Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress the evidence of the handgun seized because it was the fruit of an illegal search; Searches & seizures; Legality of the inventory search; Right to privacy in a backpack located in the car of another; Distinguishing People v Mead

The court affirmed “because the evidence was discovered during an inventory search that was consistent with the police department’s standard policy and there was no evidence that other options provided by the policy were practically available. Further, there was no evidence that the search was actually an attempt to obtain evidence of criminal activity rather than a standard inventory search.” Thus, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed. He was convicted of CCW, FIP, and felony-firearm, second offense. He claimed that counsel was “ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence of the handgun seized because it was the fruit of an illegal search.” The court determined that the “officers’ decision to impound the vehicle was made in accordance with the department’s policy and their decision not to leave the vehicle on the side of Ford Road or suggest to the driver that he contact someone to pick up the vehicle did not render the subsequent inventory search unconstitutional.” Defendant also argued that the inventory search was pretext for a criminal investigation. However, the record did “not support a conclusion that the officers intended to use the inventory search as cover for an illegal search. The encounter started as an investigation of the vehicle’s driver for suspected OWI. The driver was confirmed to be operating while intoxicated and arrested.” The court held that “consistent with the department’s policy, the constitutionality of which is not challenged, the police had authority at that point to impound the vehicle and conduct an inventory search. There is no suggestion in the record of any ulterior motive for the search.” Defendant also argued that he had a right to privacy in his backpack located in the car of another under Mead. However, his reliance on Mead was misplaced because it did not pertain to the substantive question of whether the police conducted a proper inventory search. Defendant failed “to establish that his trial counsel’s performance fell below objective standards of reasonableness by failing to move to exclude the handgun found in” his backpack.