United States v. Sanders
2015 WL 4665653, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13867, 796 F.3d 1241 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The warrantless impoundment of a vehicle located on private property that is not obstructing traffic or creating an imminent threat to public safety is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment only if it is justified by both a standardized police policy and a reasonable, non-pretextual community-caretaking rationale.
Facts:
- Aurora police officers located a Mitsubishi Eclipse, which they believed belonged to Beverly Sanders, parked in the private lot of a Goodwill store.
- Sanders had an outstanding warrant for failure to comply with probation.
- When Sanders and her companion, Ian Hussey, exited the store and walked to the car, police arrested Sanders on the warrant.
- Sanders indicated that a third party could retrieve the vehicle, but police did not ask for details.
- Hussey, who had been cleared of warrants, offered to contact someone to pick up the car.
- Police refused to release the vehicle to Hussey because he did not have a valid driver's license.
- Officers decided to impound the Eclipse, stating they feared it would be broken into because of its after-market accessories and location in a high-crime area after dark.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Sanders was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute.
- Sanders filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her vehicle, arguing the initial impoundment was an unconstitutional seizure.
- The district court (a court of first instance) granted Sanders' motion to suppress.
- The United States (the government) filed a timely interlocutory appeal of the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 the warrantless impoundment of a vehicle, legally parked on private property and not posing a public safety threat, violate the Fourth Amendment when the decision to impound is not guided by standardized criteria and lacks a reasonable community-caretaking rationale?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucero, Circuit Judge
Yes, the impoundment violates the Fourth Amendment. When a vehicle is on private property and not impeding traffic or public safety, an impoundment is constitutional only if it is justified by both a standardized policy and a reasonable, non-pretextual community-caretaking rationale. This impoundment was unconstitutional for two independent reasons. First, the officers' discretion was not guided by standardized criteria; Aurora's municipal code lists grounds for impounding vehicles from public property but is silent about private lots, and officers failed to offer Sanders options that were available under department policy, such as signing a liability waiver. Second, the impoundment lacked a reasonable community-caretaking rationale. The vehicle was legally parked on private property, officers did not consult the property owner, and they failed to provide Sanders a meaningful opportunity to arrange for the car's removal. The justification of preventing vandalism in a 'high-crime area' is not a sufficient community-caretaking function, as police do not owe a duty to protect vulnerable cars, and such a reason can easily serve as a pretext for an investigatory search.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a two-part test in the Tenth Circuit for community-caretaking impoundments of vehicles on private property, requiring both standardized criteria and a separate, reasonable justification. It aligns the Tenth Circuit with a majority of other circuits that reject a pure 'reasonableness' test and demand that police discretion be cabined by established policy. The holding signals heightened scrutiny for impoundments that are not clearly necessary for public safety or traffic management, particularly when less intrusive alternatives exist. This precedent makes it more difficult for law enforcement to justify impounding vehicles from private lots based on speculative concerns like potential vandalism, thereby curtailing a potential pretext for conducting inventory searches.
