentary on the changed “zeitgeist” of criticism toward inventory searches
Facts From the Case
Laurel police stopped Paynter for driving 50 mph in a 30-mph zone. A check via KGA revealed that Paynter’s license was suspended.
Before the officer towed the car, he performed an “inventory search.” The officer noted during his inventory search “a blue iPhone in the center console” and “seven Mac computers in the trunk of the car.” In the course of making the inventory, the police also discovered and seized 51 grams of marijuana.
At trial, the officer presented the agency’s inventory policy and testified that the “purpose of an inventory search is to document all items in the vehicle, high value, anything you deem might be in the vehicle that needs to be inventoried.”
However, the officer then testified that “We don’t take anything for safekeeping. We will usually just leave that valuable in the vehicle. Hum, and it will stay in the vehicle while it’s impounded.”
The officer’s body camera video showed that the vehicle also contained: three pairs of tennis shoes, a spare tire, a jack, and jumper cables that were not listed as part of the inventory. The defendant argued that the inventory was flawed because it failed to include all items found in the car.
The trial judge agreed, stating:
“What the video makes clear is that what the police conducted is not an inventory, because an inventory lists everything that is and is not based on a subjective criteria as to what is quote valuable, unquote. The motion to suppress is granted as to the contents of the trunk.”
The State then appealed, arguing that the trial judge improperly applied the law about inventory searches.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the State. An officer conducting an inventory search is not required to list every single item in the vehicle.
Community Caretaking- A “community caretaking” search is one done by the police for a purpose unrelated to crime-fighting.
Inventory Search- Community Caretaking- An inventory search is a “community caretaking” search because it is not done to look for evidence; “inventory procedures serve to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police; to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property; and to guard the police from danger.”
Note: Other “community caretaking” searches include “emergency aid” (someone is in need of immediate attention) and “public servant” (clearing hazards; checking well-being).
Inventory Search- An inventory search may only be performed if:
1) the vehicle is lawfully in police custody AND
2) the inventory search is done “pursuant to standard police procedure.”
Inventory Search – The Supreme Court has held that as long as the procedure is “standardized,” it does not matter that “less intrusive” methods could have been used to secure the belongings.
Towing Vehicles- Officers are not required by the Fourth Amendment to explore alternatives prior to towing a vehicle.
Towing Vehicles – An officer can be given discretion regarding whether or not to tow a vehicle as long as the decision is guided by standardized criteria and not done in an effort to look for evidence.
Inventory Search- Because courts are concerned that police will use inventory searches as an excuse to look for evidence, they require that all inventory searches are performed according to standard procedure.
Inventory Search- Evidence of a standard (departmental) policy regarding inventory searches must be introduced at trial if evidence was recovered.
Inventory Search – A departmental policy must specifically address opening closed containers before officers are allowed to do so.
Inventory search- The fact that an officer hopes or expects to find evidence does not invalidate an inventory search as long as the inventory was performed according to standard procedure