Jim v. State

495 P.3d 478

Jay Leslie JIM, a/k/a Jay Lee Jim, a/k/a Little Jay, A/K/A Little J., Appellant,

v.The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 81545

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

Jeff Kump, PLLC, and Jeffrey J. Kump, Elko, for Appellant.

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Carson City; Tyler J. Ingram, District Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Slade, Deputy District Attorney, Elko County, for Respondent.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, CADISH, PICKERING, and HERNDON, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, PICKERING, J.:

Following a lawful stop and arrest, an Elko Police Department (EPD) officer found contraband in appellant Jay Jim's car. The officer observed the contraband during a warrantless inventory search that produced no formal inventory. After the State brought criminal charges against Jim, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the vehicle, alleging that the items were the products and fruits of an illegal search. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the officer validly discovered the evidence under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement of the United States and Nevada Constitutions. Jim appeals from his subsequent judgment of conviction, arguing that the plain-view exception does not apply because the officer did not complete the inventory. But because the officer's presence in the vehicle was legally justified at the time he observed the contraband, we hold that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement applies and therefore affirm.

I.

Officers Joshua Chandler and Jeremy Shelley of the EPD responded to a report of suspicious activity at the Red Lion Hotel parking lot in Elko. When the officers arrived, they encountered Jim attempting to start a silver Chevrolet Impala that he did not own. After calling the car's registered owners and confirming that Jim planned to purchase the Impala, the officers told Jim that they would take "enforcement action" if he drove the car, because its registration was expired. But Jim did not heed this warning—one day later, Chandler saw and stopped Jim driving the same Impala in Elko's West Sage area, still with expired registration. Based on Jim's past failures to appear in court, Chandler arrested Jim for failure to produce valid registration, insurance, and a current driver's license, and for failure to wear a seatbelt.

Shelley responded to the scene as back-up, and after Chandler handcuffed Jim and placed him in the back of the patrol car, Shelley began an impound inventory of the Impala. Under EPD policy, if a car's driver is arrested and is not its registered owner, then the car will be impounded and "an impound inventory will be done and given to the tow truck driver." A different EPD policy applies if the car has "evidentiary value": "When impounding a vehicle of evidentiary value, the vehicle will be secured with evidence tape and the officer will follow the vehicle ... to the police garage where it will be secured for processing." Shelley testified that he initially entered the Impala under the policy for impounded vehicles without evidentiary value, to either turn the car off or retrieve the keys, when he saw the butt of a dock handgun and two small bags of a crystalline-like substance wedged between the driver's seat and center console. Shelley immediately recognized these items as contraband. Shelley and Chandler photographed the firearm and bags in place and on the front seat of the Impala before Shelley removed the items and secured them in his patrol car.

Shelley testified that upon finding the contraband items, he determined that the Impala may have evidentiary value. So, in accordance with the EPD policy for vehicles with evidentiary value, he seized the Impala, followed the car to the police garage, and delivered the car to Officer Jason Checketts, who placed evidence tape on its entry points. At the station, Shelley determined that the dock handgun had been reported stolen, and the crystalline-like substance tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine. With this evidence as grounds for probable cause, Officer Matthew Miller applied for and received a warrant to search the Impala. On executing the warrant, Miller recovered a blue Superior Balance digital scale, a black Weighmax digital scale, and "a paper receipt containing methamphetamine" from the Impala. Miller listed these items on the warrant log, but at no point did Miller, Shelley, or any other EPD officer complete an inventory of personal items in the Impala.

The State charged Jim with trafficking in a schedule I controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and sought punishment under the habitual criminal statute. Jim moved to suppress all evidence recovered from the Impala, alleging that the items were the products and fruits of an illegal search. But the district court concluded that Shelley recovered the firearm and methamphetamine under the plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and denied Jim's motion. Jim pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking a controlled substance under NRS 453.3385(l)(b)¹ and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under NRS 202.360(1). As a term of his plea agreement, Jim reserved the right to appeal the suppression decision and now challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and the resulting judgment of conviction.

II.

The United States and Nevada Constitutions both guarantee "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV ; Nev. Const. art. 1, § 18 ; see also State v. Beckman , 129 Nev. 481, 486, 305 P.3d 912, 916 (2013). A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Lloyd , 129 Nev. 739, 743, 312 P.3d 467, 469 (2013). This court reviews de novo whether a valid exception to the warrant requirement applies. See Beckman , 129 Nev. at 485-86, 305 P.3d at 916 (holding that this court reviews a district court's denial of a motion to suppress de novo as to legal conclusions and that the reasonableness of a search is a legal inquiry); Scott v. State , 110 Nev. 622, 628, 877 P.2d 503, 507 (1994) (noting that a non-owner driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle that he or she lawfully possesses).

The "plain-view" exception to the warrant requirement applies when (1) an officer is lawfully present in a place where evidence can be viewed, (2) the item is in plain view, and (3) the item's incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 136, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990) ; State v. Conners , 116 Nev. 184, 187 n.3, 994 P.2d 44, 46 n.3 (2000). Jim does not contest that the items in question here were in plain view once Shelley entered the Impala, that Shelley immediately recognized the incriminating nature of the items, or that towing of the Impala was reasonable. Accordingly, the narrow issue here is whether Shelley was lawfully present in the Impala when he entered the car to conduct a standard inventory search but never completed the inventory.

To be "lawfully present" under the plain-view exception, a warrant or warrant exception must justify the officer's presence in the first instance. See Horton , 496 U.S. at 136, 110 S.Ct. 2301 (holding that the officer must not have "violate[d] the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed"). And an inventory search carried out in good-faith compliance with "standardized official department procedures" is a well-established exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Weintraub v. State , 110 Nev. 287, 288, 871 P.2d 339, 340 (1994) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman , 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) ); see also Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987). An officer's compliance with standard procedures ensures that an inventory search is truly "designed to produce an inventory" and is not just "a ruse for a general rummaging ... to discover incriminating evidence." Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990).

Applying this standard, this court has held that without a sufficiently complete inventory of the subject vehicle or item...