State v. Bales, 4147--I
| Decision Date | 19 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 4147--I,4147--I |
| Citation | 552 P.2d 688,15 Wn.App. 834 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Boyd W. BALES, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Christopher T. Bayley, King County Pros. Atty., Daniel D. Woo, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for appellant.
Kempton, Savage & Gossard, Anthony Savage, Seattle, for respondent.
The State of Washington appeals pursuant to CAROA 14(8)(5) from an order suppressing evidence. State v. Campbell, 85 Wash.2d 199, 532 P.2d 618 (1975).
The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in suppressing evidence on the ground that the State failed to establish a reasonable basis for the impoundment of Bales' vehicle prior to an inventory search.
A suppression hearing was held pursuant to CrR 4.5. A Seattle police officer testified that he stopped Bales for speeding within the city. While issuing a citation, the officer learned that a traffic warrant had been issued in Renton, Washington, for Bales' arrest and that it was outstanding. The officer arrested Bales, who asked if a friend could pick up his vehicle. He stated that the friend could arrive within a few minutes. The officer testified that he wrote down the friend's telephone number, but he did not attempt to contact the friend because the police radio was busy. The officer stated he called for an impoundment because the vehicle was illegally parked in a prohibited parking zone. Based upon these facts, the trial court ruled that the State had not sustained its burden of establishing a reasonable cause for the impoundment and accordingly suppressed the evidence discovered during an inventory search of the vehicle.
Police officers may conduct a good faith inventory search following a lawful impoundment without first obtaining a search warrant. State v. Glasper, 84 Wash.2d 17, 523 P.2d 937 (1974); State v. Greenway, 15 Wash.App. 216, 547 P.2d 1231 (1976). See South Dakota v. Opperman, ---U.S. ---, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d ---, 44 U.S.L.W 5294 (1976); Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). A vehicle may lawfully be impounded if authorized by statute or ordinance. 'In the absence of statute or ordinance, there must be reasonable cause for the impoundment.' State v. Singleton, 9 Wash.App. 327, 331, 511 P.2d 1396, 1399 (1973).
Reasonable cause for impoundment may for example, include the necessity for removing (1) an unattended-to car illegally parked or otherwise illegally obstructing traffic; (2) an unattended-to car from the scene of an accident when the driver is physically or mentally incapable of deciding upon steps to be taken to deal with his property, as in the case of the intoxicated, mentally incapacitated or seriously injured driver; (3) a car that has been stolen or used in the commission of a crime when its retention as evidence is necessary; (4) an abandoned car; (5) a car so mechanically defective as to be a manace to others using the public highway; (6) a car impoundable pursuant to ordinance or statute which provides thereof as in the case of forfeiture. therefor as in the case of forfeiture. at 1399--1400. We recently stated in State v. Greenway, supra:
The six grounds referred to in Singleton were not, however, intended to be exclusive, and the ultimate issue is whether under all the facts and circumstances of the particular case there were reasonable grounds for an impoundment. . . . The burden is on the State to present sufficient evidence to show the reasonableness of the impoundment.
(Citations omitted.) 15 Wash.App. at 219, 547 P.2d at 1234.
In State v. Greenway, supra, we held that sufficient facts had been introduced to establish reasonable cause for an impoundment:
Greenway was under arrest for a felony warrant . . . The officer had a reasonable basis to believe that Greenway would not be able to immediately return to his vehicle following his arrest. There was construction in the area and the vehicle was parked in a restricted zone. Although Greenway objected to the impoundment, he did not indicate to the officer that there were reasonable alternatives for the protection of his vehicle and its contents. He did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Houser
...have been driven to a place where it would not impede traffic while defendant was in the custody of the police. See State v. Bales, 15 Wash.App. 834, 552 P.2d 688 (1976). There has been no showing that the vehicle threatened public safety or convenience in any way. 1 Rather, it is obvious t......
-
State v. Callaway
...from the case at bar and our decision in this case is not necessarily inconsistent with them. For example, in State v. Bales, 15 Wash.App. 834, 552 P.2d 688 (1976), the impoundment was found unconstitutional because the defendant indicated that a friend could arrive in a short time to pick ......
-
State v. Villela
...driver has been arrested exists in two circumstances. See State v. Houser, 95 Wash.2d at 153, 622 P.2d 1218 (citing State v. Bales , 15 Wash. App. 834, 552 P.2d 688 (1976) ). First, a vehicle may be impounded on probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime. Id. at 149, 622 P.2d 1218.......
-
People v. Krezen
...unlawful where driver or passenger could have moved vehicle to a lawful parking area and locked it). See also State v. Bales, 15 Wash.App. 834, 552 P.2d 688 (1976); State v. Goodrich, supra; Altman v. State, 335 So.2d 626 (Fla.App, 1976); Gunn v. State, 336 So.2d 687 (Fla.App, 1976); State ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...P.2d 1218, 1224-25 (1980); State v. Simpson, 95 Wash. 2d 170, 189, 622 P.2d 1199, 1211 (1980); State v. Bales, 15 Wash. App. 834, 836-37, 552 P.2d 688, 690 (1976); State v. Singleton, 9 Wash. App. 327, 333, 511 P.2d 1396, 1400 (1973). See also State v. Alexander, 33 Wash. App. 271, 274-75, ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...P.2d 1218, 1224-25 (1980); State v. Simpson, 95 Wash. 2d 170, 189, 622 P.2d 1199, 1211 (1980); State v. Bales, 15 Wash. App. 834, 836-37, 552 P.2d 688, 690 (1976); State v. Singleton, 9 Wash. App. 327, 333, 511 P.2d 1396, 1400 (1973); see also State v. Alexander, 33 Wash. App. 271, 274-75, ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...is improper when the arrestee's release is imminent and the vehicle does not pose a safety hazard. State v. Bales, 15 Wash. App. 834, 836, 552 P.2d 688, 690 (1976). Note also that when police conduct warrantless impoundments and subsequent inventory searches (see 3 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SEARCH A......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...impoundment is improper when the arrestee's release is imminent and the vehicle does not pose a safety hazard. See State v. Bales, 15 Wn. App. 834, 836, 552 P.2d 688, 690 (1976). Also, when police conduct warrantless impoundments and subsequent inventory searches, see 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Sea......