United States v. Mark Johnson
889 F.3d 1120 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative inventory search of an impounded vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment when it is not conducted for a community caretaking purpose, but is instead motivated by an officer's subjective, investigatory purpose to find evidence of a crime, as demonstrated by the officer's own admissions.
Facts:
- Multnomah County Sheriff’s deputies located Mark Johnson, who had an outstanding warrant for a post-prison supervision violation, at an inn.
- Deputies followed Johnson to a residence and called for assistance from Portland Police Bureau (PPB) officers.
- After about 20 minutes, Johnson left the residence in a car, and the officers followed him.
- At an intersection, officers stopped Johnson by boxing his car in, which caused him to park in a lane of traffic.
- Johnson was driving a borrowed car and could not provide proof of insurance or the contact information for the vehicle's owner.
- Officers arrested Johnson on the outstanding warrant.
- A search of Johnson's person incident to arrest revealed a folding knife, $7,100 in cash in his pants pocket, and $150 in his wallet.
- Due to the car blocking traffic and the owner being unreachable, officers decided to have the car towed and impounded, triggering an inventory search.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Johnson was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on one charge of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Before trial, Johnson filed a motion to suppress evidence found on his person and in the car he was driving.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury found Johnson guilty.
- The district court denied Johnson's subsequent motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 188 months in prison.
- Johnson (Defendant-Appellant) appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the United States as Plaintiff-Appellee.
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 when the searching officers explicitly admit their purpose is to find evidence of a crime, rather than to conduct a standard administrative inventory for non-investigatory purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An inventory search of an impounded vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment when officers explicitly admit their purpose is to find evidence of a crime. The inventory search exception to the warrant requirement is permissible only when conducted for a non-investigatory, community caretaking purpose, such as safeguarding property. Following the circuit's precedent in United States v. Orozco, an officer's subjective motivation is relevant in the context of administrative searches. Here, Officer Corona admitted in his arrest report, a warrant affidavit, and his testimony that he seized bags and cell phones because he believed they contained 'evidence of a crime' and were seized 'pending further investigation,' not for safekeeping. Because the officers' admitted purpose was investigatory, the search cannot be justified under the inventory search doctrine and the evidence seized must be suppressed.
Concurring - O'Scannlain
I concur fully in the opinion because it faithfully follows this circuit's binding precedent in United States v. Orozco. However, I write separately to state my belief that Orozco was wrongly decided and contradicts Supreme Court precedent, specifically Brigham City v. Stuart. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an officer's subjective motivations are irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness analysis. Brigham City clarified that even in the context of programmatic searches, the inquiry is into the purpose of the program itself, not 'what is in the mind of the individual officer.' Because Orozco incorrectly requires an inquiry into the officer's subjective intent, it should be reconsidered by this court en banc.
Concurring - Paez
I concur fully in the court's opinion without reservation and disagree with the separate concurrence's call to revisit United States v. Orozco. The Supreme Court has consistently treated inventory searches as a limited context where officer motive matters, requiring that such searches be 'administered in good faith' and not as a pretext for a criminal investigation. Post-Brigham City cases like Kentucky v. King continue to recognize that an officer's motive can invalidate otherwise justifiable behavior in contexts like inventory searches. Orozco's approach is consistent with this line of cases and with the law in the vast majority of our sister circuits.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Ninth Circuit's rule from Orozco, creating a significant exception to the general Fourth Amendment principle that an officer's subjective intent is irrelevant. It establishes that for administrative searches, an officer's admitted investigatory motive can be fatal to the search's constitutionality, even if it complies with a standardized policy. The concurrences highlight a deep division on this issue, suggesting a circuit split and making this area of law a potential candidate for Supreme Court review. For future cases within the Ninth Circuit, this opinion provides a clear rule: explicit admissions by officers of an investigatory purpose during an inventory search will lead to suppression of the evidence.
