Search & seizure; U.S. Const. amend. IV: Vehicle inventory search: Colorado v. Bertine; Whren v. United States; United States v. Jackson; Whether the inventory search was a pretext for an investigatory search; United States v. Kimes; United States v. Lumpkin; United States v. Alexander; United States v. Hockenberry; Florida v. Wells; United States v. Vite-Espinoza; South Dakota v. Opperman

The court held that the district court did not err by finding that the inventory search of defendant-Snoddy’s vehicle was not a pretext for an investigatory search, and affirmed its denial of his motion to suppress. He was stopped for speeding, and arrested on outstanding warrants. Under a Tennessee Department of Safety policy, the officer was required to conduct an inventory search of the vehicle before having it towed. The search revealed drugs and a firearm. Snoddy argued that the seized evidence should be suppressed because the officer’s “decision to impound the car was unreasonable” and that the officer’s “decision to inventory the car was a pretext” for a warrantless investigative search. A valid inventory search “may not be undertaken ‘for purposes of investigation,’ and it must be conducted ‘according to standard police procedures.’” It will be held to be unconstitutional if “the ‘police acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation . . . .’” The court noted that under the Tennessee policy, once an officer decides to impound a vehicle, “the officer must conduct an inventory before towing.” Regardless of the officer’s beliefs and motivations, he “was going to have the car towed no matter what.” Snoddy was the car’s only occupant, and the officer could not leave the vehicle parked on the side of the road in the middle of the night. The officer’s subjective intent was irrelevant where the decision to tow the car could be seen as “objectively justifiable.” The court acknowledged that even though “‘some of the evidence calls into question whether the inventory search was pretextual,’” the district court could have reasonably concluded that the search was not a pretext to investigate.