CA8: Lack of inventory record not error where criminal seizure occurred as a result

Defendant’s motorcycle was towed when he was stopped for fumbling as a novice rider without insurance or a motorcycle endorsement. He declined consent to search compartments on the bike, but the officer elected the tow under SOP of the Springfield MO PD. The inventory complied with the procedure despite the lack of an inventory record because what was found led to seizure of money and then a search warrant for his motel room producing drugs. All along, he was a suspect in a drug conspiracy, which the officer knew, but he didn’t have probable cause for that until the seizure and application for the warrant. United States v. Nevatt, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17187 (8th Cir. June 1, 2020):

We have recognized that “inventory searches need not be conducted in a totally mechanical, all or nothing fashion.” Smith, 715 F.3d at 1117 (internal quotation omitted). As a result, “[e]ven if police fail to adhere to standardized procedures, the search is nevertheless reasonable provided it is not a pretext for an investigatory search.” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 465. “There must be something else; something to suggest the police raised the inventory-search banner in an after-the-fact attempt to justify a simple investigatory search for incriminating evidence.” Smith, 715 F.3d at 1117–18 (internal quotations omitted). In other words, “[s]omething else must be present to suggest that the police were engaging in their criminal investigatory function, not their caretaking function, in searching the defendant’s vehicle.” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 465 (internal quotation omitted).

. . .

“Even if [Officer Cooney] fail[ed] to adhere to standardized procedures, the search is nevertheless reasonable provided it is not a pretext for an investigatory search.” Taylor, 636 F.3d at 465. Nevatt argues that the following facts show pretext: the motorcycle was lawfully parked alongside the road, the vehicle was not a hazard to other drivers, the vehicle was not at risk of being stolen or vandalized, he was released at the scene, he was not under the influence, he was not cited for the lack of proper licensing or insurance, and he was not found to have any drugs in his possession. But the district court credited Officer Cooney’s version of events. Detective Copley requested that Officer Cooney conduct the traffic stop based on a belief that Nevatt was impaired. Although Nevatt was not impaired, a records check revealed that Nevatt lacked the proper endorsement and had no insurance. Officer Cooney decided to tow the motorcycle because it was in the street and was a safety hazard. Because Nevatt lacked insurance, he could not lawfully drive the motorcycle. Officer Cooney did write Nevatt a citation for operating the motorcycle without the proper license endorsement. Officer Cooney did not consult with the detectives before deciding to have Nevatt’s vehicle towed and searched. With these facts, the district court concluded that the inventory search was not a pretext for an investigatory search. We affirm this conclusion.