Inventory Search Of Arrestee's Bags Was Regular, Even If It Was Kind Of Irregular

UNITED STATES v. BANKS, USCA-4 No. 06-4216, http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/dailyopinions/opinion.pdf/064216.P.pdf , on appeal from USDC-MDD, before Chief USCJ Wilkins and USCJs Williams, Duncan, opinion by Duncan, filed 13 Apr 2007.

LONG STORY SHORT: Detective's search in his office of two duffel bags taken from Defendant's vehicle upon arrest was a good faith inventory search, since Defendant asked to have the bags brought along and all prisoner property was supposed to be inventoried. Binding in MD, NC, SC, VA, WV.

FACTS: Defendant drove Runner to a Target pharmacy to pick up controlled substances for which Runner had submitted a forged prescription the day before. Runner went to the pharmacy counter while Defendant walked around the store. The pharmacist had already alerted Detective Gunn of the Anne Arundel County Police to the probably forged prescription, and stalled Runner until Detective Gunn could get a uniformed officer to the pharmacy. By the time Detective Gunn got there, the uniformed officer had arrested Runner for passing the forged prescription and Defendant on four outstanding warrants. Detective Gunn had himself taken out one of those warrants, for another forged prescription.

Detective Gunn asked Defendant if he wanted anything from the vehicle brought to the station, and Defendant said there were two duffle bags in the trunk. Detective Gunn took both bags and Defendant to the station, left Defendant with the booking officers, and took the bags into his own office. Written policy required the arresting officer to turn prisoner property over to booking officers. Detective Gunn opened the bags, saw medical assistance cards and prescriptions, and realized the material inside was beyond his expertise and should not be given to booking officers for storage and return to Defendant. Over the next several days, Detective Gunn inventoried and recorded many similar incriminating items in the bags, and eventually gave it all to DEA. Police and federal agents used the evidence to get search warrants, helping to reveal Defendant's leading role in a large prescription drug conspiracy.

PROCEDURE: The United States indicted Defendant in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on a conspiracy charge and many drug and healthcare fraud charges. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence from the two duffel bags, arguing that Detective Gunn's warrantless search was not in accord with regular search policy and was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court found as fact that Detective Gunn's actions were perfectly reasonable and in good faith, and the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement applied. MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED. A jury convicted Defendant of all charges except one, and the trial court sentenced him to 16 years. Defendant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

DECISION: Inventory searches are an administrative task incident to arrest and jailing. Warrants are unnecessary so long as the search sticks to standardized criteria and is not a ruse to cover general rummaging. However, officers may have some discretion to evaluate containers and decide in good faith whether to open them. The Fourth Circuit carefully read the written policy and noted that by its own terms, it applied to the arresting officer. That happened to be the first uniformed officer on the scene, not Detective Gunn. Also, Defendant was the one who requested Detective Gunn to bring the bags to the station. When they got there, Detective Gunn possessed the bags--not Defendant--so they were not prisoner property for purposes of the written search policy.

There was a general policy that everything belonging to prisoners would be inventoried. Had booking officers done the inventory search, they too would have seized and secured all contraband, which the medical benefit cards and prescriptions obviously were. Defendant had to show that Detective Gunn's motive was investigative, but since the trial court's factual finding of good faith without investigative motive was not clearly erroneous, the Fourth Circuit would not disturb it, even if the search was a bit irregular. DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION AFFIRMED. Defenant otherwise received a fair trial. CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED in all respects.

EDITORIAL: With brilliant dope-slingers like these, who needs narcs? "Okay sir, Officer Cufnstuf just busted your colleague here for this fake scrip, and you got four warrants--one of which I seem to remember swearing out myself, and for the same thing--so that's why he hooked you up too. What can I do for you today--carry your luggage, perhaps?" (trying not to laugh) "Well, Detective, now that you mention it, in the trunk of my low-profile rented Lincoln Town Car are two great big D-bags just chock full of lots more forged prescriptions and stolen Medicaid cards, more than enough to blow my whole op sky-high and send me down for 16 years. I say, old boy, might I trouble you to look after them while I am so indisposed?" "But of course--it's what I live for. Would sir also care for a gin and tonic?"

That was an interesting Fourth Circuit backbend--the inventory search policy applied to the arresting officer and to prisoner property, not the officer who happened to transport the prisoner and happened to have some of the prisoner's property with him. Voila, everything gets searched somehow, and no warrant necessary. Not bad, but how about just pointing out that the bags were in the guy's vehicle and there was probable cause to think he was passing fake scrips, so it's open season on the bags under the automobile exception.