E.D.Cal.: Inventory procedures not followed, and testimony suggested investigative motive, so suppressed

The inventory did not comply with CHP procedures, and it appears from the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing that it really had an investigatory purpose. United States v. Verduzo-Verduzco, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144696 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018):

At bottom, it is the government’s burden to “establish[ ] that a vehicle’s impoundment and [inventory] search are justified under an exception to the warrant requirement.” United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Cervantes, 703 F.3d at 1141 (“Because warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, the government bears the burden of showing that a warrantless search or seizure falls within an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.”). The court finds that this burden has not been met in this case. Officer Butler’s CHP 180 form did not document “all property” contained in the vehicle as required by HPM 81.2, was admittedly not completed in accordance with standard practice and procedure, and was completed in an untimely manner and without sufficient detail to satisfy the CHP policy’s objectives to “protect an owner’s property and the Department against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property.” (Ex. 2.) The court therefore finds that Officer Butler’s warrantless search of defendant Verduzco-Verduzco’s vehicle was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Caseres, 533 F.3d at 1074-75; Wanless, 882 F.2d at 1463-64.

The evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful inventory search included Officer Butler’s observation of five cellular phones in the vehicle, as well as “tooling marks.” (Doc. No. 20 at 8.) This evidence must be suppressed.