IL: Inventory failed because adherence to standardized policy was not followed

Inventory search was not shown to be conducted according to standardized policy, even where the policy was not in writing. It was the state’s burden, and it failed. People v. Clark, 914 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. App. 2009):

Our review shows that defendant’s vehicle was curbed by Officer Mocarski and his partners on a residential city street. There was no evidence, however, of its exact location, or that it was illegally parked, impeding traffic, or threatening public-safety or convenience. Ursini, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 483, 486; People v. Brown, 100 Ill. App. 3d 57, 63-64, 426 N.E.2d 575, 55 Ill. Dec. 429 (1981). In addition, Officer Mocarski did not testify that he towed the vehicle to protect it against damage or theft. People v. Schultz, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 1076, 418 N.E.2d 6, 49 Ill. Dec. 362 (1981). The record, therefore, does not support the bases proffered by the State to establish the validity of the impoundment. Ursini, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 487.

The record also does not support the State’s further contention that Officer Mocarski lawfully impounded the vehicle pursuant to a standardized police procedure. Ursini, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 483. Although Officer Mocarski testified to standard police procedure requiring him to take defendant into custody for verification of his identity and to conduct an inventory search incident to towing, he failed to testify to such a procedure requiring him to tow the vehicle. People v. Lear, 217 Ill. App. 3d 712, 714, 577 N.E.2d 826, 160 Ill. Dec. 501 (1991). Rather, Officer Mocarski testified to his belief that he could not leave the car on the street.

Although there is no requirement that the State present written procedures in such a case, Officer Mocarski’s testimony here was insufficient to show that he was acting in accordance with a standardized police procedure regarding the decision to tow. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d at 306, 309; Lear, 217 Ill. App. 3d at 714. That omission, and the lack of evidence regarding the location of the car, leads us to conclude that no cognizable reason for the impoundment was shown to justify the subsequent search conducted pursuant to it. Schultz, 93 Ill. App. 3d at 1077.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.