In another case, the accused was administratively declared to be a deserter. Pursuant to
command policy, an inventory was done on his personal belongings. Three spiral notebooks were
removed from his locker, along with various other items, including marijuana. Those conducting the
inventory looked through the notebooks, which turned out to contain incriminating statements regarding
drug transactions. On appeal, the court explained that the accused "had to expect that the government
could make an inventory of his belongings once he was away from his command for a given period of
time; however, regardless of the reason for his absence, he had a right to expect that the intrusion into
his belongings would go no further than necessary to meet the purposes of the inventory...appellant
also retained an expectation of privacy in any writings or documents he may have had among his
personal belongings." The court held that the government "must be allowed leeway to conduct as
thorough an inventory procedure as necessary to accomplish the purposes of the inventory." In this
case, however, the individuals who did the inventory had gone too far.
The court explained that "a general perusal of documents and books is permissible only if it is
reasonable in light of the purpose to be served by that inventory." Here, there was no justification for
the reading of the notebook. In fact, the person who did the reading testified that he did so "for no
particular reason." The purpose of the inventory, however, was "to protect personal property, to guard
against future claims for lost or stolen property, to protect others in the area from property which may
be or become a threat to their health or welfare, and to make the locker space available." In view of
these purposes, the court found no justification for reading the notebooks. The individual who read
them had, in fact, "not opened the notebooks in furtherance of the inventory at all; rather, he was
casually looking through the notebooks for no particular reason. This clearly went beyond the scope of
the inventory and constituted an unreasonable intrusion into appellant's property." U.S. v. Eland, 17 MJ
596 (NMCMR, 1983).
Inventories are frequently performed on automobiles. These have been upheld, when done for a
legitimate purpose and when performed in a reasonable manner. U.S. v. Watkins, 46 CMR 270 (CMA,
1973). The U.S. Supreme Court approved an inventory procedure in a case involving an automobile
that had been towed to a city impound lot. Using a "standard inventory form pursuant to standard
police procedure," the contents of the vehicle were inventoried, which resulted in the seizure of
marijuana. Before doing the inventory, the police had observed a watch on the dashboard and other
items of personal property on the back seat and rear floorboard. The Court recognized the basic
purposes of an inventory, and concluded that the practice was necessary in order to deal with incidents
of theft and vandalism. Thus, inventories pursuant to standard procedures are reasonable where the
process "is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents." There were valid reasons for
taking the vehicle into custody; i.e., public safety, traffic flow, etc. Once the vehicle is in police custody,
an inventory is a legitimate "caretaking" function. South Dakota v. Opperman, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).
1-65
MP1021
Previous Page
