Tenth Circuit Says Pretextual Inventory Searches Need To Be A Whole Lot Less Pretextual

from the mic-is-hot,-boys dept

One of the great warrant exceptions is the "inventory search." Stop a car in a high-traffic or "high crime" area, and officers will feel compelled to tow it away. But before it's towed, they'll make a list of everything in the car to ensure the vehicle's owner gets all of their possessions back when they retrieve it from the impound lot. If there happens to be contraband in the car, it's a win for the cops. The "discovery" (even if derived from a mostly-pretextual search) will be called "inevitable" and can be used against the person to deprive them of their freedom along with their car.

This one simple trick usually works out for law enforcement. But every so often it doesn't. And when it doesn't work, it's usually because officers were in such a hurry to carry out the warrantless search that they completely forgot about the pretext.

That's the case here in the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court's handling of a motion to suppress. The lower court denied the suppression motion, but the Appeals Court reverses [PDF] that decision, finding that the officers created an excuse to search the car, making their discoveries less than inevitable.

It all started with a call to the Tulsa (OK) Police Department about Evan Woodard. The caller said Woodward was in the middle of a drug case, may have smoked PCP, had three previous gun charges, and had violated a protective order. Tulsa PD officers headed out to find Woodard and serve him with an outstanding warrant for public intoxication and the protective order he was allegedly violating.

Here's what happened next:

Police officers found Mr. Woodard in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at about 8:00 a.m. and initiated a traffic stop. Mr. Woodard pulled into a parking lot at a QuikTrip convenience store and stopped there. The police told Mr. Woodard to get out of the car, arrested him based on the warrant, and took his cellphone. Mr. Woodard then asked if he could call someone to pick up the car. One of the police officers responded “I don’t think so,” and the police decided to impound the car.

But it wasn't that simple. The stop and search were captured on the officers' body cameras, which caught them saying things that made it clear they were looking for an excuse to search the car, rather than performing a regular inventory in preparation for towing the vehicle from the convenience store parking lot.

One officer looked in the panel on the driver’s side door and on the floor under the driver’s seat, saying that Mr. Woodard was “fighting a huge drug case.” Defendant’s Mot. to Suppress, Exh. 4 (body camera). The other officer replied that Mr. Woodard liked PCP. As the officer replied, he opened the center console.

One officer commented that he was looking for verification of car insurance, expressing doubt that Mr. Woodard had insured the car. After seeing no verification in the center console, he eventually found proof of an old insurance policy in the glove compartment. By then, however, another officer had found marijuana, cocaine, a digital scale, and a gun.

Using this evidence -- as well as some information from another traffic stop of Woodard in Bartlesville, Oklahoma that resulted in the discovery of drugs and a gun -- officers obtained a warrant to search Woodard's phone. Text messages recovered from the phone indicated Woodard was dealing drugs.

Prior precedent from this circuit restricts officers' ability to impound vehicles, which, accordingly, also limits their ability to search vehicles without a warrant.

These heightened requirements allow impoundments from private property, like the impoundment of Mr. Woodard’s car, only when (1) the car is blocking traffic, (2) the car is posing an imminent threat to public safety, or (3) the impoundment is justified by a standardized policy and a reasonable, non-pretextual rationale of community caretaking.

The Tulsa PD's impound policies comply with this precedent. As conceded by the state, officers can only impound a car if the vehicle is blocking the "public way" or, if the vehicle is stopped on private property, the traffic stop "follows an offense committed on the public way." In this case, the stop didn't follow a traffic violation. It was performed to serve a warrant and protective order.

Hence, the impounding and the attached search were unjustified. And the government's arguments can't change that.

The police stopped Mr. Woodard to serve a protective order and execute an arrest warrant for public intoxication. The protective order and warrant were pieces of paper, not offenses. The only offense was public intoxication, and the intoxication did not take place on a public way.

The government contends that Mr. Woodard was stopped for a continuing offense: failing to pay costs for his charge of public intoxication. But failing to pay court costs is not a continuing offense.

Plus, there were things said by officers that made it clear they were really interested in searching the car, rather than ensuring it wasn't left on private property where it might have bothered the owner of the convenience store or been molested by an unspecified criminal element (based on the government's contention the QuikTrip was in a "high crime area").

While the government presented a long list of reasons it could have impounded the car (lack of proof of insurance, Woodard's lack of a valid drivers license, concern over ownership, evidence of a crime, etc.), the officers stated none of these reasons before performing the search, nor after it. These reasons didn't make an appearance until the search was challenged, indicating the impound was mere pretext for the warrantless search of the car.

Also indicative were statements like these:

Not only does every factor point toward pretext, but other powerful evidence of pretext exists. Before searching the car, the police officers discussed how to proceed and the senior officer declared his intent to “friggin’ light [Mr. Woodard] up with whatever we can.”

[...]

As the police started the search, one officer said that Mr. Woodard was fighting a big drug case and facing three gun charges. The other officer said that Mr. Woodard liked PCP, adding that he had been “digging around” the center console area, and the officer began his search there. Defendant’s Mot. to Suppress, Exh. 4 (body camera), Exh. 5 (body camera). These statements and actions showed the officers’ intent to look for drugs, not to safeguard the car and its contents

And the government couldn't even come up with any plausible excuse for the first officer's statement:

At oral argument, the government surmised that the officer might have meant only that he wanted to cite Mr. Woodard for whatever violations could be proven at the time of the decision to impound the car. This explanation is new and illogical. The explanation is new because the government never suggested in district court that this is what the officer had meant. The explanation is also illogical. The command to “light [Mr. Woodard] up with whatever we can” shows that the officer wanted to look for new evidence. The phrase cannot plausibly be interpreted to mean that the officer wanted only to bolster the public intoxication charge and serve the protective order.

The conclusion? The Tulsa PD is wrong and so is the lower court for approving these actions.

Because the Tulsa Police Department’s standardized policy did not apply and the stated rationale for impoundment was pretextual, the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence of the drugs, digital scale, gun, and cellphone found in the Tulsa search.

With that evidence gone, so are the text messages taken from the search of the phone. Without those text messages implicating Woodard in drug distribution, the charges in the other stop in Bartlesville are reversed as well, leaving the officers with nothing but a couple of illegal searches.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 10th circuit, evan wodard, excuses, oklahoma, police, pretextual searches, tulsa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Glen, 10 Aug 2021 @ 1:51pm

    But they get to keep the car, right? Just asking for a friend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 10 Aug 2021 @ 3:06pm

    'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'

    Without those text messages implicating Woodard in drug distribution, the charges in the other stop in Bartlesville are reversed as well, leaving the officers with nothing but a couple of illegal searches.

    Which I'm sure they'll be ragged about at the department but really should come with some personal penalties for everyone involved, as there should be penalties for violating rights beyond just 'your case just fell flat because all your evidence was ruled inadmissible.'

    All this song and dance and tanking the case simply because they couldn't be bothered to spend even the slightest bit of time and effort getting a warrant, ah the wonders of corruption and laziness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2021 @ 4:09pm

      Re: 'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'

      they couldn't be bothered to spend even the slightest bit of time and effort getting a warrant

      Ah, perhaps a bit more than that. To get a warrant, they have to have probable cause. Without something suspicious poking out from under a seat or in plain view, they would have a hard time inventing probable cause.

      And apparently they had no cops with magic noses at this particular stop.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2021 @ 9:14pm

        Re: Re: 'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'

        When have police ever regularly had a hard time getting a warrant? That's what makes these situations especially frustrating; it's not hard for police to get warrants, yet they still refuse. Judges by and large just rubber stamp but even that's too much work for our brave high school diploma holders.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2021 @ 5:51am

      Re: 'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'

      Which I'm sure they'll be ragged about at the department but really should come with some personal penalties for everyone involved

      I mean, they should at least have to personally keep the police station stocked with ice cream for everybody for the next month or something...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 12 Aug 2021 @ 8:55am

      Re: 'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'

      Which I'm sure they'll be ragged about at the department but really should come with some personal penalties for everyone involved

      That would require a lawsuit (or disciplinary action by the police department HAHAHAHAHAHA). This was a criminal case, the state vs Woodard, so there is no mechanism for enforcing penalties against police officers, who are not even party to the case, let alone a defendant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cloud9, 10 Aug 2021 @ 7:23pm

    PD Pay

    Have all the legal costs deduct from the police department retirement funds. I bet you, next stop will be by the book.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Aug 2021 @ 8:32pm

    Didn't SCOTUS fix this for the police?

    I remember they made a ruling that if a crime is terrible enough (specifically citing drug possession) that evidence is admissible even if it was illegally obtained.

    Because we wouldn't want any b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶f̶o̶l̶k̶ child-eating cannibals to get away on a technicality.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 12 Aug 2021 @ 8:56am

      Re: Didn't SCOTUS fix this for the police?

      I remember they made a ruling that if a crime is terrible enough (specifically citing drug possession) that evidence is admissible even if it was illegally obtained.

      I would like to read about it if so, so post a link if you find one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2021 @ 10:51pm

    BLUE LIES MAFIA SOP....

    the blue lies mafia didn't have probable cause for the stop and the warrant is questionable! miss court for public intox (violation, not a crime) and you get the max fine.
    he was targeted! the blue lies mafia wanted him so bad that they ruined the whole case!
    the blue lies mafia don't care about WE THE PEOPLES rights. just like ID is crack to them, so is getting a big bust! as in this case they cut corners as usual expecting the court to look the other way as usual. but this time it didn't work. they got caught!
    the victim in this case should (probably wont) get out of the drug business and file a lawsuit against the blue lies mafia!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Lostinlodos (profile), 10 Aug 2021 @ 11:05pm

    Damnit not again!

    Yet another scumbag shite criminal walks away because cops can’t do their job right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2021 @ 1:12am

      Re: Damnit not again!

      The cops "not doing their job right" makes them scumbag criminals too. But you're right that if you believe in locking as many poor minorities up as possible you need cops who aren't scumbag criminals to take the stand.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 11 Aug 2021 @ 10:54am

        Re: Re: Damnit not again!

        “ poor minorities up as possible”
        What part of coke, scale…. Make this a poor minority?
        The article says nothing about race.
        How do you know what race dealer is?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Cowardly Lion, 11 Aug 2021 @ 11:08am

        Well...

        Sure. But here, not only the cops, but a lower court didn't get the intricacies. Clearly the cops had an agenda...

        That said, Woodward seems like a bit of a arse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 12 Aug 2021 @ 8:58am

      Re: Damnit not again!

      It's interesting that your only concern is that a criminal escaped punishment, and not that a citizen's rights were violated. Not surprising, but interesting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

Introducing the new Techdirt Insider Chat, now hosted on Discord. If you are an Insider with a membership that includes the chat feature and have not yet been invited to join us on Discord, please reach out here.

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.