The second, related point, is that inventories may be upheld by the courts where they are found to
be reasonable, in terms of both basis and their manner of being performed. If the courts find the
procedures to be unreasonable, the "inventory" will be treated as an unlawful search and the evidence
will be inadmissible in court. Again, the reasonableness of the government's actions is always a critical
factor. This is as true here as it is in all other cases under the Fourth Amendment. When the police act
out of proper motives and for legitimate purposes, the courts will try to accommodate those interests.
The inventory is simply another way that the courts have balanced the rights of the individual against
the rights of the state. Where the inventory is reasonable, the balance will be struck in favor of the
state.
This should be contrasted with the following: After his apprehension, the accused's private
automobile was taken to a parking lot at the MP station. The apprehension was for driving an unsafe
vehicle and, when searched incident to the apprehension, drugs were found on the accused. Several
hours later, an MP sergeant (E5) proceeded to "inventory" the vehicle for "high value items." He
searched the vehicle, which included the trunk, hood, ashtrays, glove compartment, and sunvisors. A
small matchbox was found on the dashboard. When opened, it was found to contain marijuana and
heroin. The sergeant subsequently testified that he was not aware of the local SOP governing
inventories, or even if there was one in existence. He admitted he was looking for contraband,
although he said his main purpose was inventorying the automobile for high-value items.
The court held that an inventory cannot be a pretext for an unlawful search. Here, the "inventory"
wasn't conducted until after drugs had been found on the accused. The MP sergeant who did the
inventory didn't know the proper procedure for performing one. Most importantly, however, the MP
looked "among cigarette butts in the ashtray and under the hood, places where only an extraordinarily
vivid imagination at best" would have looked for high-value items. Consequently, it was not considered
to be a bona fide inventory, but was an illegal search for drugs. The MP's attempt to create his own ad
hoc inventory procedure failed. U.S. v. Talbert, 10 MJ 539 (ACMR, 1980).
In another case, the accused was in pretrial confinement. His commander directed an inventory of
his station wagon, which was located in the barracks parking lot. His concern was stated to be for the
safety of personal property left in the vehicle (stereo equipment, television, etc.). At the time, the
accused had been in the process of moving from the barracks. During the inventory, a box containing
marijuana was found in the gear shift well. No regulation specifically required the inventory under these
circumstances. Still the court upheld it: "Stereo equipment and television sets are always tempting
targets for thieves, and the commander's responsibility to ensure that personal effects of his assigned
personnel are protected does not end once they are placed in confinement." There was no requirement
to obtain the accused's consent prior to doing the inventory. Also, there is no requirement that the
inventory be compelled by any regulation. The test is, instead, one of reasonableness: "If the
inventory process is legitimate, normal, and customary routine in military administration and not a
subterfuge for an unlawful search, it will meet the test of reasonableness." In these cases, "the matter
will most often turn on the motive, intent, and good faith of the commander." U.S. v. Dulus, 13 MJ 807
(AFCMR, 1982).
1-67
MP1021
Previous Page
