State troopers stopped a driver for allegedly speeding on 391 in Chicopee.
Troopers claim that the driver falsely identified himself.
Accordingly, the troopers arrest the driver and called a tow truck to impound his vehicle.
This gave troopers reason to conduct an inventory of the vehicle’s contents.
(See my earlier post: When Can Police Tow and Inventory/Search Your Car in Massachusetts?)
Troopers claim that, during the inventory, they found a bag on the passenger-side floorboard containing drugs and a firearm.
In district court, the driver’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress the seized items.
The lawyer argued that the inventory was not done in compliance with state police policy; consequently, the flawed inventory amounted to an unlawful search.
Under Massachusetts’ case law,
an inventory search is administrative, and the decision to conduct an inventory search must not be for investigatory purposes; the decision must be objectively reasonable, and the search must be conducted according to standard written procedures.
See Commonwealth v. Davis, 481 Mass. 210, 218 (2019).
During the motion hearing, according to court documents, the troopers “testified in a conclusory fashion that an inventory search was performed.” One trooper started inventorying on the passenger side and the other trooper inventoried the driver side.
Again, citing court documents,
[N]either trooper testified to searching any other areas of the vehicle. Moreover, Trooper Dziminski testified that there was no documentation of damage to the car prior to towing, nor was the inventory search form filed as was required by the inventory policy.
Despite this, the district court judge denied the motion. Her ruling stated only “the Court credits the officers’ testimony, defendant’s motion is denied.”
The man appealed the ruling and the Appeals Court reversed the lower court’s decision.
First, the justices note that the lower court’s briefly worded ruling “does not contain sufficient information to allow us to determine what findings of fact were made.”
Next, they rejected the argument that the troopers conduct amounted to an inventory under the terms of state police policy:
The State Police inventory policy requires officers to complete an inventory of “[t]he interior of the vehicle; [t]he glove compartment and trunk (unless they are locked and there is no key available); and [t]he exterior of the vehicle for missing or damaged parts.” Further, the policy requires that the officers complete and file an inventory form to document the contents of the vehicle. At the motion to suppress, the Commonwealth has the burden to prove that the inventory search was done for a legitimate purpose and not for an investigatory purpose…While performing the inventory search prior to impoundment was the appropriate course of action pursuant to the policy, we conclude that the Commonwealth did not produce sufficient facts to support a determination that an inventory search, in fact, occurred. Accordingly, we decline to affirm the judge’s ruling.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.