United States v. Angell
| Decision Date | 11 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cr-168-PB,Opinion 2022 DNH 081 |
| Parties | United States of America v. Ronald Angell |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Ronald Angell was arrested in a McDonald's parking lot for driving while intoxicated after police officers responding to a 911 call found him slumped over the steering wheel of his car. The officers decided to tow Angell's car, which had a missing rear window, to a third-party garage. They began an inventory search of the vehicle before the tow truck arrived but they stopped the search and obtained a search warrant after one of the officers found a bag filled with a white powdery substance in the well between the front seats.
Angell has moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that the search and seizure of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. The government's main argument in response is that the vehicle was lawfully searched and seized under the community caretaking exception to the search warrant requirement. For the following reasons, I find both that the police were justified in conducting an inventory search and that they did not exceed the lawful scope of that search.
In the afternoon of July 8, 2021, a McDonald's employee called 911 to report that a man was slumped over the wheel of a car in the restaurant's parking lot in Lee, New Hampshire. Lee Police Department Officer Evan Carey responded to the call, along with firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs). As he approached the car, Officer Carey observed the rear window on the driver's side of the car was missing and the rear end of the vehicle was damaged. The engine was running, the brake lights were illuminated, and the radio was playing. The sole occupant of the car was a man in the driver's seat who was slumped over the steering wheel and appeared to be unconscious or asleep. The man was later identified as Angell.
Firefighters knocked on the car window and roused Angell. After he exited the car, Angell explained that he had fallen asleep because he had not slept for a couple of days but that he was feeling “OK.” Officer Carey observed that Angell's eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his pupils appeared restricted,[2]and he had blue paint on his hands. Angell refused to give his name when Officer Carey asked him to identify himself.
While a firefighter attempted to assess Angell's condition, the Lee Fire Chief signaled for Officer Carey to come over to the passenger side window. Through the window, Officer Carey observed a needle in the center console underneath the radio, as well as a glass smoking pipe and a hand-held torch on the floorboard of the driver's seat.
Meanwhile, Angell asked the firefighter who was attempting to evaluate him if they could go somewhere else. When the firefighter offered the back of the ambulance, Angell got into the ambulance, where the EMTs evaluated him for about ten minutes before medically clearing him. During that time, Officer Carey ran the vehicle registration, learned Angell's identity and that he was on probation, and spoke with his probation officer. Officer Carey informed the probation officer that he would likely arrest Angell for driving while intoxicated (DWI).
As Angell exited the ambulance, Officer Carey and Officer Vanessa Simms, who had arrived while Angell was being evaluated, approached him. After Angell again declined to identify himself and refused to take sobriety tests, the officers arrested him.
Following the arrest, Officer Carey decided to tow Angell's car to Alan's Garage and instructed Officer Simms to conduct an inventory search. A few minutes into the search, Officer Simms exited the vehicle and beckoned Officer Casey to show him a clear bag filled with a white powdery substance on the driver's seat. When he asked her where she had found it, Officer Simms explained that it was in the well between the front seats. At that point, Officer Carey decided to stop the search and apply for a search warrant. The drugs, later found to be fentanyl, methamphetamine, and buprenorphine, were seized as evidence.
The Lee Police Department has two written policies that the parties argue are relevant in this case. The “Community Caretaking Inventory” policy (“Inventory Policy”) sets out the procedures for when officers are carrying out “non-investigatory community caretaking responsibilities.” Gov't Ex. 2 at 1. The procedures are different for “impounded vehicles” and “towed non-impounded vehicles.” Id. at 1-2. Officer Carey testified that an “impounded vehicle” is taken into police custody to execute a search warrant, but a “towed non-impounded vehicle” is hauled to a third-party garage for safekeeping until the owner can reclaim it. The Inventory Policy instructs officers to inventory “towed non-impounded vehicles” before towing and to “remove and safeguard any valuables or personal property found in plain view.” Id. at 2. The purpose of such inventory search “is to provide for safekeeping the public's property.” Id.
Officer Carey was unaware at the time that the department also had a separate “Impaired Drivers” policy (“DWI Policy”) that contained guidelines for handling suspected DWI offenders. See Gov't Ex. 3. Section III(B) of that policy, titled “Towing Vehicle,” provides that Id. at 3. Angell was not asked if he wished for someone to retrieve his car instead of having it towed.
Angell was indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. He moved to suppress the drug evidence, challenging all aspects of his encounter with Officers Carey and Simms. Specifically, he argued that his initial seizure was an unlawful Terry stop, that he was arrested without probable cause, and that his vehicle was illegally searched and seized. After holding a hearing on Angell's motion, I ruled from the bench that the initial seizure was justified as an exercise of the police officers' community caretaking responsibilities because it was a reasonable and limited investigation of Angell's health status. I also found that the officers had developed probable cause during their encounter with Angell to believe that he had committed both the offense of DWI, see N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 265-A:2,[3] and the offense of failing to give his name when the officers asked him to identify himself at a time when he was in control of a vehicle, see id. § 265:4.[4] I took under advisement Angell's arguments that the police unlawfully searched and seized his vehicle. The parties submitted additional briefing on those issues after the hearing, which I have carefully considered.
A defendant who moves to suppress evidence bears a threshold burden of showing that a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. United States v. Young, 835 F.3d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 2016). This includes the burden of showing that he was subjected to a warrantless search or seizure. United States v. Fields, 823 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2016). Once the defendant establishes that a warrantless search or seizure occurred, the burden shifts to the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the search or seizure was lawful. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 178 n.14 (1974); United States v. Manubolu, 13 F.4th 57, 69 (1st Cir. 2021).
Angell argues that the warrantless search and seizure of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment for two independent reasons. He first claims that the officers' decision to tow his vehicle was unlawful because, contrary to a procedure outlined in the DWI Policy, he was not given an opportunity to arrange for someone to retrieve his car. Angell also contends that the scope of the inventory search was constitutionally invalid because, contrary to the Inventory Policy, it was not limited to items in plain view and was conducted for an investigatory purpose. The government responds that the decision to tow the car was a reasonable exercise of the officers' community caretaking function and that the attendant inventory search complied with the Inventory Policy and served a legitimate, non-investigatory aim.[5] A. Decision to tow and inventory the vehicle
The community caretaking function is a well-recognized exception to the general rule that a search or seizure be authorized by warrant. United States v. Rivera, 988 F.3d 579, 581 (1st Cir. 2021); United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir. 2006). The exception is grounded in the recognition that police officers often perform non-investigatory tasks when acting as community caretakers, such as removing vehicles that pose a public safety threat or would be at risk for theft or vandalism if left unattended. See Boudreau v. Lussier, 901 F.3d 65, 71-72 (1st Cir. 2018); Coccia, 446 F.3d at 238; United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780, 785 (1st Cir. 1991). An officer's decision to tow a vehicle in the exercise of the community caretaking function must be “reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Sylvester, 993 F.3d 16, 23 (1st Cir. 2021). Although the community caretaking function cannot serve as a pretext for investigation, the existence of both investigatory and community caretaking motives does not invalidate an otherwise reasonable decision to remove a vehicle. Id. at 23-24.
Officer Carey's decision to tow Angell's car after they arrested him was a reasonable exercise of his community caretaking responsibilities. Although the car did not present an imminent traffic hazard...
To continue reading
Request your trial