United States v. Castro: the Fifth Circuit Authorizes Administrative Impoundments Regardless of an Officer's Motives as Long as the Impoundment Is Based on Standard Police Procedures

• Publication year: 1998
• Citation: Vol. 33

33 Creighton L. Rev. 843. UNITED STATES V. CASTRO: THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AUTHORIZES ADMINISTRATIVE IMPOUNDMENTS REGARDLESS OF AN OFFICER'S MOTIVES AS LONG AS THE IMPOUNDMENT IS BASED ON STANDARD POLICE PROCEDURES

Creighton Law Review

Vol. 33

As the law now stands, "[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis."(fn1)

INTRODUCTION

In South Dakota v. Opperman,(fn2) the United States Supreme Court determined that vehicles are impounded by police departments pursuant to a routine practice of securing and conducting an inventory of the automobiles' contents.(fn3) The Supreme Court noted in Opperman that the police officers were conducting a caretaking search of the vehicle after it had been lawfully impounded.(fn4) The Supreme Court further noted that there was no suggestion of pretext to conceal an investigatory police motive because the inventory search in Opperman was conducted after the automobile had been lawfully impounded for multiple parking violations.(fn5) The Court concluded that the procedure used in Opperman to impound and inventory the automobile was a routine practice followed by most law enforcement agencies throughout the country and had been approved by a majority of judicial jurisdictions.(fn6) The Supreme Court has also determined that when police officers are acting objectively and are doing what they are legally authorized to do, the results of the investigations will not be invalidated based on their subjective motives.(fn7)

Recently, in United States v. Castro,(fn8) the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the hidden motives of a police officer will not invalidate a legal impoundment of an automobile when the impoundment is carried out pursuant to standard police procedures.(fn9) The Fifth Circuit noted that a reasonableness inquiry, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, should be analyzed under objective criteria, which does not consider the subjective beliefs of police officers.(fn10) The Fifth Circuit further noted that the automobile had been lawfully impounded after it was stopped and its passengers lawfully arrested for violating the seat belt law.(fn11) In addition, the court stated that after the vehicle's impoundment, a reasonable inventory search was authorized.(fn12) Thus, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that the impoundment and search of the vehicle did not exceed the scope of lawful intrusion under the Fourth Amendment.(fn13)

This Note will first discuss the facts and holding of Castro.(fn14) This Note will then provide an overview of United States Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit case law which forms the basis for the Fifth Circuit's holding in Castro.(fn15) Next, this Note will analyze the Fifth Circuit's conclusion that an officer's subjective motives are irrelevant and will not invalidate a lawful impoundment and authorized inventory search of an automobile carried out pursuant to standard, objective police procedures.(fn16) This Note will conclude that the Fifth Circuit's decision in Castro is consistent with Supreme Court precedent because there has been no suggestion by the Court that a standard police procedure of impounding an automobile will be invalidated by a pretext to conceal an investigatory motive.(fn17)

FACTS AND HOLDING

On November 9, 1995, several agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Houston Police Department conducted a surveillance of Javier Vallejo at a mall in Houston, Texas.(fn18) Vallejo was a suspected narcotics trafficker.(fn19) The officers noticed Vallejo with Susana Gomez and an unidentified Hispanic male.(fn20) The agents witnessed Gomez and the Hispanic male leave the mall in a gray van.(fn21) Gomez was dropped off at K-Mart while her companion, the Hispanic male, made a detour to a known stash house.(fn22) Between ten to fifteen agents pursued the gray van to K-Mart, but observed no illegal activity.(fn23) After stopping at the residence, the van returned to K-Mart where the Hispanic male exited, handed the van keys to Gomez, and then left in another car.(fn24) Gomez then left the K-Mart parking lot and drove the van to a local motel.(fn25) The agents followed Gomez to the motel where Gomez met Edgar Castro and Muriel Cristina Vicencio.(fn26) While at the motel, Gomez, Castro, and Vicencio unloaded full trash bags from the van.(fn27)

Castro left the motel in a rented, blue Chevrolet Suburban, followed by Gomez and Vicencio in separate cars and proceeded to the mall.(fn28) Fifteen minutes after arriving at the mall, the trio left in the Suburban and traveled north on Highway 59.(fn29) Castro was driving the Suburban, Vicencio sat in the front seat, and Gomez sat in the rear seat.(fn30) The agents followed the Suburban for nearly 115 miles through various Texas counties and finally into Polk County.(fn31) The Texas Department of Public Safety informed the agents that they did not have an available unit to stop the vehicle.(fn32) The agents then contacted the Sheriff's Department of Polk County for assistance.(fn33)

Lieutenant Mike Nettles from the sheriff's department received a description of the Suburban and was informed that the Suburban was involved in a narcotics investigation.(fn34) The agents advised Officer Nettles that "he had to 'develop his own probable cause'" in order to stop the vehicle.(fn35) Officer Nettles then positioned his vehicle in the median of Highway 59.(fn36) Officer Nettles watched the Suburban while it passed, noticed that Castro was not wearing a seat belt, and the Suburban appeared to be speeding.(fn37) Officer Nettles followed the Suburban for several miles and determined that it was travelling at sixty-seven miles per hour in a fifty-five mile-per-hour zone.(fn38) In addition, Officer Nettles observed that Vicencio was not wearing a seat belt.(fn39) The Suburban also looked as if it had a heavy rear load, which caused the Suburban to sway slightly.(fn40)

After observing this activity, Officer Nettles stopped the Suburban because Castro and Vicencio were not wearing their seat belts and because Castro was speeding.(fn41) During the initial conversation with Officer Nettles, Castro provided a valid, Maryland driver's license and explained that all of the occupants of the Suburban were from another state.(fn42) Officer Nettles then ran a check on Castro's driver's license and found that he had no outstanding warrants.(fn43) After Officer Nettles received conflicting statements from the occupants of the Suburban and upon observing their nervous demeanor, he arrested Castro and Vicencio for seat belt violations.(fn44) When Castro was arrested, he denied Officer Nettles' request to search the Suburban.(fn45) After Officer Nettles took Castro and Vicencio into custody, he impounded the Suburban, which was taken to the sheriff's department.(fn46) The Suburban was then taken for an inventory search to the Polk County Sally Port.(fn47)

At the sheriff's department, Castro again refused to consent to a search of the Suburban.(fn48) Following this refusal, the sheriff's depart-ment had a trained narcotics detection dog walk around the Suburban.(fn49) The dog alerted officers to the rear of the Suburban.(fn50) Officers entered and searched the rear of the vehicle and uncovered "900 pounds of powder cocaine packaged in two-kilogram bricks," which were contained in many large trash bags.(fn51) Castro, Gomez, and Vicencio were then arrested on drug charges.(fn52)

On December 7, 1995, a federal grand jury indicted the three occupants.(fn53) The indictment included one count for conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,(fn54) and one count under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(fn55) for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute.(fn56) Defendants Castro and Gomez filed motions to suppress the cocaine, arguing that Officer Nettles violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.(fn57) The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held a suppression hearing.(fn58) Following the hearing, the district court denied Castro and Gomez's motions to suppress.(fn59) Castro and Gomez then pled guilty to the charges issued against them and reserved their right of appeal on the suppression issue.(fn60) Castro and Gomez were then sentenced to concurrent terms of 135 months in prison and supervised release for a term of five years.(fn61) Gomez and Castro filed timely notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.(fn62)

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was asked to determine whether the district court erred by not suppressing the evidence found in the Suburban.(fn63) The Fifth Circuit concluded that the officer's possession of the Suburban, for purposes of conducting an inventory search, was pretext to perform an unauthorized search.(fn64) Thus, the Fifth Circuit vacated the convictions of Cas-tro and Gomez and suppressed the evidence obtained during the search of the Suburban.(fn65)

The Fifth Circuit first reviewed the admissibility of the evidence and whether the officer's taking possession of the Suburban for an inventory search was legal.(fn66) The court noted that such an inventory search was an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.(fn67) The court further noted that in the past, inventory searches were conducted for...