Opinion
No. 3-133 / 02-0713.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, ARTHUR E. GAMBLE, Judge.
William Dale Nelson appeals his convictions for multiple counts of possession of precursor substances with intent to manufacture a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean Pettinger, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Cox, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.
Nelson appeals his convictions for multiple counts of possession of precursor substances with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(4) and possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 124.401(5) (2001). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Nelson was detained and searched by employees of the Urbandale Hy-Vee store after he was seen leaving the store with unpaid merchandise. The search yielded several boxes of Sudafed, lithium batteries, and inhalers commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine. Urbandale police were summoned, and Nelson was arrested.
At the time of his arrest, Nelson's van was parked alongside the sidewalk in front of the store. After finding no one in or available to drive Nelson's van, it was impounded. A subsequent inventory search of the van by Urbandale police yielded additional items commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine.
Prior to trial Nelson moved to suppress the items seized during the warrantless inventory search of his van. He claimed the search was conducted for investigatory reasons rather than administrative reasons pursuant to a reasonable standardized procedure. The resulting Fourth Amendment violation, Nelson argued, necessitated exclusion of the evidence seized from his van. The trial court rejected Nelson's suppression theory, stating:
The City of Urbandale Police Department has both a written and unwritten policy of standardized criteria for impoundment of vehicles by officers. The written policy states, "The decision to impound a vehicle shall be determined by the individual officer. The officer may use discretion to decide whether to impound or park and lock the vehicle; however, if the vehicle is not impounded, an inventory is not authorized." Unwritten standardized criteria of the Urbandale Police Department limit the discretion of the officer. Following the arrest of the operator of the vehicle, if no other licensed operator is available, police will impound an illegally parked vehicle. Police will also impound a vehicle parked on private property at the request of the property owner.
In this case, Nelson was arrested for shoplifting at the Hy-Vee store in Urbandale. A van registered to Nelson was parked in front of the store parallel to the front sidewalk, not in a marked parking stall. There was no licensed driver of this van available other than Nelson. After discussion with store management, the police reasonably concluded management did not want the police to park and lock Defendant's vehicle in front of the store. Accordingly, in the exercise of their discretion pursuant to the standardized criteria of the Urbandale Police Department, the officers decided to impound Nelson's van. This was consistent with the standardized criteria of the department and was not done solely for the purpose of a criminal investigation.
As noted earlier, Nelson was convicted as charged, resulting in this appeal. On appeal Nelson claims the evidence seized during the warrantless inventory search of his van should have been suppressed and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
II. Scope of Review.
Because Nelson's claims implicate his constitutional rights, our review is de novo. State v. Howard, 509 N.W.2d 764, 757 (Iowa 1993).
III. The Merits.
The threshold question is whether Nelson's vehicle was properly impounded. State v. Huisman, 544 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1996). In making this determination, we look for the existence of reasonable standardized procedures and a purpose other than investigation of criminal activity. Id. at 437. The standardized procedures need not be exclusively written. Id. An impoundment inventory search is invalid only if the sole purpose of the search is to investigate criminal activity. Id at 439. We examine the record to determine, when viewed objectively, if there was an administrative reason to impound and search the vehicle. Id. The critical concern is the prevention of arbitrary searches under an impoundment policy that grants officers too much discretion. Id.
As the foregoing findings of fact indicate, the Urbandale Police Department's impound policy limits inventory searches to impounded vehicles. The policy further provides for the impoundment of a vehicle following the arrest of its owner in the absence of another licensed driver to remove the vehicle. The same policy provides for impoundment of vehicles illegally parked on private property at the request of the property owner. Contrary to Nelson's claims, we find these impoundment policies are sufficiently restrictive of Urbandale police officers' impoundment discretion to avoid the arbitrary searches referred to in Huisman. Because the trial court's findings of fact are abundantly supported by the record, we adopt them as our own and affirm its ruling denying Nelson's motion to suppress.