The Casual Cruelty Of Cops: Inventory Search Edition

Legal Issues

from the I-do-because-I-couldn't-care-less dept

This case contains multitudes.

Let me explain. There’s an exception to the Fourth Amendment known as “inevitable discovery.” That theory says the evidence obtained by possibly unlawful means would still have been discovered by lawful means. That means the evidence is still usable.

The most common source of “inevitable discovery” is the “inventory search.” If a stopped vehicle needs to be towed, it will be inventoried. This is a good thing… theoretically. This prevents cops from being accused of stealing stuff from a towed vehicle.

Much like bike-sharing programs and Communism (why not both), it’s a great idea in theory. The reality is cops can come up with nearly any excuse to tow a vehicle they’ve stopped, even if the passenger offers to drive it home or the arrested person assures them someone is on the way to collect the car. Once it’s decided the vehicle must be towed (often for nebulous “public safety” reasons), officers are free to search the car. And since it was previously declared the car must be towed, any criminal evidence is usable in court because it would have been “inevitably discovered” during the course of a “routine” vehicle inventory.

And that’s what drew me to this case served up by FourthAmendment.com. Very rarely do courts call out cops for abusing vehicle inventories and/or the “inevitable discovery” exception to the Fourth Amendment. But it happened here.

That’s the first thing.

The second — and far more striking thing — is how these officers approached this matter. This was captured on their body cameras, indicating cops will still be bullies and thugs even if they’re at least partially aware they’re being recorded.

So, while I was first interested in what may have caused the court to dismiss these normally impenetrable defenses to rights violation accusations, I was soon drawn to the casual conversation of the officers, which showed they’re exactly who we think they are: violent people whose casual cruelty borders on cartoonish. It would be absurd if it wasn’t actually frightening.

But here’s how it all starts: a car parked in a parking lot and a bit of strange activity. From the opening of the Idaho Supreme Court ruling [PDF]:

On October 21, 2019, Brock Katseanes, a deputy sheriff employed by the Bingham County Sheriff’s Office, drove his patrol car into the parking lot of the Tilden Boat Ramp. He then noticed a car parked next to the public restroom. Katseanes later testified that the driver of the car looked as if she was “about to leave, decided not to, [then] backed up into [the parking] spot.” It appears from the body cam footage included in the record on appeal that Katseanes was parked with his windshield facing the front of the car.

As Katseanes observed the scene, “[t]he trunk opened up[,]” and it appeared that someone “was fiddling around with something in the back” of the car, reaching far into the back of the trunk. Katseanes saw the person’s feet under the car and then they “kind of disappear[ed], like they were going up into the trunk.” The feet then reappeared and “went out the backside of the car to the driver’s side, [it] looked like they were crouched down by the tire.”

Thinking that the driver possibly needed help with a flat tire, Katseanes approached the car. The car was unlocked, the trunk was still open, and the two front side windows were rolled down, but no one was there. Katseanes then relayed the car’s license plate number to police dispatch, which informed him the vehicle was registered to April Ramos. Katseanes was acquainted with Ramos and knew that she had an outstanding felony warrant. Katseanes requested back-up, including a canine to track Ramos.

All testimony is self-serving. Testimony given by cops is no less so. Note that Katseanes insisted his first concern was that someone might need some help with a flat tire. Note that his next move was to radio in the license plate number, which would do little to solve the alleged flat tire problem. Note also that he was “acquainted” with Ramos, which means he had probably arrested her in the past. Note also that Katseanes testified to an “outstanding felony warrant” but (as the court notes) never bothered to introduce that into evidence in this case.

While waiting for other officers and the K-9 unit to arrive, Katseanes searched the trunk of the car “several times.” He also opened the back door of the car and searched the back seat. While not performing the warrantless search of the car’s interior, Katseanes periodically called out to Ramos, who he assumed had been driving the vehicle.

The K-9 and other officers arrived. Katseanes opened the front passenger door and discovered an empty Ziploc bag. From this he inferred drug trafficking or possession. He spoke to another officer who helpfully stated the car had a “I got drugs smell.” Detective Dalley, the guy who decided a car had the odor of (unspecified) drugs also remarked to Katseanes that he knew April Ramos as well.

That was followed by this conversation, all duly recorded by Katseanes’ body camera:

Katseanes explained that he had not searched too far into the sagebrush area next to the car for fear he would interfere with [K-9] Duko’s tracking ability. “Don’t wanna [sic] do too much,” Katseanes explained.

I do wanna [sic] see Duko bite her f*cking face off though,” Dalley replied.

Katseanes laughed and gestured to his body-camera, which was recording. Dalley responded, “Oh yeah. Yeah, I realized that after I said that. My bad.” Once again, Katseanes laughed.

Hilarity. Someone suspected of nothing but leaving her trunk open (and the subject of warrants not on the record) was considered only worthy of having “her fucking face” bitten off by the incoming cop dog. Just lovely.

And that’s not even the end of it. More officers arrived and more officers expressed their hopes their K-9 would physically harm someone they could not locate, nor could articulately state (at least not in front of their cameras) they definitely needed to arrest.

As the officers discussed the possible routes Ramos could have taken away from the car, Croxford again asked if they wanted to use a drone. Katseanes explained that he thought the dog could get a scent to track Ramos because the officers had tried not to disturb the sagebrush.

“If he sniffs her, he’s gonna [sic] bite her,” Croxford replied. He grinned and continued: “That last one ended up in surgery, but it is what it is.”

All caught on tape. That was the prevalent attitude during this… well, not even a traffic stop, really. The car was already parked. Katseanes thought he saw someone accessing the trunk of the car but that person was gone by the time he approached the vehicle. The only thing his relay to dispatch confirmed was that the car was registered to Ramos, a criminal convict he had a history with. At no point did any officer really have any proof Ramos had driven the car to where it was parked, much less hidden herself in the surrounding bushes. Nonetheless, multiple officers expressed their hope that the dog they had brought to scene would physically harm Ramos.

The search of the area with the dog turned up nothing. Running out of options, the other officers asked Katseanes what he intended to do. And that’s when Katseanes told them he intended to violate the Constitution:

Miller, Duko, and Katseanes returned to the parking lot. While Miller went to his vehicle to get a “tracking collar” for Duko, Dalley asked Katseanes what he wanted to do with Ramos’s car. Katseanes answered, “Well, I’m gonna [sic] say we’re probably gonna [sic] tow it because I’m sure we’re probably gonna [sic] find narcotics in there. So once we do that, then we’ll tow it.”

Ah. But that’s putting the searched cart ahead of the absconded horse, so to speak. The inventory search is there to establish a factual record about a car’s contents. If those contents include contraband, so be it. What an inventory search isn’t is a permission slip to search a vehicle for contraband and then have it towed because it contains illegal substances.

And that’s as backward as their attitude towards Ramos. A dog can be brought in to search for people or contraband. It may also be deployed to subdue violent subjects. What it’s not there to do is harm someone simply for existing and being the (supposed) subject of an ongoing investigation — one that had yet to turn up any contraband, despite several warrantless searches of the parked car.

And it sure as shit isn’t allowed to perform searches these officers couldn’t perform legally, like multiple intrusions into people’s private property:

As later explained by the district court, “Duko . . . tracked into the dense sage, underbrush, and trees toward and along the Snake River. Duko explored the steps leading down to the river and the private back yards of neighboringproperties before being brought back to the parking area some fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes later.“

If you want to treat a K-9 like an actual cop (and they definitely do when it comes to assaulting an officer charges), then it is subject to the same restraints human cops are subject to. But this dog was being handled by officers who openly expressed their desire that Duko would not only find Ramos, but subject her to intense physical violence (bite her face off, deliver wounds “requiring surgery”).

Having exhausted their options, the officers decided the best course of action might be one last Hail Mary rights violation.

During the sniff search, the other officers gathered next to the car to discuss next steps.
Croxford asked Katseanes what he wanted to do with the car, having been unsuccessful in their search for Ramos.

“Probably tow it,” answered Katseanes. Katseanes then asked Miller if Duko “got a hit on the inside,” to which Miller answered in the negative. “Oh, okay,” Katseanes responded, as he again looked through the open window at the front seats of the car.

“Well, she’s a trickster, she wins this one,” Yancey commented.

“She got lucky,” Katseanes agreed. “Still wanna [sic] know what’s in that glove though.”

One of the officers responded, “I’ll tell you when we do a tow inventory.”

“There you go,” said Katseanes.

During this conversation, Miller continued to have Duko sniff around the car. One of the officers remarked, “She coulda [sic] at least parked away from the bushes a little bit.”

“Yeah, I think it’s in, uh, handicap parking too,” Katseanes responded.

“It is,” the officer agreed. The other officers agreed as well. “Well, we’re obligated now,”
the officer stated.

This convenient declaration of the car being illegally parked was all Katseanes and the officers needed. A tow truck was called. A so-called “inventory search” was performed. During this more invasive search of the car, drugs were discovered.

But all of that was a lie. Testimony from the officer shows he didn’t actually know whether or the not the car was illegally parked.

During cross-examination, Katseanes explained why he believed the car to be in a no-parking zone: The tires on the passenger side of the car were parked outside of the parking spot on yellow, diagonal lines. However, Katseanes did not testify during the motion to suppress hearing whether the parking spot was reserved for accessible parking, nor did the State argue that the car was parked in an accessible parking space.

Ramos testified that she had seen a sign that led her to believe she could park the car there for up to 48 hours. She submitted two photos of the parking area into evidence, which included a sign warning drivers that any car parked for more than 48 hours would be towed.

The trial said both assertions were inconclusive. The judge visited the parking lot in person and determined the space Ramos’s car was indeed an “accessible” parking space and that Ramos possessed no permit allowing her to park in handicapped spots. Despite finding that such a minor infraction would not normally permit a warrantless search of a car, it sided with the officers’ inventory search because cars illegally parked in handicapped spots can be towed.

Not so fast, says this court. If the government wants to abandon its futile claims the vehicle might impede traffic or otherwise cause a public safety issue, it can’t fall back on arguments the state has never raised, much less codified. If the state wants to argue it’s obliged to tow any car that doesn’t currently have a driver behind the wheel just because it wants to prevent theft or vandalism, it’s opening itself up to a whole new level of litigation solely because it wants to preserve its evidence in one case where its inventory search exception argument failed to pay off.

The Idaho Supreme Court isn’t having any of this. This is short-sighted stupidity. The state should just take the loss and try to do better next time.

Allowing officers the discretion to impound a vehicle based on a concern for potential theft and property damage to the vehicle is the first step in creating a duty where one did not previously exist—or, at the very least, it is the first step in opening the floodgates of litigation. Officers who considered but decided against impounding a car could face a lawsuit contending they were negligent. The threat of a lawsuit, even one without merit, would unnecessarily cloud the officer’s judgment as to whether impounding a vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We cannot countenance unnecessarily subjecting officers to that sort of liability, particularly where Opperman does not demand it. Accordingly, an officer’s concern that the car will be subject to theft or property damage if it is not impounded—no matter how well-founded the concern may be—is irrelevant to the analysis as to whether the decision to impound the car is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

This is the court saving the cops from themselves. They’re likely going to lose the evidence discovered during this illegal search of Ramos’ car. But, in doing so, they won’t face a future filled with property claims from aggrieved citizens simply because they refused to tow a car that didn’t seem to need towing.

All of this is insanity. It begins with the stop — a stop predicated on helping someone with a flat tire that somehow ended with officers hoping their dog would seriously injure Ramos while writing themselves a blank check for Fourth Amendment violations by claiming their main concern was either illegal parking (the first argument) or fear for the vehicle’s safety (the argument thoroughly dismissed by this court).

It’s opportunism, bullying, and a perverse inability to recognize the end result of their self-serving flailing all rolled into one. These are not normal people. But we’re expected to treat them as our betters and forced to subject ourselves to their whims when we encounter these aberrations in person. All of it is ugly. But, for now, it’s slightly less ugly, even it’s only because this court won’t allow the government to engage in self-harm simply because it wants to salvage a small-ball drug bust.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, bingham county, bingham county sheriff's office, inevitable discovery, inventory search, search