Filed 3/29/10 Certified for publication 4/14/10 (order attached)

IN TH C!"#T !F $%%$& !F TH 'T$T !F C$&IF!#NI$

FI#'T $%%&&$T (I'T#ICT
(I)I'I!N !N
TH %!%&*
%laintiff and $ppellant*
+,
-I(!N -!#(!N 'H$F#I#*
(efendant and #e.pondent,
$12/000
($la1eda Count2 'uper, Ct,
No, 1/943/)
$t hi. preli1inar2 e4a1ination* defendant -ideon -ordon 'hafrir 1ade a 1otion
under %enal Code .ection 1/30,/ to .uppre.. contraband found in hi. auto1obile* on the
5round the e+idence 6a. di.co+ered a. the re.ult of an ille5al in+entor2 .earch conducted
b2 officer. of the California Hi5h6a2 %atrol, The 1a5i.trate denied the 1otion, The
trial court* ho6e+er* 5ranted defendant7. .ub.e8uent 1otion to .et a.ide the infor1ation
pur.uant to %enal Code .ection 99/, In thi. appeal the di.trict attorne2 challen5e. the
latter rulin5* ar5uin5 e..entiall2 that the trial court 1i.applied 5o+ernin5 Fourth
$1end1ent principle. .et out in Colorado v. Bertine (1903) 439 ",', 393, $. di.cu..ed
belo6* 6e conclude the 1a5i.trate7. initial rulin5 6a. correct and re+er.e the order
5rantin5 the .ection 99/ 1otion,
BACKGROUND
!n $pril 3* 2000* at appro4i1atel2 3:40 a,1,* CH% !fficer. ;ichael Tenne2 and
&eo '1ith .potted a late<1odel .il+er or 5re2 ;ercede. tra+elin5 at a =+er2 hi5h rate of
.peed> on a.tbound I<00 at Trea.ure I.land, The officer. initiated a traffic .top after
pur.uin5 the ;ercede. and 1atchin5 it. .peed at a =little o+er 110 1ile. an hour> a. it
e4ited the ?a2 ?rid5e and entered a.t I</00, The dri+er and .ole occupant @ defendant
@ e4ited I</00 a. directed and parAed the ;ercede. on ;ac$rthur ?oule+ard at it.
inter.ection 6ith ;arAet 'treet* in !aAland, $fter conductin5 a ("I in+e.ti5ation* the
officer. arre.ted defendant for dri+in5 under the influence of alcohol and placed hi1 in
their +ehicle, $t that ti1e the officer. decided to re1o+e and .tore the ;ercede. for
.afeAeepin5 pur.uant to )ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)* rather than lea+e it
parAed 6here it 6a.,
1
!fficer Tenne2 .tated* in effect* that he 6ould not ha+e re1o+ed
the +ehicle had there been =a .ober pa..en5er> to dri+e it .afel2 a6a2* or if it had been
parAed in or near the defendant7. ho1e nei5hborhood, Ho6e+er* the +ehicle 6a. =a
ne6er ;ercede.> parAed in a nei5hborhood in 6hich auto theft and other cri1e. 6ere
co11on, In fact* !fficer Tenne2 .tated he 6ould ha+e re1o+ed any +ehicle fro1 that
nei5hborhood becau.e it 6a. not =a .afe place to Aeep BitC parAed,> !fficer '1ith7.
te.ti1on2 6a. con.i.tent 6ith !fficer Tenne27., He .tated the deci.ion to re1o+e the
+ehicle 6a. ba.ed initiall2 on the fact that it 6a. a =brand ne6 ;ercede.> parAed in a
nei5hborhood Ano6n to hi1 a. a =hi5h cri1e area,>
1
Thi. pro+i.ion confer. on officer. a di.cretionar2 authorit2 to re1o+e a +ehicle follo6in5 a
cu.todial arre.t, That i.* it pro+ide. that a peace officer =1a2 re1o+e> a +ehicle =B6Chen an
officer arre.t. a per.on dri+in5 BtheC +ehicle for an alle5ed offen.e and the officer i.* b2 thi. code
or other la6* re8uired or per1itted to taAe* and doe. taAe* the per.on into cu.tod2,> ()eh, Code*
D 229/1* .ubd, (h)(1),) $ CH% 1anual concernin5 +ehicle re1o+al* i1pound1ent* and .eiEure
practice. (the CH% 1anual)* re+i.ed in Ful2 2003 and applicable at the ti1e of defendant7. arre.t*
6a. .ub1itted into e+idence at the preli1inar2 e4a1ination b2 defendant, The CH% 1anual
ad+i.ed officer. to u.e )ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)* in order =to pro+ide for the
.afeAeepin5 of +ehicle. and the propert2 the2 1a2 contain> after =the dri+er or per.on in control>
ha. been =arre.ted and taAen forth6ith,> The 1anual did not other6i.e .pecif2 factor. to
con.ider 6hen decidin5 re1o+al 6a. nece..ar2 for =.afeAeepin5*> e4cept to re8uire that a
+ehicle not be re1o+ed fro1 pri+ate propert2 o6ned* lea.ed* or rented b2 the dri+er or per.on in
control (for e4a1ple* a pri+ate parAin5 .pace or re.idential propert2),
The CH% 1anual pro+ide. 5uideline. of .tandard practice. once a car i. i1pounded or .tored,
The CH% officer 6ill conduct an in+entor2 of the o6ner7. propert2 to protect the (epart1ent
fro1 clai1. of lo.t* .tolen or +andaliEed propert2, Thi. in+entor2 of ite1. in a le5all2 acce..ible
area i. to be included in the =CH% 100 )ehicle #eport,> If the CH% find. a locked container or
bo4 in the +ehicle it i. not to be opened, Ho6e+er* it. locAed condition i. to be noted in the CH%
100 )ehicle #eport, None of the ite1. in+entoried and .earched after the i1pound here 6ere
locAed or .ealed,
2
$fter 1aAin5 the initial deci.ion to re1o+e the +ehicle for .afeAeepin5* !fficer
'1ith proceeded to conduct an in+entor2 .earch, (urin5 the in+entor2 .earch* 6ithin the
trunA of the ;ercede.* !fficer '1ith found a bo4 containin5 three =lar5e> ba5. of
.u.pected 1ariGuana* a. 6ell a. a paper ba5 containin5 H/0*000 in ca.h, $t that point the
officer. chan5ed their authorit2 for re1o+al fro1 the =.afeAeepin5> pro+i.ion of )ehicle
Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)* to the =.eiEure of e+idence> pro+i.ion of )ehicle
Code .ection 229//,/,
2

Four da2. later* on $pril 3* the di.trict attorne2 filed a co1plaint char5in5
defendant 6ith 1i.de1eanor +iolation. of )ehicle Code .ection. 231/2* .ubdi+i.ion. (a)
and (b) (dri+in5 under the influence)* and 23103* .ubdi+i.ion (a) (recAle.. dri+in5), It
further char5ed defendant 6ith t6o felon2 +iolation. of Health and 'afet2 Code .ection.
113/9 (po..e..ion of 1ariGuana for .ale) and 11390* .ubdi+i.ion (a) (tran.portation or
.ale of 1ariGuana), $t the preli1inar2 e4a1ination* held on 'epte1ber 10* defendant
1ade a 1otion under %enal Code .ection 1/30,/ to .uppre.. the incri1inatin5 e+idence
found durin5 the in+entor2 .earch* ar5uin5 that it 6a. conducted after an i1proper
e4erci.e of di.cretion to i1pound the ;ercede., The 1a5i.trate denied the 1/30,/
1otion after ar5u1ent b2 coun.el and ordered defendant to be held a. char5ed, !n
!ctober 2* defendant pleaded not 5uilt2 to the fore5oin5 char5e.* a. re.tated in an
infor1ation filed 'epte1ber 2/,
!n Fanuar2 13* 2009* defendant filed a 1otion under %enal Code .ection 99/ to
di.1i.. the count. alle5in5 felon2 +iolation. of Health and 'afet2 Code .ection. 113/9
and 11390* .ubdi+i.ion (a), He clai1ed the 1a5i.trate had erred in den2in5 hi. 1otion to
.uppre.. and had held hi1 to an.6er the count. 6ithout rea.onable or probable cau.e,
('ee %en, Code* D 99/* .ubd, (a)(2)(?),) $5ain* defendant did not challen5e the in+entor2
.earch it.elf* but ar5ued the e+idence found durin5 the .earch 6a. inad1i..ible becau.e
2
That i.* on the CH% for1 re8uired to be co1pleted 6hile conductin5 an in+entor2 .earch*
!fficer '1ith cro..ed out )ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h) @ the authorit2 for the
+ehicle re1o+al he had initiall2 6ritten @ and .ub.tituted )ehicle Code .ection 229//,/, The
latter .ection pro+ide.* a1on5 other thin5.* that a peace officer 1a2 re1o+e a +ehicle
=B6Chen , , , a peace officer ha. probable cau.e to belie+e that the +ehicle 6a. u.ed a. the 1ean.
of co11ittin5 a public offen.e,> ()eh, Code* D 229//,/* .ubd, (a),)
3
the arre.tin5 officer. had abu.ed their di.cretion in decidin5 to i1pound the ;ercede.
rather than lea+e it parAed, He rea.oned 1ore particularl2 that the deci.ion to i1pound
had =co1pletel2 i5noreBdC , , , .pecific policie. laid out for B("IC arre.t.> in the CH%
1anual, The.e =policie.> .u11ariEed )ehicle Code .ection 14902,0* 6hich pro+ide. that
a peace officer =1a2 i11ediatel2 cau.e the re1o+al> of a +ehicle 6hen he or .he
deter1ine. that the dri+er ha. been con+icted of one or 1ore .pecified ("I offen.e.
6ithin the pa.t 10 2ear. and the dri+er either i. found to ha+e 0,10 percent of alcohol in
hi. or her blood or refu.e. to co1plete a che1ical te.t 6hen re8ue.ted to do .o, ()eh,
Code* D 14902,0* .ubd, (a)(1),) 'i5nificantl2* the .ection al.o pro+ide. for 1ini1u1
period. of i1pound1ent follo6in5 re1o+al* deter1ined b2 the nu1ber of prior ("I
con+iction., ()eh, Code* D 14902,0* .ubd, (a)(2),) (efendant ar5ued that he had no prior
("I con+iction.* and .ince .ection 14902,0 and the CH% 1anual did not e4pre..l2
authoriEe re1o+al of a +ehicle in hi. .ituation @ a fir.t<ti1e ("I arre.t @ the officer.7
deci.ion to re1o+e hi. +ehicle pur.uant to the .afeAeepin5 pro+i.ion of .ection 229/1*
.ubdi+i.ion (h)* 6a. an i1proper contra+ention of the CH% 1anual7. procedure. ba.ed on
.ection 14902,0,
3

$t the continued hearin5 on the %enal Code .ection 99/ 1otion* held Ful2 31*
2009* the trial court co11ented that the factor. articulated b2 the officer. at the 1/30,/
hearin5* in e4planation of their initial deci.ion to re1o+e the +ehicle for .afeAeepin5
purpo.e.* =.ee1BedC , , , rea.onable> and 6ere =+er2 5ood rea.on. 6h2 the car .hould
ha+e been taAen .o1eplace el.e,> $dditionall2* coun.el for defendant acAno6led5ed the
CH% 1anual re5ulatin5 the (epart1ent7. field practice. in i1poundin5 +ehicle. and
conductin5 in+entor2 .earche. 6a. =about the 1o.t e4ten.i+e I ha+e e+er .een, , , ,
B)Cer2* +er2 detailed,> Iet the court ne+erthele.. e4pre..ed concern that the.e factor.
3
(efendant reiterate. thi. uncon+incin5 ar5u1ent on appeal, Je ob.er+e .i1pl2 that* althou5h
)ehicle Code .ection 14902,0 doe. not authoriEe re1o+al and a 1ini1u1 i1pound1ent period
after a fir.t<ti1e ("I arre.t* thi. i. b2 no 1ean. e8ui+alent to an e4pre.. prohibition a5ain.t
re1o+in5 a +ehicle (6ithout a 1ini1u1 period of i1pound1ent) follo6in5 a cu.todial arre.t for
a fir.t<ti1e ("I offen.e* 6hen the re1o+al deci.ion i. rea.onabl2 ba.ed on other authorit2 .uch
a. the .afeAeepin5 pro+i.ion of )ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h), Indeed* .ection
229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)* pro+ide. an alternative rationale for i1poundin5 the +ehicle in thi. ca.e
and conductin5 the in+entor2 in i..ue,
4
6ere not part of a =.tandardiEed criteria> in accordance 6ith =the Colorado ca.e> @ that
i.* Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 439 ",', 393 (Bertine), The trial court concluded the CH%
1anual lacAed =5uideline. in under.tandin5 6hat .afeAeepin5 1ean.* .uch that e+er2
CH% officer 6ould , , , BKC , , , at lea.t anal2Ee the 8ue.tion , , , ba.ed upon the .a1e
factor.,> The court 5ranted the .ection 99/ 1otion* and thi. appeal follo6ed, (%en,
Code* D 1230* .ubd, (a)(1),)
DISCUSSION
In Bertine, ?oulder Cit2 police effected a cu.todial arre.t of defendant ?ertine for
dri+in5 under the influence of alcohol, $ bacAup officer conducted an in+entor2 .earch
of defendant7. +an before ha+in5 it to6ed and found contraband and ca.h, (Bertine,
supra, 439 ",', 393* 390@399,) The officer. had decided to i1pound the +ehicle under
authorit2 of a Colorado .tatute al1o.t identical to )ehicle Code .ection 229/1*
.ubdi+i.ion (h) @ the initial authorit2 on 6hich the CH% officer. relied in thi. ca.e, ('ee
Bertine, supra, at p, 390* fn, 1L cf, fn, 1* ante.) The "nited 'tate. 'upre1e Court reGected
the ar5u1ent that the in+entor2 .earch of the +an 6a. uncon.titutional becau.e the
Colorado .tatute and depart1ental re5ulation. 5a+e the police di.cretion to choo.e
bet6een i1poundin5 it or locAin5 it in a public place, The 1aGorit2 held* in effect* that
Fourth $1end1ent protection. did not =prohibitBC the e4erci.e of police di.cretion .o
lon5 a. that di.cretion B6a.C e4erci.ed accordin5 to .tandard criteria and on the ba.i. of
.o1ethin5 other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity,> (Bertine, supra, at p,
33/* e1pha.i. added,) Notin5 there had been no .ho6in5 that the police had cho.en to
i1pound the +an in order to in+e.ti5ate .u.pected cri1inal acti+it2 or other6i.e acted in
bad faith* the 1aGorit2 concluded the ?older police had e4erci.ed their di.cretion =in li5ht
of .tandardiEed criteria> (id. at pp, 33/@339) @ a police directi+e that both
=circu1.cribeBedC the di.cretion of indi+idual officer.> and al.o protected the +ehicle and
it. content. and 1ini1iEed clai1. of propert2 lo.., (Id. at p, 339* fn, 3,)
In Florida v. Wells (1990) 49/ ",', 1* the 'upre1e Court a5ain faced an in+entor2
.earch after a ("I arre.t, The 1aGorit2 held .o1e de5ree of police di.cretion in openin5
/
an ite1 found durin5 an in+entor2 .earch i. entirel2 appropriate under the Fourth
$1end1ent, = MNothin5 , , , BpCrohibit. the e4erci.e of police di.cretion .o lon5 a. that
di.cretion i. e4erci.ed accordin5 to .tandard criteria and on the ba.i. of .o1ethin5 other
than .u.picion of e+idence of cri1inal acti+it2,7 BCitation,C> (Florida v. Wells, supra, at
pp, 3@4,) $ 1echanical rule that in.i.t. on co+erin5 all or nothin5 i. too infle4ible, =$
police officer 1a2 be allo6ed .ufficient latitude to deter1ine 6hether a particular
container .hould or .hould not be opened in li5ht of the nature of the .earch and BtheC
characteri.tic. of the container it.elf, , , , The allo6ance of Bthi.C e4erci.e of
Gud51ent , , , doe. not +iolate the Fourth $1end1ent,> (Id. at p, 4,)
The di.trict attorne2 ar5ue. chiefl2 that the trial court erred in 5rantin5 defendant7.
1otion under %enal Code .ection 99/* becau.e it 1i.interpreted the principle. of Bertine
and Wells .o a. to =di.card funda1ental Fourth $1end1ent principle. in thi. area of the
la6 b2 re8uirin5 that to6in5 deci.ion. be ba.ed on .o1ethin5 other than* or in addition
to* obGecti+e rea.onablene..,>
Jhen* a. here* a 1a5i.trate rule. on a 1otion to .uppre.. under %enal Code
.ection 1/30,/ rai.ed at the preli1inar2 e4a1ination* he or .he .it. a. the finder of fact
6ith the po6er to Gud5e credibilit2* re.ol+e conflict.* 6ei5h e+idence* and dra6
inference., In re+ie6in5 the 1a5i.trate7. rulin5 on a .ub.e8uent 1otion under %enal
Code .ection 99/* the .uperior court .it. a. a re+ie6in5 court @ it 1u.t dra6 e+er2
le5iti1ate inference in fa+or of the infor1ation* and cannot .ub.titute it. Gud51ent for
that of the 1a5i.trate on i..ue. of credibilit2 or 6ei5ht of the e+idence, !n re+ie6 of the
.uperior court rulin5 b2 appeal or 6rit* 6e in effect di.re5ard the rulin5 of the .uperior
court and directl2 re+ie6 the deter1ination of the 1a5i.trate, In doin5 .o 6e dra6 all
pre.u1ption. in fa+or of the 1a5i.trate7. e4pre.. or i1plied factual deter1ination. and
9
1u.t uphold the1 if the2 are .upported b2 .ub.tantial e+idence,
4
('ee People v. Laiwa
(1903) 34 Cal,3d 311* 310,)
Thu.* the rea.on. .tated b2 the trial court in 5rantin5 defendant7. %enal Code
.ection 99/ 1otion are* .trictl2* not rele+ant, ('ee People v. Wimberly (1992) /
Cal,$pp,4th 439* 443,) The critical i..ue i. 6hether the 1a5i.trate 6a. correct in
den2in5 defendant7. 1otion to .uppre.., $. to thi. i..ue* 6e defer to the 1a5i.trate7.
factual deter1ination. 6hen .upported b2 .ub.tantial e+idence* but e4erci.e our
independent Gud51ent in deter1inin5 6hether* on .uch fact.* the challen5ed .earch 6a.
rea.onable under the Fourth $1end1ent, (People v. laser (199/) 11 Cal,4th 3/4* 392,)
In !outh "akota v. #pperman (1939) 420 ",', 394 (#pperman)* the 1aGorit2
ob.er+ed that police fre8uentl2 i1pound +ehicle. a. part of their =co11unit2 caretaAin5>
function* and an in+entor2 .earch of a +ehicle* once la6full2 i1pounded pur.uant to thi.
function* further. three le5iti1ate purpo.e.: the protection of the +ehicle o6ner7.
propert2 6hile in police cu.tod2* the protection of police a5ain.t clai1. of lo.. or da1a5e
to ite1. 6ithin the +ehicle* and the protection of police fro1 potentiall2 dan5erou. ite1.
that 1i5ht be 6ithin the +ehicle, (Id. at pp, 390@399,) The #pperman court e1pha.iEed
that the critical i..ue under the Fourth $1end1ent i. 6hether a .earch i. unreasonable*
and rea.onablene.. 1u.t be deter1ined under all the circu1.tance., (#pperman, supra,
at pp, 332@333,) The 1aGorit2 concluded that an in+entor2 .earch of a locAed +ehicle*
conducted pur.uant to =.tandard police procedure.> after the +ehicle 6a. la6full2
i1pounded* 6a. not =unrea.onable,> (Id. at pp, 332* 339,)
$. noted abo+e* the court in Bertine, supra, 439 ",', 393 .tated that the Fourth
$1end1ent doe. not prohibit the e4erci.e of police di.cretion to i1pound a +ehicle =.o
lon5 a. that di.cretion i. e4erci.ed accordin5 to .tandard criteria,> (Bertine, supra, at p,
4
In .u11ariEin5 the fact. abo+e* 6e ha+e accordin5l2 e4a1ined the e+idence ad1itted at the
preli1inar2 e4a1ination in the li5ht 1o.t fa+orable to the 1a5i.trate7. order den2in5 defendant7.
1otion to .uppre..* re.ol+in5 conflict. and dra6in5 rea.onable inference. in it. fa+or, ('ee
People v. $olina (1994) 2/ Cal,$pp,4th 1030* 1041,) 'i1ilarl2 6e decline to addre.. ar5u1ent.
5rounded on credibilit2* .uch a. defendant7. attacA on the te.ti1on2 b2 both CH% officer. that
the initial ba.i. for their deci.ion to re1o+e defendant7. +ehicle 6a. the .afeAeepin5 pro+i.ion of
)ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)* and not the .eiEure of e+idence pro+i.ion of )ehicle
Code .ection 229//,/, ('ee fn, 2* ante, and acco1pan2in5 te4t,)
33/,) It i. notable* ho6e+er* that the court 6ent on to .tate that it. deci.ion 6a. 5o+erned
b2 the principle. enunciated in #pperman, supra, 420 ",', 394, (Bertine, supra, at p,
339,) Thu. it .ee1. clear that the 1aGorit2 in Bertine did not intend to i1po.e a
cate5orical te.t @ re8uirin5 that a deci.ion to i1pound a +ehicle be 5o+erned in all
in.tance. b2 =.tandard criteria> @ that 6ould .upplant the 5o+ernin5 principle. .tated in
#pperman. In other 6ord.* the o+erarchin5 te.t under the Fourth $1end1ent re1ain.
the .a1e a. for an2 other challen5ed .earch @ 6hether it 6a. =unrea.onable> under all the
circu1.tance., $. the 1aGorit2 in #pperman noted* appl2in5 the Fourth $1end1ent
.tandard of rea.onablene.. to in+entor2 .earche. i. con.titutionall2 per1itted,
(#pperman, supra* at pp, 399@331,)
#ecent deci.ion. b2 the federal court of appeal. are in.tructi+e on thi. point, In
%nited !tates v. Coccia (1.t Cir, 2009) 449 F,3d 233 (Coccia)* the Fir.t Circuit reGected a
contention that the =ab.ence of .tandardiEed criteria> in+alidated a police deci.ion to
i1pound a +ehicle, That court did =not under.tand Bertine to 1ean that an i1pound1ent
deci.ion 1ade 6ithout the e4i.tence of .tandard procedure. i. per .e uncon.titutionalB but
rCather , , , to indicate that an i1pound1ent deci.ion 1ade pur.uant to .tandardiEed
procedure. 6ill 1o.t liAel2* althou5h not nece..aril2 al6a2.*
B
5
C
.ati.f2 the Fourth
$1end1ent,> (Coccia, supra, at p, 230,) The court noted that = Mpolice cannot .en.ibl2
be e4pected to ha+e de+eloped* in ad+ance* .tandard protocol. runnin5 the entire 5a1ut
of po..ible e+entualitie.B butC 1u.t be free , , , to choo.e freel2 a1on5 the a+ailable
option.* .o lon5 a. the option cho.en i. 6ithin the uni+er.e of rea.onable choice.,7 > (Id.
at p, 239* 8uotin5 %nited !tates v. &odri'ue()$orales (1.t Cir, 1991) 929 F,2d 300* 303,)
The court held that the proper deter1ination i. 6hether a deci.ion to i1pound pur.uant to
5
For e4a1ple* the Ninth Circuit deter1ined in the conte4t of a ci+il action that a deci.ion to
re1o+e a +ehicle fro1 the o6ner7. dri+e6a2* althou5h 1ade pur.uant to local ordinance and
.tate .tatute* 6a. ne+erthele.. unrea.onable under the Fourth $1end1ent, ($iranda v. City of
Cornelius (9th Cir, 200/) 429 F,3d 0/0* 094@09/,) The +ehicle 6a. parAed in the dri+e6a2 of
the .ubGect, Ho6e+er* 6hen the +ehicle i. on a public road and e4po.ed to +andali.1 or theft*
i1poundin5 the auto1obile and in+entor2in5 it. content. i. not unrea.onable, (%nited !tates v.
*ensen (9th Cir, 200/) 42/ F,3d 990* 309L +allstrom v. City of arden City (9th Cir, 1993) 991
F,2d 1433* 1433* fn, 4,)
the co11unit2 caretaAin5 function i. rea.onable ba.ed on all the fact. and circu1.tance.,
(Coccia, supra, at p, 239,)
'i1ilarl2* the court in %nited !tates v. !mith (3rd Cir, 2000) /22 F,3d 30/ (!mith)
held that a cit2 police officer7. deci.ion to i1pound a +ehicle 6a. rea.onable under the
Fourth $1end1ent* de.pite the fact that the cit27. police depart1ent had no
=.tandardiEed polic2 re5ardin5 the i1pound1ent and to6in5 of +ehicle.> at the ti1e,
(!mith, supra, at pp, 310* 314@31/,) In doin5 .o* the Third Circuit e4pre..l2 adopted the
rationale of Coccia, supra, and concluded that the officer7. deci.ion to i1pound @ in
order to a+oid lea+in5 the +ehicle in an area 6here it 6a. .ubGect to bein5 da1a5ed*
+andaliEed* or .tolen @ 6a. rea.onable under the circu1.tance.. (!mith, supra, at pp,
314@31/,)
California court. ha+e al.o pa..ed on the appropriatene.. of police Gud51ent to
i1pound a +ehicle and in+entor2 it. content., In People v. ,eedham (2000) 39
Cal,$pp,4th 290* Tulare Count2 'heriff deputie. decided to i1pound a 1otorc2cle
parAed in &edbetter %arA 6hich had e4pired re5i.tration ta5., $ duffle ba5 6a. attached
to the c2cle, The .heriff7. depart1ent had no 6ritten polic2 dealin5 6ith i1poundin5
+ehicle. and conductin5 in+entor2 .earche., The deputie. in+ol+ed had pre+iou.l2 been
orall2 in.tructed on the pro+i.ion. of the )ehicle Code, $dditionall2* the2 had been
dele5ated .o1e di.cretion to either .eiEe the +ehicle and in+entor2 it. content. or turn it
o+er to a re.pon.ible part2 other than the arre.tee, ;etha1pheta1ine found in the duffle
ba5 6a. properl2 recei+ed at the trial, The reliance on an oral a. oppo.ed to 6ritten
polic2 dealin5 6ith in+entor2 .earche. 6a. not .i5nificant, $dditionall2* di.cretion
6hether to .eiEe all ite1. di.co+ered after i1poundin5 a +ehicle or pa..in5 the1 to a
third part2 i. not inappropriate, The in+entor2 .earch in ,eedham 6a. rea.onable in
.cope,
In People v. !teeley (1909) 210 Cal,$pp,3d 003* the police i1pounded an
auto1obile that had defecti+e headli5ht.* the defendant dri+er 6a. 6ithout identification*
and the checA 6ith (;) di.clo.ed hi. licen.e 6a. .u.pended, $fter decidin5 to
i1pound the +ehicle* and 6hile conductin5 an in+entor2 .earch* the police found a
hand5un in a .leepin5 ba5 in the rear of the car, $ 1otion to .uppre.. 6a. denied, !n
appeal* defendant contended the police operatin5 in the field needed to follo6 6ritten
5uideline. that 6ere .pecific in nature to co+er .ituation. liAe thi., The2 .hould not be
allo6ed to act out.ide 6ritten pro.cribed 5uideline., Ho6e+er* the appellate court
deter1ined that 6ritten .tandard. are not the te.t, In.tead* it found the Gudicial =focu. of
the in8uir2 to deter1ine 6hether the conduct of , , , police , , , i. la6ful under the Fourth
$1end1ent> i. rea.onablene..* citin5 #pperman, supra, 420 ",', 394* 331@332,
(People v. !teeley, supra, at p, 091,) =It i. 6ell .ettled that in+entorie. of i1pounded
+ehicle. are rea.onable 6here the proce.. i. ai1ed at .ecurin5 or protectin5 the car and
it. content.,> (Ibid.)
Je find the rea.onin5 of Coccia, !mith, ,eedham and !teeley, supra, to be
per.ua.i+e, Je* too* read Bertine to indicate that an i1pound1ent deci.ion 1ade
pur.uant to .tandardiEed criteria i. 1ore liAel2 to .ati.f2 the Fourth $1end1ent than one
not 1ade pur.uant to .tandardiEed criteria, (Coccia, supra, 449 F,3d 233* 230,)
Ho6e+er* the ulti1ate deter1ination i. properl2 6hether a deci.ion to i1pound or
re1o+e a +ehicle* pur.uant to the co11unit2 caretaAin5 function* 6a. rea.onable under
all the circu1.tance., (Id. at pp, 239@240,) In thi. ca.e* a. noted abo+e* the CH% officer.
initiall2 decided to re1o+e defendant7. ;ercede. ba.ed on their di.cretionar2 authorit2
under the .afeAeepin5 pro+i.ion of )ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h), There
6a. no e+idence indicatin5 a .u.picion that the +ehicle 6ould contain e+idence of
cri1inal acti+it2, The officer. both articulated the .a1e rea.on. for doin5 .o: to a+oid
lea+in5 a ne6 lu4ur2 car in a Ano6n hi5h<cri1e area of !aAland, 'i1ilar rea.on. 6ere
dee1ed rea.onable under the Fourth $1end1ent in !mith, supra. +en the trial court in
thi. ca.e re5arded the1 a. =rea.onable,> In our +ie6 the officer.7 deci.ion to re1o+e the
+ehicle 6a. rea.onable under all the circu1.tance.,
It i. true .o1e court. ha+e interpreted Bertine to re8uire an i1pound deci.ion to be
5o+erned b2 a rea.onable* .tandard police procedure, ('ee* e,5,* %nited !tates v. Proctor
((,C, Cir, 2003) 409 F,3d 1340* 13/3,) +en if 6e a5reed 6ith thi. interpretation* it
6ould not alter our conclu.ion, The .tandard criteria in thi. ca.e 6a. the di.cretionar2
.afeAeepin5 pro+i.ion of )ehicle Code .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)* 6hich the CH%
1anual ad+i.ed officer. to u.e after a cu.todial arre.t 6hen nece..ar2 =to pro+ide for the
.afeAeepin5 of +ehicle. and the propert2 the2 1a2 contain,> ('ee fn, 1* ante.) In one
recent ca.e* the re+ie6in5 court reGected a contention that .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h)*
6a. .ufficient by itself to +alidate a deci.ion to re1o+e a +ehicle* 6hen the officer
ad1itted that hi. deci.ion 6a. ba.ed onl2 on the fact he had 1ade a cu.todial arre.t and
he failed to =a..ert an2 co11unit2 caretaAin5 Gu.tification,> (People v. Williams (2009)
14/ Cal,$pp,4th 3/9* 393 (Williams),)
6
Here the CH% officer. both te.tified to the .a1e
rea.on for their deci.ion to utiliEe the authorit2 of .ection 229/1* .ubdi+i.ion (h), That
rea.on @ to protect the +ehicle fro1 da1a5e or theft @ 6a. an e1inentl2 rea.onable
co11unit2 caretaAin5 Gu.tification, In thi. ca.e the reliance on .ection 229/1*
.ubdi+i.ion (h)* i. .ufficient to .ati.f2 Bertine becau.e* unliAe the .ituation in Williams,
supra, that reliance i. coupled 6ith te.ti1on2 indicatin5 a rea.onable co11unit2
caretaAin5 Gu.tification, ;oreo+er* .ince both officer. 5a+e the .a1e .afeAeepin5 rea.on*
it i. not unrea.onable to infer that both recei+ed .tandardiEed trainin5 a. to .uch factor.,
('ee People v. !teeley, supra, 210 Cal,$pp,3d 003* 009 B=.tandardiEed procedure> under
Bertine need not be 6rittenC,)
In .u1* 6e conclude that the CH% officer.7 initial deci.ion to re1o+e the +ehicle
6a. rea.onable under the Fourth $1end1ent* and that the 1a5i.trate7. denial of
defendant7. 1otion to .uppre.. e+idence found durin5 the en.uin5 in+entor2 .earch 6a.
accordin5l2 correct,
6
In Williams, the e+idence di.clo.ed there 6a. in.ufficient rea.on to .eiEe the auto1obile and
con.e8uentl2 in+entor2 it. content., (Williams, supra, 14/ Cal,$pp,4th 3/9* 3/0,) The +ehicle
6a. le5all2 parAed at the curb in front of Jillia1.7. re.idence* and 6a. not reported .tolen, (Id.
at p, 3/9,) Nothin5 in Williams appropriatel2 tri55ered the =caretaAin5 function,> (Id. at p, 393,)
In our ca.e* the CH% officer. pro+ided co5ent Gu.tification for i1poundin5 the ;ercede., If the
car had been left in the hi5h<cri1e area and +andaliEed* the recri1ination. about police
1i.Gud51ent 6ould ha+e been .hrill,
DISPOSITION
The order 5rantin5 the 1otion under %enal Code .ection 99/ and di.1i..in5 the
action i. re+er.ed,
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
(ondero* F,
Je concur:
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
;ar5ulie.* $ctin5 %, F,
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
?anAe* F,
12
Filed 4/14/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN TH C!"#T !F $%%$& !F TH 'T$T !F C$&IF!#NI$
FI#'T $%%&&$T (I'T#ICT
(I)I'I!N !N
TH %!%&*
%laintiff and $ppellant*
+,
-I(!N -!#(!N 'H$F#I#*
(efendant and #e.pondent,
$12/000
($la1eda Count2 'uper, Ct, No, 1/943/)
ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION
FOR PUBLICATION
BY THE COURT:
The opinion pre+iou.l2 filed on ;arch 29* 2010* 6a. not certified for publication,
$fter the court7. re+ie6 of a re8ue.t pur.uant to rule 0,1120(b) of the California #ule. of
Court* and 5ood cau.e e.tabli.hed under rule 0,110/* the opinion i. certified for
publication, It i. hereb2 ordered that the opinion be publi.hed in the !fficial #eport.,
(ated: $pril 14* 2010 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
;ar5ulie.* $ctin5 %,F,
Trial Court $la1eda Count2 'uperior Court
Trial Fud5e Honorable Tho1a. #eardon
For %laintiff and $ppellant Nanc2 , !7;alle2* (i.trict $ttorne2 of
$la1eda Count2
$, ;arA Hutchin.* .8,
For (efendant and #e.pondent Cooper &a6 !ffice.
Colin &, Cooper* .8,
Oellin #, Cooper* .8,
(u.tin ;, -ordon* .8,
2