Pineda v. People, Case No. 08SC756 (Colo. 5/10/2010)
| Decision Date | 10 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08SC756. |
| Parties | Jose Pineda, Petitioner, v. The People of the State of Colorado. Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals' denial of defendant Jose Pineda's motion to suppress heroin evidence found in his vehicle when he was arrested. The trial court initially denied Pineda's motion to suppress determining that the evidence was discovered pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. After the court of appeals issued its decision, however, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), which reformulated the application of the search-incident-to-arrest exception involving motor vehicles. The Colorado Supreme Court does not decide whether the search-incident-to-arrest exception continues to apply in this case post-Gant. Instead, the Court affirms on alternate grounds, holding that the heroin evidence was admissible because it was discovered pursuant to a valid inventory search of the vehicle.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals Case No. 06CA157,
Opinion modified, and as modified, Petition for Rehearing DENIED, EN BANC.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender, Nathaniel E. Deakins, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Elizabeth Rohrbough, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Appellate Division, Criminal Justice Section, Denver, Colorado. Attorneys for Respondent.
In this case, we review the court of appeals' affirmance of the trial court's denial of defendant Jose Pineda's motion to suppress evidence of heroin found in his vehicle when he was arrested. People v. Pineda, No. 06CA157 (Colo. App. Aug. 7, 2008). In their respective rulings, the trial court and court of appeals relied on People v. Kirk, 103 P.3d 918 (Colo. 2005), and other Colorado precedent to hold that the search-incident-to-arrest exception is a bright-line rule that allows officers to search the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle whenever one of its recent occupants has been arrested.
After the court of appeals issued its decision, however, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), which reformulated the application of the search-incident-to-arrest exception involving motor vehicles. In Gant, the Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception applies only when the search is necessary to protect officer safety or to prevent the destruction of evidence, or when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. Id. at 1723.
Because Gant altered the search-incident-to-arrest exception, we can no longer rely on the court of appeals' pre-Gant analysis. It is unnecessary, however, for us to decide whether the search-incident-to-arrest exception continues to apply in this case in light of the rationale articulated in Gant. Instead, we rely on the alternate ground that the inventory-search exception justifies the search of Pineda's vehicle.
The inventory-search exception allows officers to conduct an administrative inventory search of a vehicle after it has lawfully been taken into custody, provided the search is conducted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the police department and is not merely a pretext for an investigatory search. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 79-80 (Colo. 1995). The undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that the officers had ample probable cause to stop and arrest Pineda and that they followed departmental policies and procedures in taking the vehicle into custody and inventorying its contents. Therefore, we hold that the officers conducted a valid inventory search of Pineda's vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals on different grounds.
Before trial, Pineda filed a motion to suppress evidence of heroin seized from the car he was driving when arrested. He argued that the police seized the heroin pursuant to a warrantless search, which was unjustified either as a search incident to arrest or as an inventory search. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing that established the facts detailed here.
Several weeks before Pineda's arrest, the Aurora Police Department set up a controlled purchase of heroin using a confidential informant. The informant called a heroin dealer known as "My Boy" and arranged to meet him in a parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. A few minutes after the informant called, a man (later identified as Pineda) arrived in a white Nissan displaying temporary registration plates. Pineda exited the vehicle, sold three balloons filled with heroin to the informant, and drove away. Officer Prince, who witnessed the controlled purchase, followed the vehicle in a marked car and stopped it after noticing that it had a malfunctioning rear brake light. Pineda provided Officer Prince with a Mexican Identification Card that listed what turned out to be a non-existent address. Officer Prince allowed Pineda to leave without issuing him a citation.
The following day, Officer Poppe, who also witnessed the controlled purchase, noticed the same white Nissan displaying different temporary registration plates.
Several weeks later, Officer Poppe saw the white Nissan again, this time displaying a third set of temporary registration plates. Officer Poppe watched the vehicle and saw a man (later identified as Pineda) exit the vehicle and enter a nearby house. Officer Poppe waited until Pineda left the house, returned to his vehicle, and drove away. Pineda was the sole occupant of the vehicle.
Officer Poppe followed the vehicle and called for a marked police car to stop it and identify the driver. Officer Peet responded to this call. As Officer Peet drove to the scene, Officer Poppe observed Pineda make several illegal lane changes. He informed Officer Peet about these infractions. When Officer Peet arrived he pulled his car behind Pineda's vehicle. He noticed that Pineda's temporary registration plates had been visibly altered, listing the expiration month as "DIC" instead of "DEC" for December.
Officer Peet then initiated a traffic stop, and Pineda pulled over into the right-hand lane of Sixth Avenue, a major thoroughfare in Aurora, Colorado. Pineda gave Officer Peet a driver's license that did not match any record at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Officer Peet then arrested Pineda. He testified that he arrested Pineda for "[d]riving without a valid driver's license, and driving a vehicle with altered registration plates."
After being arrested, Pineda was placed in the back seat of a marked police car. Several more officers arrived on the scene. Officer Prince, who witnessed the earlier controlled purchase, identified Pineda as the man who sold heroin to the confidential informant. While this was happening, Sergeant Graham, another officer called to the scene, determined that Pineda's vehicle needed to be taken into custody and towed. Sergeant Graham testified that he made this determination because Pineda had parked his car in a traffic lane on a busy avenue and no one was present to take possession of the vehicle. Sergeant Graham also stated that it is the policy and procedure of the Aurora Police Department to take custody of and tow any vehicle involved in an arrest if there is no one present to take possession of the vehicle. This is the department's policy even when the vehicle is not parked on a busy thoroughfare. Sergeant Graham testified that, "whenever we arrest someone out of a vehicle, we tow the vehicle if they can't provide a driver for the vehicle to release it to." He explained, "[W]e don't want to take responsibility for the vehicle being left somewhere else."
Sergeant Graham further testified that whenever the police take custody of and tow a vehicle, they must perform an inventory search of the vehicle's contents. He stated that an inventory search is "required by directive and policy," and that police perform this search "to make sure that whatever personal property might be in there from the vehicle . . . is noted in the vehicle or on the report that goes with that."
Officer Graham testified that he followed this procedure in the present case. On cross-examination, the defense attorney asked Sergeant Graham if he saw Officer Peet arrest Pineda. Sergeant Graham responded, "Yes." The defense attorney then asked, "And upon that arrest, you recognized that you need[ed] to do an inventory search?" Sergeant Graham answered, "Correct."
While performing the inventory search, Sergeant Graham found a can of deodorant under the front passenger seat. He noticed that the can had a removable bottom and recognized it as a "can safe." He unscrewed the bottom of the can and saw that it was stuffed with paper towels. He then gave the can to Officer Poppe, who had begun to assist in the search. Before Officer Poppe could look inside the can, a K-9 unit arrived on the scene to investigate the car. Officer Poppe put the bottom back on the can and placed it on top of the vehicle. The police dog alerted on the front passenger area of the car, where the can had been found.
After the K-9 unit left, Officer Poppe continued with the inventory search. He opened the can, removed the paper, and found several bags filled with heroin. Once again, Sergeant Graham explained that the Aurora Police Department's policies and procedures require officers to look inside such containers during an inventory search. The prosecution asked Sergeant Graham, "Are you required to search throughout the vehicle and look anywhere where you might find something susceptible to the inventory?" Sergeant Graham...
To continue reading
Request your trial