DocketNumber: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-3009
Judges: Crone
Filed Date: 8/7/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
Tavitas, J., concurs in result with opinion.
Tavitas, Judge, concurring in result with opinion.
[10] I concur in result with the majority's opinion. I write separately, however, to emphasize the unusual circumstances here.
[11] In Wilford v. State ,
(1) Consistent with objective standards of sound policing, an officer must believe the vehicle poses a threat of harm to the community or is itself imperiled; and
(2) The officer's decision to impound adhered to established departmental routine or regulation.
Wilford ,
[12] It is perfectly clear that the first prong of the test was met here. The officer observed multiple traffic violations and stopped the vehicle that Smith was driving. An adult female and four children were also in the vehicle. Smith, who adheres to the sovereign citizen ideology, repeatedly refused to identify himself. The officer was eventually able to identify Smith and learned that Smith's driver's license was suspended. The female passenger also lacked a valid driver's license. The officer testified that Smith's vehicle posed a hazard to public safety because it was parked in the single travel lane of the road, which had no on-street parking lane, and the officers decided to tow the vehicle. The officers then completed an inventory search of the vehicle and discovered the handgun. As the vehicle was parked in the travel lane of a road and neither adult in the vehicle possessed a valid driver's license, towing of the vehicle was clearly consistent with sound policing.
[13] As for the second element, it seems clear that the officer's decision to impound would have complied with any department's impoundment policy. Our Supreme Court, however, has held that "[o]fficer testimony provides adequate evidence of departmental impound policy if it outlines the department's standard impound procedure and specifically describes how the decision to impound adhered to departmental policy or procedure." Wilford ,
[14] The State also argues that the evidence was admissible under the search incident to arrest exception because it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest would be found *1186in the vehicle.
Under the search incident to arrest exception, "[p]olice may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." Arizona v. Gant ,