10-1879 U.S. v. Cartwright

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Inevitable discovery

Where an automobile would have been impounded and searched, the inevitable discovery doctrine applies, and evidence obtained during a warrantless search of the car at the scene need not be suppressed, even though the driver was secured.

“Unlike Duguay, where the officers impounded the car despite the presence on the scene of a licensed driver readily able to move it, 93 F.3d at 353, the record in this case shows that the unlicensed Golliday had no means of ensuring the ‘speedy and efficient’ removal of her car from the parking lot. At the evidentiary hearing, Golliday testified that she called ‘someone’ to come and pick up the car, but she never identified that person or stated how long it would have taken him/her to get there. Golliday mentioned that her mother-in-law worked at the grocery store, but she was not working on the night of this encounter. Golliday said that she was ‘vaguely familiar’ with some of the store’s other employees, but the record contains no evidence that any of those acquaintances were present and willing to assume responsibility for the car. Ultimately, Golliday stated that she would have allowed anyone, even a licensed stranger, to move the car. The Fourth Amendment does not require that the police offer these sorts of alternatives to impoundment. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 373-74 (1987) (holding that the police need not give a motorist ‘an opportunity to make alternative arrangements’ that avoid impoundment and inventory); United States v. Clinton, 591 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.) (‘That Clinton’s girlfriend, the owner of the car, could have been called to take possession of the car, is irrelevant.’), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 246 (2010); Cherry, 436 F.3d at 775 (stating that officers need not invite or accept input from the motorist as to the appropriate disposition of his vehicle; ‘nor does the Fourth Amendment demand that police offer a motorist an alternative means of removing his vehicle that will avoid the need to tow it and conduct an inventory search’); United States v. Privett, 68 F.3d 101, 104 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding a search within the inventory exception, even though the vehicle could have been towed to the motorist’s home rather than an impound lot); United States v. Skillern, 947 F.2d 1268, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that the police were not required to offer a motorist an alternative to impoundment).”

Affirmed.

10-1879 U.S. v. Cartwright

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Lawrence, J., Adelman, J.

Full Text