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.