The 4-Hour "No Tow" Zone

State v. Gauster, Minn.S.Ct.  Mr. Gauster pulled onto the shoulder of a rural road to wait for his buddies to catch up with him. As luck would have it, a deputy sheriff rolled up behind him, stopped to inquire if Mr. Gauster required assistance. Of course, Mr. Gauster’s assistance need was for the deputy to disappear as Mr. Gauster had all manner of contraband in his car, including a bag of meth in the trunk. The state brought criminal charges based on the bag of meth. Mr. Gauster moved to suppress, arguing that there had been no authority to impound the car in the first place and thus the inventory search was unlawful. Mr. Gauster won this motion in the trial court, lost in the court of appeals and now wins in the supreme court.

The deputy chatted up Mr. Gauster, made him put the beer in the trunk and started to leave. Something, there’s always something, made the deputy run the plate; the owner had a suspended license. Mr. Gauster had told the deputy that he owned the car. The deputy chatted some more with Mr. Gauster and decided to give him two citations: suspended license and no proof of insurance. The deputy also decided to tow the vehicle. Before conducting an inventory search of the vehicle – that’s when the meth turned up – Mr. Gauster asked if he could either have someone pick up the car, or arrange his own tow. The deputy said, no. He issued Mr. Gauster the citations and towed the car.

The deputy lacked authority, however, to impound the car. By themselves, issuing only citations for either the suspended license or the failure to have proof of insurance authorizes impoundment. See State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2004). The district court had found that leaving the car on the side of the road would not have created a safety hazard, so, again, there was no authority to impound it. While it is a violation of traffic laws to leave a car on the side of the road, the statute gives the driver four hours to get it moved. Minn. Stat. §§ 168B.04, subd. 2(b)(1)(i), 169.041, subd. 3 (2006). During this four hour period, there is no authority to impound the vehicle.

Finally, the deputy could have impounded the car based on the police role of protecting Mr. Gauster’s property, but not in this case. Mr. Gauster was not under arrest – see M.R.Crim.Pro. 6.01, S. 1(1)(a) – and, he stepped up by asking if he could either arrange for someone to fetch the car or to have it towed. Because Mr. Gauster was available to and capable of making his own arrangements for the car, there was no “care taking” purpose that would justify the impoundment (although that 4-hour clock is ticking).

The Court relied on two of its cases to reach this result: State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. 1977); and State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96, 104 (Minn. 2000).

One final note. The state failed to assert during the suppression hearing that the deputy had probable cause to search the car (including the trunk) under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the deputy had found an open container and a pipe with suspected contraband in the passenger compartment. It could not, therefore, raise this argument for the first time on appeal.

Decision to Tow Vehicle That is Lawfully Parked & Not Impeding Traffic Which Belonged to Driver Who Is Not Under Arrest Is Unreasonable Under Fourth Amendment

State v. Rohde, Minn.S.Ct., 8/20/2014.  An officer saw a Monte Carlo drive away from a house that he suspected hosted a drug trade.  This officer knew from some other officer that people involved in drug trafficking at this house “might be riding in a Monte Carlo.”  But, apparently, not this Monte Carlo because the plate number did not match the information from these other officers.  Nonetheless, as luck would have it, this Monte Carlo’s registration had been revoked and the registered owner’s driver’s license had also been revoked.  This officer asked yet another officer to stop the Monte Carlo.  This officer followed the Monte Carlo until it committed a “signaling violation” at which point the officer stopped the car.  Ms. Rohde was driving the car.  Ms. Rohde pulled to the side of a residential street; it was neither interfering with traffic nor blocking access to any property.  In other words, it was parked legally.

The Monte Carlo did not have insurance, so the officers decided to tow the vehicle, a decision based on a department policy to tow any vehicle that did not have insurance.  The officers detained Ms. Rohde while they completed the paperwork but they were not planning on taking her into custody.  When the officers did the inventory search, Ms. Rohde’s bad day got worse; the officers found methamphetamine.

The state charged her with fifth degree drug possession.  Ms. Rohde moved to suppress the drugs found in the Monte Caro.  She did not challenge the initial stop but said that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution’s counterpart because the officers were not authorized to impound the Monte Carlo and because the inventory search was pre-textual.  The trial court denied the motion and found her guilty on a stipulated facts trial.  The court of appeals affirmed, State v. Rohde, 839 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.Ct.App., 2013).  Justice G. Barry Anderson, for the full court, concludes that the impoundment was unreasonable and thus the subsequent inventory search was unconstitutional.

Justice Anderson says that an impoundment is proper only when the state’s interest in impoundment outweighs the individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.  See State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).  He states these reasons that would justify an impoundment:  To remove a vehicle that is impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience; and To protect an individual’s property from theft and the police from claims of theft.  The Justice concedes that state law prohibits an uninsured vehicle from remaining on a public roadway.  That, however, is wide of the mark because the Fourth Amendment reasonableness test is the determining factor because a state statute might authorize an unconstitutional search.  See Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (1967).  The officers conceded that the Monte Carlo was not violating any parking laws, impeding traffic, or posing a threat to public safety.

As to any caretaking function – prevention of theft and the like – until the officers found the drugs they had not planned on arresting Ms. Rohde.  She was present during the inventory search and thus retained control over the vehicle; there was thus no reason for the police to take responsibility for the vehicle.  State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 2000).  Indeed, the officers had already allowed Ms. Rohde to call her Mom to come get her, so,presumably the two of them could figure out what to do about the car on their dime and not the state’s. 

Impoundment of Vehicle For Revoked License Registration, Revoked Plates, and No Insurance Lawful Where Driver Does Not Ask to Make Her Own Towing Arrangements

State v. Rohde, Minn.Ct.App., 12/2/2013.  Police stopped Ms. Rohde’s car on suspicion that she was carrying narcotics.  The officers stopped her after observing a signaling violation.  Ms. Rohde stopped on a two way residential street; the car did not impede traffic, violate any parking laws, or block access to any business or residence on the street.  However, the vehicle’s registration and license plates were revoked and the vehicle had no insurance.  The officers were apparently content with issuing her a citation for these infractions, at least, until they searched the car before having it towed.

Officers conducted an inventory search and found narcotics.  Ms. Rohde challenged the legitimacy of the impoundment and the inventory search.  The court of appeals concluded that under state law the car could not remain on the pubic roadway with revoked license plates and no insurance, so the impoundment was lawful.  Because the impoundment was lawful the inventory search exception permitted the officers to search the vehicle according to its standard procedures for doing so.

Ms. Rohde neglected to inquire if she might make her own arrangements to have the car towed.  The police, however, have no duty to remind her of her apparent right to do this.  See State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008).