City of Danville v. Dawson
Decision Date | 09 May 1975 |
Citation | 528 S.W.2d 687 |
Parties | Commonwealth of Kentucky, CITY OF DANVILLE, Appellant, v. Minnie Graham DAWSON, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Kenneth A. Howe, Jr., Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., Frankfort, J. Thomas Hensley, Hensley & Smith, Danville, William W. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
James F. Clay, Jr., Clay & Clay, Danville, for appellee.
J. Vincent Aprile, II, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, for amicus curiae.
Shortly after 1:00 A.M. on February 6, 1974, police officers of the City of Danville observed an automobile being operated in an erratic manner and arrested its driver, Minnie Dawson, for the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages, committed in their presence. KRS 189.520. While she was sitting in the police cruiser under arrest the officers called for a wrecker to remove her automobile to a place of storage and, in accordance with a standard policy of the Danville Police Department, proceeded to inventory its contents. In the process they opened the trunk of Mrs. Dawson's car and discovered two cases of beer and a large quantity of whiskey in half-pint bottles. This led to an additional charge against her for illegally transporting alcoholic beverages for purpose of sale in a dry territory. KRS 242.230. Eventually she was convicted on the drunk-driving charge, but the trial court directed a verdict of acquittal on the transporting charge after excluding evidence of the liquor and beer upon the ground that it had been obtained by an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Commonwealth appeals, seeking a certification of the law.
The Commonwealth's contention is that the evidence was admissible under 'the rule that evidence of crime found in plain view by law enforcement officers who enter an impounded vehicle without a search warrant for the purpose of inventory and storage of effects is admissible over Fourth Amendment objections,' citing Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), and Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).
In Harris, the automobile in which the incriminating evidence was found had been lawfully impounded as evidence following the arrest of its owner on a robbery charge. A regulation of the police department required officers to search an impounded vehicle, remove all valuables from it, and leave a property tag listing appropriate information. In the course of executing this procedure at a storage lot to which the automobile had been towed, the arresting officer rolled up the car windows and locked the doors. When he opened the door on the passenger side he discovered an automobile registration card, issued to the victim of the robbery, lying face up on the metal stripping over which the door opened and closed. The decision of the Supreme Court with respect to the admissibility of this evidence was as follows (emphasis added):
In Dombrowski, the automobile in question had been wrecked on the highway and had to be removed at the instance of police officers investigating the accident. The driver was taken to a hospital in a drunken condition. He was an off-duty Chicago policeman, and the local officers believed that he was required to carry his service revolver at all times. In an effort to find such a weapon, in order that it might not fall into unauthorized hands, they searched the automobile at the storage lot to which it had been removed. During the course of the search they discovered incriminating evidence of a homicide committed by the driver. The Supreme Court held this evidence admissible upon the ground that under the circumstances of the particular case the search was not unreasonable:
'Where, as here, the trunk of an automobile, which the officer reasonably believed to contain a gun, was vulnerable to intrusion by vandals, we hold that the search was not 'unreasonable' within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.' 413 U.S. at p. 448, 93 S.Ct. at p. 2531.
Thus far the Supreme Court has not decided whether or under exactly what circumstances an inventory procedure, either ad hoc or conducted pursuant to regulation or custom, is a search. Other courts have deployed to all points of the compass. See annotation at 10 A.L.R.3d (1974 Supp.), p. 8. An objective and well-reasoned analysis is presented in United States v. Lawson, 487 F.2d 468 (8th Cir., 1973), in which, as in this case, there was 'no assertion that the search . . . (could) . . . be justified upon any ground other than as an inventory search.' 487 F.2d at p. 469.
Lawson...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Slockbower
...v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.S.Ct.1977); State v. McCranie, 137 Ga.App. 369, 223 S.E.2d 765 (Ct.App.1976); City of Danville v. Dawson, 528 S.W.2d 687 (Ky.Ct.App.1975); Duncan v. State, 281 Md. 247, 378 A.2d 1108, 1116 (Ct.App.1977); Dixon v. State, 23 Md.App. 19, 327 A.2d 516 (Ct.Sp.Ap......
-
State v. Goff
...Ga.App. 321, 226 S.E.2d 133 (1976); People v. Von Hatten, 52 Ill.App.3d 338, 10 Ill.Dec. 168, 367 N.E.2d 556 (1977); City of Danville v. Dawson, 528 S.W.2d 687 (Ky.1975); State v. Slockbower, 79 N.J. 1, 397 A.2d 1050 (1979); State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.1977); State v. Singleton,......
-
Duncan v. State
...the search of the trunk was unreasonable in any event. But see United States v. Lawson, 487 F.2d 468 (8th Cir. 1973); City of Danville v. Dawson, 528 S.W.2d 687 (Ky.1975). Compare Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 7 As to the doctrine of abandonment generally, ......
-
People v. Clark, Docket No. 22126
...satchel found in truck of car); State v. Opperman, supra (cannot open closed, but unlocked, glove compartment); City of Danville v. Dawson, 528 S.W.2d 687 (Ky.App.1975) (cannot open or pry into compartments or Other courts allow police to inventory all items found within closed containers. ......