 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Denoncourt4/11/2003
ts. On appeal, the defendant did not challenge the inventory search of the purse. Id. Thus, Psomiades did not hold that the community caretaking exception justified opening and searching the purse.
It is generally the inventory exception that allows the search of closed containers removed from a vehicle. The inventory exception serves to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987); see, e.g., State v. Green, 133 N.H. 249, 253 (1990); State v. Toto, 123 N.H. 619, 623 (1983).
In order to be valid as an inventory search, the search must be conducted pursuant to a neutral police policy. See State v. Finn, 146 N.H. 59, 62 (2001). Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have held that if the police have no policy with respect to the opening of closed containers found in a vehicle during an inventory search, evidence found during such a search will be suppressed. Finn, 146 N.H. at 61; Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1990). Here, the State does not argue that the inventory search exception applies because the police officer testified that he was not aware of any inventory policy that the Manchester Police Department had at the time of the search.
The State invites us to expand the holding in Psomiades and extend the community caretaking exception to the search of the defendant's wallet. We decline the invitation. The expansion of the community caretaking exception on these facts would erode the inventory search exception. The inventory exception, by requiring a police policy for searches of cars and containers in cars, gives police clear guidance and limits their discretion. To generally allow the community caretaking exception to substitute for the established, easily understood and followed, inventory rules would create unnecessary ambiguity in search and seizure law and diminish the protections provided by those rules.
We therefore hold that the superior court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress.
Reversed and remanded.
BROCK, C.J., and NADEAU and DALIANIS, JJ., concurred.
|