United States v. Salazar ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51093
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CR-65-ALL
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronnie Salazar entered a conditional plea to a charge of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving his right to
appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of an
inventory search of his vehicle. In reviewing the denial of a
motion to suppress, we accept the district court’s findings of
fact unless clearly erroneous, but review de novo the conclusion
as to the constitutionality of the police action. United States
v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124, 126 (5th Cir. 1993).
Salazar argues that the inventory search was not valid
because it had an investigatory purpose. An inventory search of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-51093
-2-
an impounded vehicle may be made without a warrant. United
States v. Staller, 616 F.2d 1284, 1289 (5th Cir. 1980). The
facts in this case do not support an accusation that the
inventory search was merely a ruse to justify an investigatory
search. See Florida w. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1990). Officer
Nogle testified at the suppression hearing that he looked for
evidence as well as for objects of value while performing the
inventory search. Salazar’s argument, that any investigatory
purpose automatically invalidates an inventory search, is not
supported by the case law. “[I]f an inventory search is
otherwise reasonable, its validity is not vitiated by a police
officer’s suspicion that contraband or other evidence may be
found.” Staller, 616 F.2d at 1290 (quoting United States v.
Prescott, 599 F.2d 103, 106 (5th Cir. 1979)).
Salazar also contends that the inventory search was invalid
because it was not conducted according to standard procedures.
Although Officer Nogle could not quote the inventory-search
policy, he testified that the policy was to remove all items of
value from a vehicle to be impounded and to list those items in
his report. After arresting Salazar and placing him in the
patrol car, Officer Nogle proceeded to search the vehicle prior
to its being impounded. Salazar fails to show that the search
was not covered by the inventory policy, as articulated by Nogle.
The district court did not err in finding that the inventory
search was valid and did not err in denying the motion.
AFFIRMED.