Fruit v. State ( 1974 )

BRETT, Judge

(specially concurring).

I concur in this decision after a careful study of the facts involved. Under the circumstances of this case, the inventory was not improper and consequently the subsequent seizure of the stolen property was legal. However, this type of search, i. e. inventory search of impounded vehicles, can become a matter of abuse; and it is abundantly clear that any inventory search which is purely exploratory must be illegal. Consequently, each case must stand or fall on its own facts.

The Washington Supreme Court provided a lengthy discussion on inventory searches in State v. Montague, Wash., 438 P.2d 571 (1968). That Court summarized the situation as follows:

“When, however, the facts indicate a lawful arrest, followed by an inventory of the contents of the automobile preparatory to or following the impoundment of the car, and there is found to be reasonable and proper justification for such impoundment, and where the search is not made as a general exploratory search for the purpose of finding evidence of crime but is made for the justifiable purpose of finding, listing, and securing from loss, during the arrested person’s detention, property belonging to him, then we have no hesitancy in declaring such inventory reasonable and lawful, and evidence of crime found will not be suppressed.” at p. 574, 438 P.2d. .

In the instant case all of those conditions were met and therefore, I concur in this decision, insofar as the other evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.