Page 49 - TPA Jourtnal September October 2023

inventory search is valid “if it is conducted search from being transformed into an evidentiary
pursuant to standardized regulations and search. We conclude that these rules are
procedures that are consistent with (1) protecting constitutional. Indeed, McKinnon determined a
the property of the vehicle’s owner, (2) protecting previous iteration of the same HPD
the police against claims or disputes over lost or “Vehicle Inventory” policy with identical language,
stolen property, and (3) protecting the police from save replacements of “shall” with “will” and
danger.” Such policies are not violative of the “must,” was constitutionally valid.
Fourth Amendment so long as they “sufficiently
limit the discretion of law enforcement officers to We now examine whether the application of the
prevent inventory searches from becoming policy was appropriate. Walker’s vehicle was
evidentiary searches.” illegally parked in front of a gas pump.
After Walker was justifiably arrested, the vehicle
The inventory policy for the Houston Police had to be removed. Already, this subjects Walker’s
Department (“HPD”) is set out in General Order vehicle to a nonconsent tow and to an inventory
600-10. That order states under its “Vehicle search because the need to remove the car
Inventory” subsection: “Whenever an officer constitutes an “incident management tow.” Still,
authorizes a nonconsent tow of a prisoner’s the officers gave Walker an opportunity to release
vehicle, the officer shall personally conduct an the vehicle to his girlfriend. She did not arrive,
inventory of items in the vehicle including any and though, until at least 30 minutes after being called.
all containers not secured by a lock and [sic. By then, Walker’s car was already hooked up to the
Omission in opinion.] … shall complete a wrecker tow truck. HPD’s policy did not require the officers
slip.” That policy is supplemented with definitions, to release Walker’s car to a third party in the first
including that a nonconsent tow is “[a] tow of a place and still did not require them to do so at the
motor vehicle that is an incident management tow end of the traffic stop if no third party was at the
or a private property tow”; an incident scene. Thus, Walker’s car was subject to an
management tow is “[a]ny tow of a vehicle in inventory search, meaning both the firearm and
which the wrecker is summoned to the scene of a cell phone would have been inevitably discovered.
traffic accident or an incident, including removal of The firearm and cell phone were properly seized.
a vehicle”; and an incident is “an unplanned We close by acknowledging that Walker also
randomly occurring traffic event that adversely argues that the statements he made during Polk and
affects normal traffic operations.” Foster’s questioning should have been suppressed
Further, the General Order states: because he was subjected to custodial
Prisoners are responsible for the disposition of their interrogation without first being given his Miranda
vehicles unless such vehicles are subject to a warnings. The only significant statement, though,
nonconsent tow. . . . In all other instances, an was his answer to being asked if “there is anything
officer shall release a prisoner’s vehicle to a [the officer] should know about” in the vehicle.
passenger or a third party if all of the following Walker responded that there is “something you
apply: a. The vehicle is mechanically safe and not might take me to jail for if I tell you,” and he then
stolen or evidence in a crime, and there is proof of told Polk about a pistol in the console. We just held
financial responsibility for the vehicle. b. The that the discovery of the firearm was inevitable. The
prisoner wishes to release the vehicle to a statement is not independently significant. We
passenger or third party that is at the scene, not reject any prejudicial error from the admission of
under arrest, in possession of a valid driver license, the statement. The district court did not err in
and not intoxicated. denying Walker’s motion to suppress.

This policy provides proper limitations on the U.S. v. Walker, 5 th Cir., No. 21-20385, Sept. 21,
inventory search. Some of the limits prevent a 2022.
search of locked compartments and only require an
inventory search when a nonconsent tow is
authorized. Those limits prevent the inventory

Sept/Oct 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 42