U.S. v. Bridges, 02-CR-238.
| Decision Date | 21 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-CR-238.,02-CR-238. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jimmie Allen BRIDGES, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
B. John Burns, III, Iowa Fed. Public Defender, Des Moines, IA, for Jimmie Allen Bridges, Jr.
John S. Courter, U.S. Atty., Des Moines, IA, for U.S.
RULING
Defendant's Motion to Suppress came on for hearing on February 14, 2003. Defendant was present with his counsel, B. John Burns. The government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney John Courter. The motion is now fully submitted to the Court for review.
On October 12, 2002, at approximately 4:00 a.m., Jimmie Allen Bridges ("Defendant") was driving his vehicle in Altoona, Iowa, accompanied by a passenger in the car, Clint Bodkins ("Bodkins"). Defendant was stopped in the parking lot of an Amoco gas station and store by Altoona police for an improper rear lamp and failure of the front seat occupants to wear seatbelts. Defendant was asked to produce his driver's license, and he produced a Kentucky driver's license. A subsequent check of the Kentucky license revealed that Defendant's driving privileges were suspended and he did not possess an Iowa driver's license. The check by police also revealed that Defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant from Dubuque County, Iowa, for driving under suspension; however, the government indicates that Altoona was outside of the pickup area for the Dubuque County arrest warrant, and, therefore, Defendant was not arrested by the Altoona officers pursuant to that warrant. Defendant was ultimately given a citation for not having a valid driver's license. He was not placed under arrest. A check on Bodkins' driving status showed that his driving privileges were suspended.
The police officer testified that within minutes of informing Defendant he would be given a citation, the officer made the decision to impound Defendant's vehicle, due to the fact that neither Defendant nor Bodkins had valid operating privileges. Police subsequently conducted an inventory search of the vehicle pursuant to Altoona Police Department guidelines pertaining to impoundment. During the inventory search, officers discovered approximately 62 grams of a substance that was determined to be methamphetamine. Based on this evidence, Defendant was charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
Defendant alleges that the impoundment of his vehicle was not authorized by Altoona Police Department guidelines; and, therefore, the search of his vehicle was not justified as a proper inventory search. Defendant requests that all evidence seized during the inventory of his vehicle and all fruits of that inventory be suppressed.
The Altoona Police Department does have a written procedure for impoundment of vehicles and subsequent inventory. The circumstances of this case, however, are not covered by the written procedure. The car was parked off the roadway in a commercial parking area with no licensed driver readily available to move the vehicle1. Sgt. Ronald Griggs of the Altoona Police Department testified that the impoundment was discretionary under the circumstances. Sgt. Griggs described this impoundment as standard procedure for the department under such circumstances, but he could provide no written support for such a procedure or such an exercise of discretion. He testified the impoundment was necessary to protect the vehicle and to protect police from any later claim that the vehicle or its contents had been disturbed.
As a point of departure, an inventory of a lawfully impounded automobile, where standard police procedures are followed, is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 376, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). In Opperman the court found that three state interests supported an inventory search: "the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger." Id. at 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092 (citations omitted); see also United States v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir.2001). "The central inquiry in determining whether such an inventory search is reasonable is a consideration of the totality of the circumstances." Hartje, 251 F.3d at 775.
In Colorado v. Bertine, the defendant was arrested and his van was inventoried and impounded by police. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 368, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). The van was inventoried pursuant to standardized police procedures, which required a detailed inspection and inventory of impounded vehicles. Id. at 369, 107 S.Ct. 738. In rejecting that defendant's argument that the inventory search of his vehicle was unconstitutional because departmental regulations gave police officers discretion to choose between impounding his van or parking and locking it in a public parking place, the court said "[n]othing in Opperman or Lafayette prohibits the exercise of police discretion so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity". Id. at 375, 96 S.Ct. 3092.
An inventory must be conducted according to standardized criteria. Bertine, 479 U.S. at 374 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 738. The Altoona Police Department has standardized criteria that governs the inventory of all impounded vehicles.2 Altoona also has standardized, written procedures pertaining to when a vehicle may be impounded.
The basis of Defendant's Motion to Suppress is that the impoundment was not conducted pursuant to the Altoona Police Department Vehicle Impoundment and Inventory Policy, and, therefore, the impoundment was not lawful. Defendant argues that the policy does not provide for the impoundment of a vehicle under the circumstances of the present case.
The government maintains that in reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the police conduct was reasonable. The government asserts that since no licensed driver was available, the police officer followed Altoona's policy and lawfully impounded the vehicle and then further followed policy by performing an inventory search of the vehicle.
The Vehicle Impoundment and Inventory Policy states, in relevant part, as follows:
Procedure: Vehicles may be towed and impounded, or otherwise taken into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rowland
...move the vehicle off the Interstate, and because it was winter in Iowa, justified impounding the vehicle. Cf. United States v. Bridges, 245 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1037 (S.D.Iowa 2003) (finding an impoundment and the resulting inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment because police department......
-
Commonwealth v. Hocutt, Record No. 0104-15-2
...the store's lot while attempting to resolve the insurance issue or arranging to have the vehicle towed. See United States v. Bridges, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1037 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (recognizing that the defendant, whose vehicle was parked in a marked space at a convenience store, was not in cu......
-
United States v. Betterton, No. CR03-3014-MWB (N.D. Iowa 1/20/2004), CR03-3014-MWB.
...in the report and recommendation where Judge Zoss distinguished the facts of this case from those found in United States v. Bridges, 245 F. Supp.2d 1034 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (finding an impoundment and the resulting inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment because police department impoun......
-
Rohde v. City of Blaine
...the vehicle and its contents . . . and to eventually make arrangements" for her vehicle to be removed. United States v. Bridges, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1037 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (finding no impoundment of defendant's vehicle did not serve an identifiable community caretaking or public safety fun......