AK: Inventory void when conducted as pretext for search incident of driving on suspended DL

On defendant’s arrest for driving on a suspended DL, the officer decided to tow the vehicle and conducted an inventory on the street that started with the area around which he would “lunge, reach, or grasp.” On finding cocaine, the search stopped. Four days later, a search warrant was used to search the car. The state failed to prove a proper inventory. The trial court shifted the burden to defendant to show the search was illegal. Rogers v. State, 2015 Alas. App. LEXIS 128 (July 31, 2015):

Nevertheless, the superior court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Geiger’s search was “purely pretextual,” so the court upheld the search as a valid inventory search. This was the wrong legal test. It was not Rogers’ burden to prove that Geiger’s warrantless search of his vehicle was purely pretextual. Rather, it was the State’s burden to establish that Geiger was not searching for evidence, but was instead conducting an inventory search pursuant to established, regularized procedures. Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling, the State failed to establish that Geiger’s initial search of Rogers’ vehicle met this test.

As the superior court noted, Geiger himself described his actions as a search for “items” of interest. Geiger initially focused on the “lunge, reach, and grasp” area of the car — i.e., places in the vehicle where Rogers might have hidden evidence while maintaining his position behind the wheel. Geiger then turned his attention to the center console because he observed Rogers placing his hands there. These actions, and these justifications, suggest a search for evidence, not a cataloguing of valuables. (Geiger might potentially have been searching for weapons, but in that event his search was illegal – because, at the time of the search, Officer Goetz had already removed Rogers from the vehicle and had placed him in the back seat of his patrol car. More significant, and more telling, is the fact that Geiger did not follow regularized procedures when he conducted this search.