Inventory Searches

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

VII. Inventory searches

A. Overview

When it becomes necessary for the Government to take control of personal property, the it must (1) protect the owner of the property now in government control; and (2) protect the Government from false claims related to the property now in government control. If a driver is arrested and his vehicle is towed to a police impound lot. If there is a $10,000 diamond ring in a box on the back seat, an inventory of the vehicle will discover the ring, which can then be removed from the vehicle and safeguarded. If police inventory the vehicle, and there is no diamond ring, an inventory sheet that shows no diamond rings is evidence to protect the police against false claims of a $10,000 diamond ring having been left in the vehicle and stolen by police.

In Bell v. State, 96 Md. App. 46 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals stated:

It is . . . necessary to bear clearly in mind the exclusive purpose of an inventory search. It is not investigative in its purpose and is not designed to further in any way the goal of criminal detection. Nothing less than probable cause to believe that evidence is present will serve as adequate justification to make a search for evidence. The police inventorying the contents of an automobile (or other repository) is, indeed, not even part of their investigative function. It is an aspect, however, of their community caretaker function. It is designed to safeguard the personal property of individuals whose property might otherwise be exposed to undue risk by virtue of some police action. It is also designed to serve the closely-related function of safeguarding the police from false claims of theft under circumstances where they are required to take the property of others into their custody.

Id. at 50.

B. Inventory procedure

1. Lawful custody

In order to engage in a valid inventory search, police must come into custody of the vehicle lawfully. In Duncan v. State, 281 Md. 247 (1977), the Court of Appeals held that police did not validly come into custody of the vehicle, stating: "[W]e conclude that the seizure of the challenged evidence here cannot be held to be 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment standard as an exercise of police caretaking functions. [T]he automobile was parked on private property, not on a public highway or street. It was not patently impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience." Id. at 259.

In Manalansan v. State, 45 Md. App. 667 (1980), the Court of Special Appeals held that a search was impermissible as an inventory search for multiple reasons. The Court stated:

The first was the very decision to take the car into custody in the first instance. . . . The necessity for impounding the car was not remotely demonstrated. It is simply not reasonable to tow a car away to avoid moving it to the curb[. There is] the salient fact that that the officer had already undertaken a search for evidence[. Furthermore, a] list was made of the probable evidence. All of that evidence was promptly taken to the laboratory for chemical analysis. No list was made, however, of non-evidentiary items, either by way of listing them or by way of indicating that none were present. . . .

Id. at 672. However, in Thompson, 192 Md. App. at 677, the Court of Special Appeals held that items found during an inventory search were admissible...