inventory search exception in Indiana

16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lamont Wilford v. State of Indianagreen ind · 2016 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2018 2 sentences 2018Because we conclude that the handgun was admissible under the inventory search exception, we need not address the State's other arguments. [21] The inventory search is one exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement "since it serves an administrative, not investigatory, purpose-because when police lawfully impound a vehicle, they must also perform an administrative inventory search to document the vehicle's contents to preserve them for the owner and protect themselves against claims of lost or stolen property." Wilford v. State , 50 N.E.3d 371 , 374 (Ind. 2016). 2018The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement that “serves an administrative, not investigatory, purpose—because when police lawfully impound a vehicle, they must also perform an administrative inventory search to document the vehicle’s contents to preserve them for the owner and protect themselves against claims of lost or stolen property.” Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371, 374 (Ind. 2016).	2	3
Fair v. Stategreen ind · 1993 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–2018 2 sentences 2018“Consequently, proper impoundment is the ‘threshold question’ to valid inventory search.” Id. (quoting Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 431 (Ind. 1993)). 1998Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372-73 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 435 (Ind.1993).	2	2
State v. Rhodesgreen indctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020The State argues that the decision to impound the vehicle was proper as it was authorized by statute and under the police’s discretionary community-caretaking function. [25] The Indiana Supreme Court has held the inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement that “serves an administrative, not investigatory, purpose—because when police lawfully impound a vehicle, they must also perform an administrative inventory search to document the vehicle’s contents 5 To the extent Farris cites State v. Rhodes, we note in that case the State was appealing a negative judgment and the Court ob 2020The Court in Rhodes observed that the police officer who conducted a traffic stop “estimated that Rhodes turned his signal on about 150 feet before turning, but the record [did] not reflect whether there was at least 200 feet between the place where he turned onto Market Street and the place where he turned onto the Angie’s List property.” Id.	1	1
Gibson v. Stategreen indctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See, e.g. , Gibson v. State , 733 N.E.2d 945 , 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (denoting the rationale for inventory searches).	1	1
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976).	1	1
Berry v. Stategreen indctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See Berry v. State, 967 N.E.2d 87 , 92 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (concluding that the search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment and declining to address Berry’s state constitutional claim).	1	1
Randall Brown v. State of Indianagreen indctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See Brown v. State , 118 N.E.3d 763 , 768-69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (under Article 1, section 11, an inventory search does not allow law enforcement to open locked containers inside a vehicle "because an inventory search is an exception to the requirement for a search warrant, and the exception was created to protect private property, protect police from claims of missing property, and protect police from danger"); State v. Lucas , 859 N.E.2d 1244 , 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (opening a locked metal box inside a vehicle, pursuant to an inventory search, was unreasonable under Article 1, Section 1	1	1
Wilson v. Stategreen ind · 2002 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind. 2002).	1	1
Friend v. Stategreen indctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See Friend v. State, 858 N.E.2d 646, 652 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (to comply with reasonableness standards, an inventory search must comply with “standard police procedures”). 6 Conclusion [18] The search of Anderson’s jacket was not lawful as a search incident to arrest or an inventory search; thus, the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the handgun into evidence.	1	1
State v. Hawkinsgreen indctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013We need not address Dowdell’s inventory search argument because, even if we were to conclude that the search was improper under the inventory search exception, we 8 note that “when a trained and experienced police officer detects the strong and distinctive odor of burnt marijuana coming from a vehicle, the officer has probable cause to search the vehicle.” State v. Hawkins, 766 N.E.2d 749, 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Colorado v. Bertine green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 1988Colorado v. Bertine (1987), 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ; Illinois v. Lafayette (1983), 462 U.S. 640 , 103 S.Ct. 2605 , 77 LEd.2d 65; and Opperman, supra. In describing the nature of the inventory search exception, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Bertine: In the present case, as in Opperman and Lafayette, there was no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. 1988Colorado v. Bertine (1987), 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ; Illinois v. Lafayette (1983), 462 U.S. 640 , 103 S.Ct. 2605 , 77 LEd.2d 65; and Opperman, supra. In describing the nature of the inventory search exception, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Bertine: In the present case, as in Opperman and Lafayette, there was no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation.	2	1988–1998
State v. Lucas green indctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2019See Brown v. State , 118 N.E.3d 763 , 768-69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (under Article 1, section 11, an inventory search does not allow law enforcement to open locked containers inside a vehicle "because an inventory search is an exception to the requirement for a search warrant, and the exception was created to protect private property, protect police from claims of missing property, and protect police from danger"); State v. Lucas , 859 N.E.2d 1244 , 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (opening a locked metal box inside a vehicle, pursuant to an inventory search, was unreasonable under Article 1, Section 1	1	2019–2019
Phillip Whitley v. State of Indiana green indctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2018"A valid inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement." Whitley v. State , 47 N.E.3d 640 , 645, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied .	1	2018–2018
Timmie Bradley v. State of Indiana green ind · 2016 1 sentence 2018"When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search." Bradley , 54 N.E.3d at 999 . [20] The parties addressed only the inventory search exception before the trial court.	1	2018–2018
Katz v. United States green scotus · 1967 1 sentence 2013Id. 5 Moffitt challenges the admission of the television into evidence on the basis that the search did not pass muster under the inventory search exception, which is the justification the State sought in order to admit the evidence.	1	2013–2013
Payton v. New York green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2009At least one other recognized exception, the so-called "special needs" doctrine, relieves law enforcement of both requirements, see Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), while others, such as the "automobile exception" and "exigent circumstances," relieve law enforcement of the warrant requirement, but still require probable cause, see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 575-76 , 111 S.Ct 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 4 . 2009At least one other recognized exception, the so-called "special needs" doctrine, relieves law enforcement of both requirements, see Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), while others, such as the "automobile exception" and "exigent circumstances," relieve law enforcement of the warrant requirement, but still require probable cause, see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 575-76 , 111 S.Ct 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 4 .	1	2009–2009
California v. Acevedo green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2009At least one other recognized exception, the so-called "special needs" doctrine, relieves law enforcement of both requirements, see Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), while others, such as the "automobile exception" and "exigent circumstances," relieve law enforcement of the warrant requirement, but still require probable cause, see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 575-76 , 111 S.Ct 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 4 . 2009At least one other recognized exception, the so-called "special needs" doctrine, relieves law enforcement of both requirements, see Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), while others, such as the "automobile exception" and "exigent circumstances," relieve law enforcement of the warrant requirement, but still require probable cause, see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 575-76 , 111 S.Ct 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 4 .	1	2009–2009
Griffin v. Wisconsin green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2009At least one other recognized exception, the so-called "special needs" doctrine, relieves law enforcement of both requirements, see Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), while others, such as the "automobile exception" and "exigent circumstances," relieve law enforcement of the warrant requirement, but still require probable cause, see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 575-76 , 111 S.Ct 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 4 . 2009At least one other recognized exception, the so-called "special needs" doctrine, relieves law enforcement of both requirements, see Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), while others, such as the "automobile exception" and "exigent circumstances," relieve law enforcement of the warrant requirement, but still require probable cause, see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 575-76 , 111 S.Ct 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 4 .	1	2009–2009
Florida v. Wells green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 1998Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372-73 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 435 (Ind.1993). 1998Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372-73 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 435 (Ind.1993).	1	1998–1998
Eguia v. State green indctapp · 1984 1 sentence 1990Eguia v. State (1984), Ind.App., 468 N.E.2d 559, 567 .	1	1990–1990
Illinois v. Lafayette green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1988Colorado v. Bertine (1987), 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ; Illinois v. Lafayette (1983), 462 U.S. 640 , 103 S.Ct. 2605 , 77 LEd.2d 65; and Opperman, supra. In describing the nature of the inventory search exception, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Bertine: In the present case, as in Opperman and Lafayette, there was no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. 1988Colorado v. Bertine (1987), 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 ; Illinois v. Lafayette (1983), 462 U.S. 640 , 103 S.Ct. 2605 , 77 LEd.2d 65; and Opperman, supra. In describing the nature of the inventory search exception, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Bertine: In the present case, as in Opperman and Lafayette, there was no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation.	1	1988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IN § Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 51 (2007–2026) OH 27 (1990–2024) MI 16 (1981–2026) IN 16 (1988–2020) TX 10 (1984–2026) NM 10 (1993–2023) LA 9 (1978–2008) FL 7 (1979–2025) VA 7 (1980–2025) IL 6 (1978–2025) CO 6 (1984–2019) MO 6 (1979–2016) NE 6 (2017–2023) CA 6 (1994–2025) MD 5 (1979–2025) ND 5 (1990–2023) TN 5 (1992–2015) MN 5 (2004–2016) NY 5 (1989–2021) NJ 4 (1993–2026) ID 4 (1983–2023) WA 4 (2015–2019) MA 4 (2002–2019) NH 3 (1985–2011) NC 3 (1981–2014) AL 3 (1982–1988) KS 3 (2007–2024) MT 2 (2009–2015) MS 2 (1981–2023) WI 2 (1990–2003) SC 2 (2014–2018) HI 2 (1984–1988) AR 2 (1997–2005) NV 2 (2000–2024) AK 2 (1979–1996)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check