Inventory search of man’s truck that led to meth conviction was reasonable, COA affirms

IL file photo

An inventory search of a man’s truck that led to a possession of methamphetamine conviction didn’t violate his rights against unreasonable search and seizure, a split Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled in affirming a lower court’s decision.

Roger Mendez-Vasquez was stopped in February 2022 by a Fishers Police Department officer after the officer witnessed a traffic violation and noticed the truck’s registration had expired.

The officer discovered Mendez-Vasquez never had a valid driver’s license in Indiana, arrested him, decided to impound his truck and performed an inventory search.

The search uncovered a purse in the passenger seat, which contained a glass smoking pipe with a substance inside that appeared to be a pipe used for smoking meth. Inside the compartment in the armrest, there was also a plastic container that had meth in it.

Mendez-Vasquez was charged with Level 6 possession of meth and Class C unlawful possession of paraphernalia.

At trial, Mendez-Vasquez objected to the inventory search of the vehicle, claiming the search of the purse was outside the scope of a permissible inventory search because he didn’t identify the purse as an object of value prior to the initiation of the search.

The Hamilton Superior Court overruled his objection and permitted the officer to testify about the items he had located inside the purse and truck.

Mendez-Vasquez was found guilty of possession of meth but not guilty of unlawful possession of paraphernalia.

He was sentenced to 654 days.

On appeal, Mendez-Vasquez challenged the impoundment and inventory search of his truck, arguing it violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

However, he didn’t raise the impoundment issue with the trial court, so the Court of Appeals ruled his argument was waived.

Mendez-Vasquez argued the Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a search warrant.

An inventory search’s validity is determined based on a two-part test, the Court of Appeals said, citing Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 431 (Ind. 1993).

First, because the need for an inventory arises from an impound, the state must establish the impoundment is valid under statute or as a matter of community caretaking. Second, courts must consider whether the scope of the inventory search was reasonable.

Addressing only whether the inventory search of his truck was unconstitutionally broad — because Mendez-Vasquez waived his challenge of the impoundment — the Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling the police department’s inventory-search policy, which requires officers to inventory items that are “of value,” is sufficiently restrictive of officer discretion.

“For example, a purse and its contents can be inventoried because they are likely to be of value to the owner while, without more, items such as discarded paper bags cannot be searched because they are not likely to be of value,” the majority wrote. “While it may be tempting to imagine a policy with additional guidance for determining value such that officer discretion is further limited, we are somewhat at a loss to understand how such a policy could be workable in practice.”

Judge Cale Bradford wrote the opinion. Judge Patricia Riley concurred.

The case is Roger Mendez-Vasquez v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-226.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote she didn’t think the state met its burden to prove the inventory search was “conducted in good faith under standardized inventory procedures that sufficiently curtail the discretion of the searching officer.”

The case shares “almost all the pretextual concerns” that led to suppression in Fair, Weissmann wrote in concluding she would grant Mendez-Vasquez’s motion to suppress.

The state failed to enter the inventory log sheets into evidence, Weissmann wrote, so the officer’s testimony alone that he followed the department’s procedure falls short of the state’s burden.

“Here, all we know is that officers look for valuables,” she wrote. “But how does an officer gauge value? How does an officer determine which containers may be opened to log items of value? Requiring an answer to such basic questions is not too much to ask where the State is attempting to justify a warrantless search.”