D.Mass.: Fourth Amendment does not require lesser intrusive measures to avoid inventory

The Fourth Amendment does not require lesser intrusive measures to enable a suspect to avoid an inventory of his car by getting somebody to come and get the car rather than seize it. United States v. Mensah, 796 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Mass. 2011):

Defendant’s main contention is that the troopers should have permitted him to call his girlfriend to retrieve the vehicle so that it would not have been “left unattended”, as required in order to tow and inventory pursuant to the MSP policies. That argument fails, however, because although the police may give defendant an opportunity to make alternate arrangements, no such opportunity is required by the Fourth Amendment. See Bertine, 479 U.S. at 373-74 (finding Fourth Amendment allows police to conduct inventory searches without offering defendant an opportunity to make other arrangements, even though such opportunity “would undoubtedly have been possible”). The First Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly affirmed that view:

law enforcement officials are not required to give arrestees the opportunity to make arrangements for their vehicles when deciding whether impoundment is appropriate … Case law supports the view that where a driver is arrested and there is no one immediately on hand to take possession, the officials have a legitimate non-investigatory reason for impounding the car.

United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233, 240 & n.7 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Vega-Encarnacion v. Babilonia, 344 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2003)) (emphasis in original).