United States v. Kyllo Kendall Penn
2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9689, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31166, 233 F.3d 1111 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inventory search conducted pursuant to a standardized policy requiring a complete inventory of an impounded vehicle's contents before any property is released does not violate the Fourth Amendment. An officer's discretion to permit the removal of personal property after the inventory is complete does not invalidate the search itself.
Facts:
- Portland Police Officer McConnell stopped Kyllo Penn for a traffic violation.
- Penn was unable to provide proof of insurance for the vehicle he was driving.
- A Portland police policy mandates that officers tow and impound any vehicle driven without insurance.
- Officer McConnell informed Penn that the car would be impounded and called for a tow truck.
- McConnell permitted Penn's passenger, Latoya Carruthers, to exit the vehicle with her purse.
- Without offering Penn an opportunity to remove his personal property, McConnell conducted an inventory search of the car's contents as required by a Portland city ordinance.
- During the search, McConnell discovered cocaine base inside a brown paper bag, along with cellular phones and a pager.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Kyllo Penn for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and other crimes.
- In the U.S. District Court, Penn filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the warrantless inventory search.
- The district court granted Penn's motion to suppress, concluding the officer exercised 'unbridled discretion' that resulted in an unconstitutional search.
- The United States appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an inventory search of an impounded vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment where the police officer believes they have discretion to allow an occupant to remove personal property prior to the search, even if the official policy requires a complete inventory of all property before any items are released?
Opinions:
Majority - Rymer, Circuit Judge
No. The inventory search does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted pursuant to a standardized policy that sufficiently cabins officer discretion. Citing Supreme Court precedent in South Dakota v. Opperman, Colorado v. Bertine, and Florida v. Wells, the court affirmed that warrantless inventory searches are permissible to protect the owner's property, shield police from claims of lost or stolen property, and ensure officer safety. The constitutionality of such searches hinges on them being conducted according to standardized criteria that limit officer discretion. Here, the Portland City ordinances require a complete inventory of all personal property in an impounded vehicle. The court reasoned that the purposes of an inventory search are only served if the inventory precedes the release of any personal property. Any policy allowing an officer to permit the removal of personal items (e.g., medication, glasses) is properly interpreted as applying only after the inventory has been completed and a receipt generated. Therefore, the officer had no discretion regarding the scope of the search, and his mistaken belief or inconsistent action (letting the passenger take her purse) does not render the entire search unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the constitutionality of an inventory search is determined by the existence of a standardized, non-investigatory policy, rather than an individual officer's subjective understanding or minor deviation from that policy. The court's interpretation prioritizes the text and purpose of the written policy, which required a complete inventory before any property could be released, thereby finding discretion was sufficiently constrained. This holding makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge inventory searches based on an officer's testimony about having discretion, shifting the focus firmly to the language of the governing departmental regulations. It clarifies that discretion permitted after the administrative goals of the search are met does not invalidate the search itself.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Kyllo Kendall Penn