Gilbert v. State

548 P.3d 1

Jesse Calvin GILBERT, Appellant,

v.The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 85564

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Filed May 9, 2024

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a no-contest plea, of ex-felon in possession of a firearm. Tenth Judicial District Court, Churchill County; Thomas L. Stockard, Judge.

Evenson Law Office and Steve E. Evenson, Fallon, for Appellant.

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Carson City; Arthur E. Mallory, District Attorney, and Chelsea D. Sanford, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Churchill County, for Respondent.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, CADISH, C.J., and PICKERING and BELL, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, CADISH, C.J.:

The inventory search is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Generally, if an inventory search complies with standardized procedures, it is reasonable and therefore constitutional. We have previously recognized that even when an inventory search does not comply with standardized procedures, it may still be constitutional if it is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. We are called on today to address how courts should conduct this reasonableness analysis. First, we clarify that while an inventory search cannot be a ruse for general rummaging, an investigatory motive does not necessarily invalidate an inventory search so long as the search that occurred is the same as the inventory-based search that would have happened absent any such motivation and the circumstances leading to the search were not created as a ruse to establish a basis for that search. Instead, a court deciding a suppression motion must determine the search’s reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances by evaluating (1) the extent to which law enforcement departed from the standardized procedures, (2) whether the scope of the search was as expected in light of the underlying justifications for inventory searches, and (3) whether the inventory produced served the purposes of an inventory search.

Here, a law enforcement deputy pulled over appellant Jesse Calvin Gilbert because the car Gilbert was driving did not have an operating license plate light. As Gilbert had an active warrant, the deputy arrested him. During the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle, the deputy made several statements that indicated the deputy hoped to locate incriminating evidence in the vehicle. While searching, the deputy found a handgun under the driver's seat, Gilbert was charged with ex-felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that the search was not a true inventory search, but rather a ruse to conduct an investigatory search. Finding that the deputy appropriately impounded the vehicle and the inventory search was reasonable, the district court denied the motion. Gilbert appeals from his subsequent conviction based on the search and resulting unsuppressed evidence.

Perceiving no error in the district court’s decision denying the motion to suppress, we affirm. The investigatory motive here does not invalidate the inventory search because the search that occurred was precisely the same as the search that would have occurred absent the impure motivation, Because the deputy properly stopped Gilbert for the nonfunctioning license plate light and arrested Gilbert on the outstanding warrant, the deputy was required under police policy to tow the car Gilbert was driving. Therefore, the search that uncovered the gun would have occurred pursuant to the inventory search policy even absent the deputy’s investigatory motives. Additionally, we conclude that while the inventory search here did not comply with standardized policies, it passes constitutional muster because it was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, as the district court concluded.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the early morning hours, Deputy Nollan of the Churchill County Sheriff’s Office observed two vehicles enter a parking lot, meet up, and leave the parking lot a short time later. Deputy Nollan followed one of the vehicles and initiated a traffic stop because it did not have an operating license plate light. Appellant Jesse Calvin Gilbert, who was driving the vehicle, pulled over and stopped in a private residential driveway.

Deputy Nollan approached the vehicle and recognized Gilbert from prior law enforcement contact. Gilbert indicated to Deputy Nollan that he was driving on a suspended license. Deputy Nollan confirmed this information with dispatch and was informed that Gilbert had an active arrest warrant. Deputy Nollan arrested Gilbert, after which other officers, including Deputy Nollan’s supervisor, arrived on the scene. Deputy Nollan told his supervisor that he wanted to search the car and that he intended to tow it.

Before Gilbert was transported to jail, he made a phone call to an unidentified woman. Either Gilbert or the unidentified woman asked Deputy Nollan if the woman could take the car, which Deputy Nollan refused because the vehicle was being illegally operated on a roadway, such that the vehicle had to be towed. Shortly after, a woman approached the officers and identified herself as Lauren Sealock. She asked the officers if she could take the vehicle, stating that she was a friend of the residents of the house in front of which the car was parked, to which Deputy Nollan said no. A different officer transported Gilbert to jail, and Deputy Nollan searched Gilbert’s vehicle.

Among other items, Deputy Nollan found a handgun under the driver’s seat approximately one minute into the search. The entire search, which was captured on Deputy Nollan’s body-camera video, lasted roughly 15 minutes, during which Deputy Nollan searched the car door pockets, the floor, under the seats, and in the trunk of the car. During the search, another deputy asked Deputy Nollan if he found anything, to which Deputy Nollan responded "not yet" and then "not yet anyway." Deputy Nollan did not apply for or obtain a search warrant.

During the search, the officers interacted with two more people: another unidentified woman and the owner of the residence where Gilbert had pulled over. The woman allegedly co-owned the car Gilbert was driving and requested to take the vehicle. Deputy Nollan denied this request. The owner of the residence asked the officers what was happening and indicated he needed to leave. Later, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the owner testified that he never gave Gilbert permission to park in his driveway.

After the search, Deputy Nollan completed a Churchill County Sheriff’s Office Vehicle Inventory/Impound Sheet, On that sheet, Deputy Nollan listed the following items as "property, tools, or other items in the vehicle": set of golf clubs, two earrings white metal/white stone, black metal ring, two air rifles, and miscellaneous trash. Deputy Nollan failed to include on the inventory sheet several other items that were in the car, including a glass pipe, a substance he suspected to be methamphetamine, and the handgun.

Gilbert was formally charged by information with one count of ex-felon in possession of a firearm. Gilbert filed a motion to suppress evidence of the gun, arguing that the inventory search was a "ruse for the purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of a crime." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Respondent State of Nevada opposed, arguing the vehicle was appropriately impounded and the inventory of the vehicle was not unlawfully excessive.

At the hearing on the motion, Deputy Nollan testified that he stated he was going to tow the vehicle because "[he] was arresting the driver who was also parked in a private driveway." After reviewing his body-camera footage, he admitted that during the stop, he planned to tow the vehicle because it was being operated illegally on the roadway, i.e., dispatch confirmed that Gilbert had a suspended driver’s license. On cross-examination, he stated that he noticed the license plate light was out on Gilbert’s car when it left the parking lot. When asked about his comment that he wanted to go through the car, Deputy Nollan testified that "[i]t was my vehicle stop. It was my arrest. It was my scene. I told my supervisor I wanted to—that I wanted to go through the vehicle because that’s why. It was my arrest … I wanted to be responsible for it." Id. at 74-75. Deputy Nollan acknowledged that he does not always conduct a vehicle inventory following an arrest, but he wanted to do so in this case because "[he] was relatively new on the—on patrol. [He] wanted the experience. [He] wanted to be responsible for it."

Deputy Nollan also testified that the two vehicles meeting in the parking lot "played a part" in his stopping Gilbert and towing the vehicle because he believed the meeting was suspicious, he believed he would find drugs in the car and that was a substantial reason why he decided to search and tow the vehicle. He also testified that he suggested his supervisor search Gilbert’s wallet because he thought it might have dope in it. Deputy Nollan acknowledged that he located a handgun, a glass pipe, and what he presumed to be methamphetamine but did not list them in his inventory. Deputy Nollan, however, listed the gun and possible drugs in his report and turned all three items over to the task force officer. Deputy Nollan admitted that he "made mistakes as far as what items [he] did not list on the form" and lacked proper diligence and documentation for all the items in the car.

Relying on State v. Nye, 136 Nev. 421, 468 P.3d 369 (2020), the district court denied Gilbert’s motion, finding that the inventory search of Gilbert’s vehicle was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, including that (1) law enforcement had an unquestionable right to tow the vehicle because Gilbert was arrested, the car was inoperable due to a nonfunctioning license plate light, and it was dark; (2) the inventory search did not exceed the scope of a proper inventory; (3)...