PD-0877-24 01/22/2025
“Did the court of appeals error in holding that must apply a mechanical, strict requirement that inventory searches ‘must not deviate’ in any detail from department policy?”
Taylor was parked illegally by a stop sign, spying on his ex-girlfriend. Police discovered he had outstanding warrants, arrested him, and decided to impound the vehicle. An officer began an inventory search of the car at the scene. He looked around the driver seat, opened the center console, and found a firearm. He then investigated whether Taylor was a felon and found he was. The officer photographed the vehicle’s interior with the department’s “ticket writer” device (which had a photo-taking program), opened the trunk, “lifted part of an item atop many others, and closed it.” The officer did not otherwise look inside the trunk, inside any other closed compartments, or under the seats. He compiled no written list of the vehicle’s contents. The two photos he took of the items in the back of Taylor’s vehicle were attached to the towed vehicle receipt. After Taylor’s indictment for felon in possession, he moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the officer failed to comply with the police department’s inventory policy. The policy was introduced into evidence. It stated in part:
The owner or operator of the vehicle shall be asked to remove, if possible, all valuables from the vehicle prior to impoundment. If such items cannot be removed, they shall be inventoried before the vehicle is removed, and the owner/operator shall be requested to verify the completeness of the inventory by signature.
A vehicle inventory report shall be completed whenever the officer assumes responsibility for towing a vehicle, and shall complete an inventory at the location where the vehicle was seized[.]
A video recording of the search was also introduced. The officer who conducted the inventory testified that use of the “ticket writer” device to conduct vehicle inventory searches was standard practice in their department. He added that he took photos instead of itemizing each of the large amount of trash and miscellaneous items in the back of the vehicle. He observed no other valuables. The trial court denied the suppression motion. Taylor was later convicted and appealed.
On appeal, a majority of the court of appeals panel reversed. It held that, contrary to the policy, Taylor was not asked to remove any valuables nor verify the completeness of the inventory by signature since there had been no written list or inventory. Based on the video, it concluded that, once the firearm was discovered, the remaining inventory became pro forma and cursory. It asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to clarify whether its directive under Moberg v. State, 810 S.W.2d 190, 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)—that an inventory “must not deviate” from the department’s written policy—required strict compliance or a lesser standard. The majority nevertheless held that, even if some deviation is permitted, a reasonably comprehensive search that included attempting to open the glove box and look under seats was required to comport with the reason for exempting an inventory from the usual requirement of a warrant. Because that had not occurred here, the majority held the trial court should have granted the suppression motion. The dissent interpreted the policy’s excerpted paragraphs to require the defendant’s signature only if the items were “valuables” and could not be removed, and that there was no evidence at the hearing of any such valuables. It would have held that the trial court had discretion to accept the department’s practice of using photographs in lieu of an itemized list as compliance with their policy.
The State reiterates the dissent’s arguments and joins the majority’s request for clarification about whether the “must not deviate” standard requires strict compliance. It also distinguishes Moberg, which involved a search of a motel room where department policy did not purport to cover a search conducted there. It also notes that Moberg was critical of the inventory search being used as a pretext from start to finish, while here the firearm was found before any alleged violations of policy. It contends that the majority substituted its own reading of the facts for that of the trial court.
