The Traffic Stop and the Inventory Search
Officer Tran stops Devon for a burned-out taillight at 11 p.m. As Tran approaches, he sees Devon make a furtive movement toward the glove box. Tran asks for license and registration; Devon's hands are shaking. Tran orders Devon out of the car and pats him down, finding nothing. Tran then opens the glove box and finds a loaded handgun. Devon is a convicted felon. Tran arrests Devon and, pursuant to department policy, has the car towed. Before towing, Tran conducts an inventory search and finds a bag of cocaine in the trunk. Devon moves to suppress both the handgun and the cocaine. The department's inventory policy gives officers discretion to decide whether to impound and does not specify how to conduct the search.
1. Analyze the admissibility of the handgun. Address the frisk and the glove-box search separately.
Read the worked answer
The frisk. A pat-down requires reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. Tran had a late-night stop, a furtive movement, and shaking hands. Courts generally treat a furtive movement toward a compartment plus nervous behavior as sufficient to justify ordering the driver out and conducting a protective frisk (Pennsylvania v. Mimms permits ordering the driver out). The frisk itself was lawful.
The glove-box search. The frisk found nothing, which undercuts the justification for extending the search to the glove box. A protective search of the passenger compartment is permitted under Michigan v. Long only where the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. But Devon was outside the car, and the frisk was negative. Tran's justification weakens significantly.
Automobile exception. If Tran had probable cause to believe the glove box contained contraband or evidence, the automobile exception would allow a warrantless search. A furtive movement alone is generally not probable cause; it is consistent with innocent behavior. The state would need more - an observed object, a tip, or a smell.
Ruling. The handgun is likely suppressed. The frisk was lawful, but the glove-box search exceeded the scope of a protective search and lacked independent probable cause.
2. Analyze the admissibility of the cocaine found in the trunk during the inventory search.
Read the worked answer
Inventory searches are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, but only if the search is conducted according to standardized criteria that limit officer discretion (South Dakota v. Opperman; Colorado v. Bertine). Two features of this policy are problematic:
- Discretion to impound. The policy lets officers decide whether to impound. Where impoundment is discretionary and the officer could have permitted Devon to arrange a tow or leave the car legally parked, courts scrutinize whether impoundment was a pretext for investigation. If the impound decision was not governed by standardized criteria, the resulting inventory is vulnerable.
- No specified search procedure. A policy that does not tell officers how to conduct the inventory invites the very discretion Bertine condemns. An inventory must be conducted for the purpose of protecting the owner's property and protecting the police from false claims - not to search for evidence.
Additional problem. The handgun was found before the tow decision, so the state may argue the cocaine is admissible as the fruit of a lawful arrest. But if the handgun is suppressed and the arrest depended on it, the inventory search may be tainted.
Ruling. The cocaine is likely suppressed because the inventory policy lacks the standardized criteria required to cabin officer discretion. The state bears the burden of showing the inventory was conducted pursuant to routine practice.