Inevitable Discovery and Inventory Searches of Vehicles
Police cannot use an inventory search as a pretext to search a vehicle for evidence. The government must establish that impoundment was lawful, the inventory followed standardized procedures, and the challenged evidence inevitably would have been discovered through those lawful procedures.
If police searched your vehicle after a traffic stop or arrest and claimed it was an inventory search, contact federal criminal defense attorney Michael J. Petro to discuss whether the evidence can be suppressed.
What Is the Inevitable Discovery Rule?
The inevitable discovery doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule.
Evidence obtained through an unlawful search may sometimes be admitted if the government proves that officers inevitably would have discovered the same evidence through an independent and lawful process.
In Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that the government must prove inevitable discovery by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the lawful discovery must be more likely than not.
The government cannot satisfy its burden by showing that police:
• Could have discovered the evidence.
• Might have obtained a warrant.
• Had another investigative option available.
• Usually conduct similar searches.
• Could have created a lawful justification after the illegal search.
The doctrine requires inevitability, not speculation or possibility.
What Is a Vehicle Inventory Search?
A vehicle inventory search is an administrative procedure conducted after police lawfully take custody of a vehicle.
It is not supposed to be a criminal investigation. Legitimate purposes include:
• Protecting the owner’s property.
• Identifying property inside the vehicle.
• Protecting police from claims of lost or stolen property.
• Protecting officers and storage personnel from dangerous items.
Because an inventory serves administrative rather than investigative purposes, police generally do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct it.
But calling a search an “inventory” does not make it constitutional.
Impoundment and Inventory Are Separate Decisions
A court should separately analyze:
• The decision to impound the vehicle.
• The decision to search and inventory its contents.
A lawful inventory cannot ordinarily be based on an unlawful impoundment. Police must first have a legitimate reason to take custody of the vehicle.
Possible reasons may include:
• The vehicle is obstructing traffic.
• The vehicle presents a public safety hazard.
• The driver is arrested and no authorized person can move it.
• The vehicle cannot lawfully remain at its location.
• The vehicle is stolen or subject to lawful seizure.
• A valid ordinance or standardized policy authorizes removal.
The government should explain why impoundment served a genuine caretaking function in the particular circumstances.
Arrest Does Not Automatically Authorize Impoundment
Police do not automatically gain authority to tow every vehicle merely because the driver has been arrested.
Relevant questions include:
• Was the vehicle legally parked?
• Was it located on public or private property?
• Did it obstruct traffic or create a hazard?
• Was the registered owner present?
• Was a licensed passenger available to drive it?
• Did the owner request a reasonable alternative?
• Did police follow their towing policy?
• Did officers have a legitimate reason to reject an available alternative?
The Supreme Court has held that police are not always required to offer the driver an opportunity to make alternative arrangements. But the government must still establish that the impoundment itself was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Standardized Procedures Are Required
Inventory searches must be conducted according to standardized departmental criteria or an established routine.
Standardized procedures limit officer discretion and help distinguish a genuine inventory from a search for evidence.
The policy should address matters such as:
• When a vehicle may be impounded.
• When an inventory must be performed.
• Which areas of the vehicle may be examined.
• How property must be recorded.
• Whether locked areas may be opened.
• How closed containers are handled.
• Whether valuable or dangerous property must be removed.
A policy that gives officers unlimited discretion to search wherever they want does not provide a meaningful constitutional safeguard.
The Government Should Produce the Actual Policy
The prosecution should not be permitted to establish standardized procedures solely through an officer’s general claim that the search followed “normal practice.”
Defense counsel should request:
• The written towing policy.
• The inventory search policy.
• Any policy governing closed containers.
• Training materials.
• Tow authorization records.
• The completed inventory form.
• The tow slip.
• Body camera footage.
• Photographs of the vehicle and its contents.
• Records showing how the department handled comparable vehicles.
The officer’s conduct should be compared directly with the policy in effect on the date of the search.
Closed Containers Require Special Attention
In Florida v. Wells, the Supreme Court addressed the opening of closed containers during an inventory search.
A department may adopt a standardized policy requiring officers to open all containers, open no containers, or exercise limited judgment based on the nature of the container. But the policy cannot leave officers with unrestricted discretion.
Defense counsel should ask:
• Did the department have a written container policy?
• Did it authorize opening the particular container?
• Was the container locked?
• Could officers identify and safeguard it without opening it?
• Did the officer manipulate or damage the container?
• Was the search consistent with inventories in other cases?
When no standardized policy governs closed containers, opening one may violate the Fourth Amendment.
An Inventory Search Is Not a Search for Evidence
An officer’s investigative interest does not necessarily invalidate every otherwise lawful inventory. But an inventory search cannot serve as a pretext for a general search for contraband.
Evidence of an investigatory purpose may include:
• Officers searched before deciding to impound the vehicle.
• Police began searching without an inventory form.
• Officers searched only places likely to conceal drugs or weapons.
• The officer failed to record ordinary property.
• Police ignored valuable items while looking for contraband.
• The search exceeded the written policy.
• Officers discussed finding evidence rather than protecting property.
• Police decided to tow only after discovering contraband.
The timing and sequence of events may reveal whether impoundment led to the inventory or whether the desire to search led to impoundment.
Search Incident to Arrest Is a Different Exception
An inventory search should not be confused with a vehicle search incident to arrest.
Under Arizona v. Gant, police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when:
• The arrested person is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment; or
• It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
When neither condition exists, the arrest itself does not authorize a vehicle search.
The government may attempt to save an unlawful search incident to arrest by arguing that officers later would have discovered the same evidence during a lawful inventory. That argument requires proof that both the impoundment and inventory actually were inevitable.
United States v. Cartwright
In United States v. Cartwright, No. 10-1879, police stopped a vehicle because its rear license plate was not illuminated.
Dewayne Cartwright was driving, and the vehicle’s owner was seated in the front passenger seat with her young child. Cartwright did not produce a driver’s license and gave officers a name they could not verify.
Police arrested Cartwright and searched the vehicle incident to his arrest. During that search, an officer found a loaded handgun in the back seat.
After the search, police impounded the vehicle and conducted an inventory. Cartwright was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the gun.
Why the Original Search Was Questionable
At the time of the search, Seventh Circuit precedent permitted a broader vehicle search incident to arrest.
The Supreme Court subsequently decided Arizona v. Gant and restricted that authority. Cartwright was secured and unable to reach the passenger compartment, and the offense of arrest did not provide an obvious reason to believe evidence would be inside the vehicle.
The government therefore relied on inevitable discovery rather than attempting to defend the original search under the later Gant standard.
Prosecutors argued that officers would have found the firearm during the inventory conducted before the vehicle was towed.
Why the Vehicle Was Impounded
The police department had a comprehensive policy governing towing and inventory searches.
Cartwright was under arrest, and the passenger who owned the car did not have a valid driver’s license. According to the court, no one at the scene could lawfully drive the car away.
The vehicle also had a nonfunctioning license plate light and was stopped between rows of parking spaces rather than in a designated space.
The owner testified that she asked police to allow someone else to retrieve the car. Officers refused.
The Seventh Circuit concluded that police were not constitutionally required under those circumstances to wait for another person to arrive. It found that impoundment complied with department policy and was reasonable.
Why the Gun Was Considered Inevitable
The department’s policy required an inventory whenever police impounded a vehicle. The court found that officers would have searched the back seat during that inventory and discovered the firearm.
The officer did not fully list the vehicle’s contents on the inventory form, even though department policy required it. The court treated that omission as a minor deviation that did not defeat inevitable discovery.
Because the vehicle was lawfully impounded and the standardized inventory would have included the location where the gun was found, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression.
Cartwright Does Not Validate Every Inventory Search
The decision does not mean that police may always tow and search a vehicle after arresting its driver.
A different result may be appropriate when:
• The vehicle is legally parked and creates no hazard.
• A licensed owner or passenger is available.
• Department policy does not authorize impoundment.
• Police fail to follow the towing policy.
• No standardized inventory policy exists.
• The policy does not authorize opening a container.
• Officers search before deciding to tow.
• Police use impoundment solely to investigate.
• The inventory would not have reached the area where evidence was found.
• The government relies on speculation about what officers might have done.
The government must establish the complete lawful chain leading to discovery.
Inevitable Discovery in the Eleventh Circuit
In United States v. Watkins, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, confirmed that the government must prove inevitable discovery by a preponderance of the evidence.
The government must show that lawful discovery was more likely than not. The doctrine should not be based on a hypothetical lawful investigation invented after an unconstitutional search.
Evidence that officers were already pursuing lawful investigative steps may be important in determining whether discovery was genuinely inevitable.
Inventory Search Versus Automobile Exception
The automobile exception is another distinct warrant exception.
Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle when they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The permissible scope extends to areas and containers where the object of the search reasonably could be found.
An inventory search does not require probable cause, but it must follow standardized administrative procedures.
The government should identify which exception it claims justified the search. It should not combine elements of different doctrines to avoid satisfying the requirements of any one exception.
Challenging Inevitable Discovery
A strong suppression challenge should require the government to establish each link in the claimed chain of discovery.
Defense counsel should ask:
• Was the traffic stop lawful?
• Was the arrest supported by probable cause?
• Was the vehicle lawfully impounded?
• What standardized policy authorized the tow?
• Were reasonable alternatives available?
• Was the inventory mandatory or discretionary?
• Did officers follow the inventory policy?
• Did the policy govern closed containers?
• Would a lawful inventory have reached the exact location of the evidence?
• Was the search actually conducted for an administrative purpose?
• What lawful process was already underway?
• Is inevitable discovery supported by evidence or hindsight?
A failure at any essential stage may defeat the government’s inevitable discovery argument.
Michael J. Petro represents clients facing federal criminal charges in Tampa and Chicago, and if police used an inventory search or inevitable discovery claim to justify evidence found in your vehicle, contact federal criminal defense attorney Michael J. Petro.