FL2: Automobile exception still applied even though vehicle first spent the night in police impound

Defendant’s car was suspected of being involved in an assault where a gun was fired. When he was arrested with the car, a dog sniffed his car and alerted. The car was impounded in the police lot, and it was searched the next day, and that was still valid under the automobile exception. It was not valid as an inventory because policies were not followed, and the dog sniff was invalid under state law. State v. Gardner, 72 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011):

The trial court mistakenly believed that even when probable cause exists, exigent circumstances are required before police can search a vehicle. The trial court held that when the vehicle was impounded, “all exigency disappeared as the only people with access to the vehicle was law enforcement.” In Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261, 102 S. Ct. 3079, 73 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1982), the Supreme Court noted that ”when police officers have probable cause to believe there is contraband inside an automobile that has been stopped on the road, the officers may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, even after it has been impounded and is in police custody.”

In State v. Green, 943 So. 2d 1004, 1006 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), this court noted that exigent circumstances are no longer “required in order to apply the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” Therefore, the issue is whether police had probable cause to search Gardner’s car, irrespective of the fact that the search was conducted at the police station.