CA10: Impoundment of car was pretext for inventory search

Tulsa police’s impoundment of defendant’s car was a pretext for an inventory search. The inventory policy didn’t even mention impoundment. United States v. Woodard, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22443 (10th Cir. July 27, 2021):

An impoundment is pretextual when the police are seeking evidence of a criminal violation rather than acting to safeguard the car or its contents to promote public safety or convenience. See United States v. Sanders, 796 F.3d 1241, 1251 (10th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104, 1108 (10th Cir. 2010) (stating that officers must not impound a car “in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have identified five factors bearing on the possibility of pretext:

1. Whether the car is on private or public property

2. Whether the property owner has been consulted

3. Whether an alternative to impoundment exists (especially the availability of someone else to drive the car)

4. Whether the car is implicated in a crime

5. Whether the driver or owner has consented to the impoundment

Sanders, 796 F.3d at 1250.

In reviewing these factors de novo, we conclude that every factor points to pretext.

This entry was posted in Inventory, Pretext. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.