Bratton v. State

• Decision Date: 17 April 2002
• Docket Number: No. CA CR 01-765.,CA CR 01-765.
• Citation: 77 Ark. App. 174,72 S.W.3d 522
• Parties: Nedra G. BRATTON v. STATE of Arkansas.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

72 S.W.3d 522

77 Ark. App. 174

Nedra G. BRATTON v. STATE of Arkansas.

No. CA CR 01-765.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III.

April 17, 2002.

Hurst Law Office, by: Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., Hot Springs, for appellant.

Mark Pryor, Att'y Gen., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

JOHN E. JENNINGS, Judge.

Nedra Bratton entered a conditional plea of guilty to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for which she was sentenced to a term of two years in prison. Bratton reserved her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress as permitted under Ark. R.Crim. P. 24.3(b). The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of contraband seized from her vehicle. Because the trial court's finding that the contraband was discovered in the course of a valid inventory is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

State Trooper Jeff Crow was dispatched to investigate a one-car accident on Highway 7 south of Arkadelphia. A Clark County Deputy, Raymond Funderburk, was at the scene when Crow arrived. Appellant, the driver of the vehicle, had already been taken to the hospital by ambulance. There were no other occupants of the vehicle. Trooper Crow saw that the vehicle had left the roadway and had overturned, and he called a wrecker service to have the vehicle towed. When the wrecker arrived, the vehicle was righted and moved a short distance down the highway onto a county road. There, Crow conducted what he said was an inventory of the vehicle with the assistance of Officer Funderburk. Marijuana was found in a day-planner that was inside a backpack. A cosmetic case contained .267 grams of methamphetamine.

Trooper Crow testified that it was the policy of the state police to impound a vehicle involved in an accident and left unattended on the roadway. He said that the purpose of the inventory was to protect the owner's property found inside the vehicle and to protect officers from allegations of theft and the mishandling of the vehicle's contents. A copy of the written policy was introduced into evidence.

Deputy Funderburk testified that the sheriff's department also had a policy to inventory impounded vehicles and that the policy required all containers to be opened. A copy of the Clark County Sheriff's Department policy was also introduced into evidence.

Based on the evidence, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that it was not unreasonable for the officers, coming upon this type of accident, to remove the vehicle to a safe location to conduct the inventory and that the inventory was accomplished in accordance with the written procedures.

On appeal, appellant contends that the inventory was invalid because the officers were searching the vehicle for the purpose of investigating the accident. Appellant bases this argument on a statement contained in Trooper Crow's accident report in which he said that he "conducted an inventory of the contents of the vehicle and attempted to locate documents needed to complete the accident report." On this subject, Trooper Crow testified that it was not uncommon, in the course of conducting an inventory following an accident, for the driver's license, insurance papers, and other documents of ownership to be recovered as needed to complete an accident report. Appellant contends that the evidence reveals an investigatory motive for the search.

We begin with the basic premise that all warrantless searches are unreasonable unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a valid warrant. See Hoey v. State, 73 Ark.App. 118, 42 S.W.3d 564 (2001). The so-called "inventory search" of an automobile is recognized as such an exception. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Izell v. State, 75 Ark.App. 377, 58 S.W.3d 400 (2001). Pursuant to this exception, police officers may conduct a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle that is being impounded in order 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. Benson v. State, 342 Ark. 684, 30 S.W.3d 731 (2000). An inventory search, however, may not be used as a guise for "general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence." Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). Hence, the police may impound a vehicle and inventory its contents only if the actions are taken in good faith and in accordance with standard police procedures or policies. Thompson v. State, 333 Ark. 92, 966 S.W.2d 901 (1998) (citing Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987)). Finally, Rule 12.6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

A vehicle impounded in consequence of an arrest, or retained in official custody for other good cause, may be searched at such times and to such extent as is reasonably necessary for safekeeping of the vehicle and its contents.

In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Hadl v. State, 74 Ark.App. 113, 47 S.W.3d 897 (2001). We defer to the superior position of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses. See Shaver v. State, 332 Ark. 13, 963 S.W.2d 598 (1998).

In Kirk v. State, 38 Ark.App. 159, 832 S.W.2d 271 (1992), an officer discovered contraband in a black box located in a wrecked vehicle while looking for registration papers. The State conceded that the officer's actions amounted to a search, and we said that we knew of no exception to the warrant requirement permitting a general search of a disabled vehicle for evidence of ownership, at least when the identity of the driver is known. We rejected the State's argument that the search could be justified under the inventory exception because there was no evidence in the record of any standard policy regulating the opening of closed containers. Without evidence of any standardized criteria, we reversed the trial...