Thus, the police were authorized to search the interior of the vehicle as part of the inventory. See, e.g., State v. Whitfield, supra, at 12; State v. Bridges, 8th Dist. No. 80171, 2002-Ohio-3771; State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386. Accordingly, we find that Alexander's counsel was neither ineffective nor was Alexander prejudiced by his counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress.
This court has previously held that it is reasonable to do an inventory search before surrendering a car to a towing company in order to insure the proper accounting of the contents of the car. State v. Bridges, Cuyahoga App. No. 80171, 2002-Ohio-3771; State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386. "In order for an inventory search to be constitutionally valid, it must be `reasonable; `that is, it must be conducted in good faith, not as a pretext for an investigative search, and in accordance with standard police procedures or established routine. " State v. Odavar, Cuyahoga App. No. 89029, 2007-Ohio-5535, citing State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403, 1992-Ohio-63, paragraph one of the syllabus.
We find, however, that the reason for Holbrook's arrest has no bearing on this case other than that she was not permitted to drive Odavar's car. Additionally, this court has previously held that it is reasonable to do an inventory search before surrendering a car to a towing company in order to insure the proper accounting of the contents of the car. State v. Bridges, Cuyahoga App. No. 80171, 2002-Ohio-3771; State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386, 758 N.E.2d 213. Thus, the police were not required to tow the car and then procure a warrant to search the car. {¶ 19} We next consider whether the State provided sufficient evidence that the inventory search was conducted pursuant to Parma's standard towing procedures.
Ohio courts have held that impoundment may be authorized by a police regulation, order, or policy. In State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386, the Eighth Appellate District upheld an impoundment under a police order that authorized an impoundment when a driver is operating a vehicle with a suspended license, even though the defendant was arrested while he was out of the vehicle and the car was parked twenty feet away from the location where he was arrested. The court held:
Id. Testimony introducing standard policy procedures, although not in writing, is sufficient to show lawful reasons for impoundment. See State v. Semenchuk (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 30, 40, 701 N.E.2d 19, 25-26; State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386. {¶ 84} A review of Deputy Bobb's testimony indicates the police department had a standard, routine policy and officer Bobb conformed his search to said policy.
Inventories of impounded vehicles are an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment because they are administrative rather than investigatory in nature. State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386, 389. The inventory which produced the drugs in defendant's car, therefore, was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
) {¶ 58} In State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386, 389-390, 758 N.E.2d 213, we recently stated: {¶ 59} In Colorado v. Bertine (1987), 479 U.S. 367, 375-376, 93 L.Ed.2d 739, 107 S.Ct. 738, the United States Supreme Court appeared to approve without conditions vehicle impoundments if they are routine and are authorized by standardized procedures.
The court likewise relied on credible evidence to approve the Cleveland Police inventory of the contents of the vehicle. See State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386. Although Robinson argued that his passenger could have driven the vehicle away, he failed to present any credible evidence whatsoever to support this argument, particularly since the passenger had been arrested for a drug law violation as well. Finally, competent credible evidence supported the court's factual determination that the police were entitled to search Robinson for weapons after they observed him making furtive gestures beneath the seat of his car after being stopped.
In State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386, 389, we stated: The inventory exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment permits the police to conduct a warrantless search to produce an inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle.