Facts
On the morning of January 26, 2023, Mississippi Bureau of Investigations Officer Robert Atkinson and Attorney General Investigator Justin Sims (Officer Sims) drove together to 1329 Pleasant Hill Road in the Good Hope Community of Leake County, Mississippi. At the time, Officer Atkinson had been helping local agencies with drug cases, and Officer Sims was “contracted out” to the Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of their visit was to talk to Justin Johnson (Justin), who lived at that address.
The officers arrived at the property in an unmarked vehicle. The property included a wood-frame house, a shed, a trailer, and a small mechanic shop off the driveway, where Justin worked on small engine machinery, such as lawn mowers, motorcycles, and four-wheelers, as well as vehicles. The officers noticed a GMC pickup truck parked in the driveway, closer to the shop than to the residence. As they exited their vehicle, an individual exited the truck from the driver’s seat. He walked to the front of the truck as if he were going to raise its hood. Officer Atkinson told the individual that they were looking for Justin. He responded that Justin was not there but should be back shortly. The individual explained that he was also waiting on Justin because he and Justin were going to repair the GMC truck, which probably needed a thermostat. The person told Officer Atkinson that the truck belonged to a family member.
Officer Sims recognized the individual as Katelan Johnson and told this information to Atkinson, who then asked the individual his name; the defendant confirmed that he was Katelan Johnson. Johnson then began getting back into the truck as if to leave. Officer Atkinson told Johnson to step out of the vehicle, as Atkinson believed Johnson had outstanding arrest warrants in Scott County, Mississippi. Johnson complied. Officer Atkinson then called Mississippi Bureau of Investigations Agent Daniel Ogletree and confirmed that there were two outstanding warrants for Johnson in Scott County for the sale of methamphetamine. The officers then arrested Johnson and read him his Miranda rights.
Officer Atkinson testified that he went around to the passenger’s side of Johnson’s vehicle to make sure there were no valuables in the truck because he was “calling a tow truck to get the truck out of these people’s yard.” He noticed that nobody else was present on the property to give permission to leave the truck there. Officer Atkinson testified that in this situation, when the arrested individual does not own the vehicle in which he was arrested, it is standard practice for the officers to call a tow truck to remove the vehicle. Further, he testified that performing an inventory search for valuables in a vehicle to be towed is a routine part of the “booking process.”
Officer Atkinson opened the passenger’s side door to perform the inventory search for valuables. On the front passenger’s seat, in plain view, was an open backpack. Inside the backpack, Officer Atkinson saw a bag of insulin syringes and a bag of what appeared to be methamphetamine. Underneath the syringes and drugs was a set of scales. A photograph of the open backpack was entered into evidence at trial. Officer Atkinson testified that the backpack was within arm’s reach of the driver’s seat of the truck. No other valuables were found in the truck except a thermostat and a gasket.
Justin was the only witness for the defense. He testified that Johnson was a lifelong acquaintance. In January 2023, Johnson had been helping Justin with odd jobs at the shop. Justin testified that while he was not present at the shop when Johnson was arrested, he claimed the GMC truck had been there several days for Justin to “take a look at it” and confirm any needed repairs. On January 26, Johnson called Justin wanting to work on the truck and perform some odd jobs for money. Justin admitted on the witness stand that he was recently released from prison for selling methamphetamine out of his shop; however, he denied ever using methamphetamine with Johnson. Justin also denied buying methamphetamine from Johnson or knowing anything about the backpack or its contents.
At trial, a hearing occurred during Officer Atkinson’s direct examination by the State regarding what happened during and after Johnson’s arrest. The trial court excused the jury, and the hearing ensued with Officer Atkinson and Agent Ogletree testifying for the State. Officer Atkinson proffered his testimony. After a few questions, defense counsel stated to the trial court, “Your Honor, this is where we would object to the . . . ensuing testimony about [the] search. . . .” Officer Atkinson continued his proffer, after which the prosecution called and examined Agent Ogletree. Defense counsel did not call any witnesses at the hearing and did not cite any legal authority for his arguments. He explained to the trial court his objection was that the State had failed to produce sufficient evidence to show the search was properly performed and incident to arrest. He argued that the officers exceeded their search premises by searching a vehicle that Johnson did not own. Further, defense counsel argued the search was beyond Johnson’s “immediate area.”
The trial court overruled Johnson’s objection, finding both the impoundment and the inventory search were proper. The trial court noted Johnson was arrested under valid warrants while on another individual’s property, when neither the property owner nor anyone else was present. The trial court ruled that under these facts, Officer Atkinson was within his legal rights to have the vehicle impounded. The trial court stated: If they hadn’t have done that [(impound the vehicle)], they’d just be leaving Mr. Johnson’s vehicle, or whoever owned it, in the middle of nowhere with nobody responsible for it. If it comes up missing or damaged or property from it missing or damaged then they’d get the blame for it. The trial court also found the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle was proper to prevent the loss or destruction of any valuables left in it.
A jury convicted Katelan Johnson of a charge for possession of more than two, but less than ten, grams of methamphetamine under Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139(c)(1)(C) (Rev. 2023). The trial court sentenced him as a second or subsequent drug offender to sixteen years in MDOC. Johnson now appeals, raising one issue regarding the constitutionality of the truck’s impoundment. MCOA affirmed.
Analysis
Impounding a vehicle qualifies as a seizure subject to a Fourth Amendment analysis. Johnson argues the trial court erred in finding the truck’s impoundment proper because the State offered no evidence that the truck was impounded under a standardized procedure or served a community caretaking function. He points out that the truck was owned by a third party, parked on private property by permission, and posed no threat to public safety.
The trial court found the impoundment proper based upon the following evidence during the suppression hearing. At the hearing, which occurred mid-trial, the only evidence offered was from the State, which called Officer Atkinson and Agent Ogletree to the stand. They testified about the facts surrounding Johnson’s arrest for outstanding warrants, the decision to impound the vehicle, and the resulting inventory search. The defense made no objection about the impoundment; however, Officer Atkinson testified about his justification for impounding the vehicle: I went around to the passenger side of the vehicle going to look inside . . . to make sure there was no valuables or anything because I was calling a tow truck to get the truck out of these people’s yard. . . . Because no one was home for him to okay it to be left there.
Officer Atkinson testified that he and Officer Sims saw no individual on the property other than Johnson. Atkinson testified that the purpose of performing an inventory search of the vehicle was to make sure there were no valuables left in the vehicle to go to the tow yard, which was “standard procedure” when a vehicle is towed and something that is “routinely” done “as part of [the] booking process.” Officer Atkinson then proceeded to testify about the inventory search and finding the contraband in plain view. Agent Ogletree did not testify about the impoundment or the inventory search but confirmed that there were outstanding warrants for Johnson’s arrest.
During cross-examination, Officer Atkinson testified that he did not know Johnson was a mechanic, but he knew the vehicle was parked in the driveway closer to the “shop yard” than the residence. The vehicle was not running, but the keys were in the ignition. He knew the vehicle belonged to one of Johnson’s family members, and a license-plate check confirmed this fact. He knew Johnson was at the property to wait on Justin to put a thermostat in the truck. Officer Atkinson confirmed that Johnson could exercise control over the backpack when he reentered the vehicle, and Atkinson said that the reason for looking in the backpack was for “inventory,” not securing a later prosecution. During the State’s redirect examination, Officer Atkinson testified that he found nothing of value in the vehicle except the backpack, a thermostat, and a gasket. Importantly, the defense did not offer Justin’s testimony claiming the truck had been parked at his residence near the shop for several days waiting on repairs.
The trial court found both the impoundment and resulting inventory search proper. Johnson was arrested under proper warrants while on another individual’s property, and nobody else was present to give permission to leave the truck. The trial court also noted that if the truck was left there and became “missing or damaged,” the officers would “get the blame.”
A vehicle may be impounded under the Fourth Amendment without a warrant if it falls under the “community caretaking” exception. Under this exception, police may impound a vehicle in furtherance of public safety or community caretaking functions, such as removing disabled or damaged vehicles, and automobiles that violate parking ordinances . . . jeopardizing both the public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.
Federal circuit courts have grappled with the constitutionality of community-caretaking impoundments, using different approaches. There is a clear divide between the First, Third, and Fifth Circuits, which never consider whether an impoundment follows standardized procedures, and the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, which do. The latter circuits, and the Tenth Circuit, recognize that the existence of standardized criteria is the touchstone of whether an impoundment is lawful. The former circuits, however, conclude that reasonableness is the only test for determining if the vehicle impoundment is justified by a community caretaking purpose, without reference to any standardized criteria. The reasonableness of the community caretaker impound is viewed in the context of the facts and circumstances encountered by the officer.
Another distinction is whether the impoundment occurred on public or private property. When the vehicle is located on public property officers have far greater authority to impound. But when the vehicle is located on private property, and the vehicle is neither obstructing traffic nor creating an imminent threat to public safety, a community-caretaking rationale is less likely to exist.
Here, the trial court found the impoundment proper based upon the testimony of Officer Atkinson. The defense did not present any legal authority on impoundment or the community-caretaking exception to the trial court; the only matter on appeal that Johnson challenges at all is the impoundment, and then he cites legal authority that was never presented to the trial court. Because the trial court was never presented with these standards or factors utilized by the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits in making its ruling on the motion to suppress, we cannot consider them. Further, we have not found any Mississippi authority exactly on point articulating a standard on impoundment.
Even so, under the totality of the circumstances, we find the trial court’s ruling on the reasonableness of the impoundment was supported by substantial evidence. Officer Atkinson testified that under the circumstances here, it was standard practice to have the vehicle towed. In the context of these facts, impounding the truck was reasonable under the community caretaking exception. Even though the vehicle posed no threat to public safety, the owner of the private property, Justin, was not present to give permission to leave the truck there, and the officers did not want to leave the truck in a rural area. Importantly, at the suppression hearing, the trial court never heard the testimony that Justin had allegedly given Johnson permission to leave the truck there because the defense did not present it. While the truck did not belong to Johnson, it was under his control. The keys were in the ignition, and when Johnson suspected he was under arrest, he tried to leave in the vehicle.
We find Officer Atkinson’s impounding the vehicle reasonable under the specific facts and circumstances encountered by the officers.