arguing that the impoundment was unreasonable because the of icer should have pursued less
intrusive alternatives to facilitate the removal of the vehicle.
Defendant cites People v. Young, 363 Ill. App. 3d 268 (2006), for the proposition that, before
conducting the inventory search, the officer should have attempted to cure the conditions that had
mandated the impoundment. In Young, a car was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, and the
driver was arrested for driving with a suspended license. The officer summoned a tow truck but did
not tell the driver or Young, who was a passenger. Before the tow truck arrived, the of icer
performed an inventory search and found marijuana in the trunk. Young admitted that the drugs were
his. A ter Young was arrested, another passenger in the car told the of icer that he had a valid
license. The of icer canceled the tow and allowed the passenger to drive the vehicle from the scene.
Young, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 269. Young argued that, before inventorying the car, the officer should
have asked Young and the other passenger if either could legally remove the car to avoid
At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that the State Police policy on inventory
searches calls for towing and searching a vehicle if none of the occupants is a licensed driver, and the
State argued that the policy did not require the officer to investigate whether a licensed driver was
present before searching the vehicle. The Appellate Court, Third District, disagreed, holding that the
policy must inherently contain such a requirement. Young, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 270. The court
concluded that an officer must ask the passengers because “[i]t is unreasonable to assume that
passengers will automaticallyand affirmatively volunteer that they are licensed drivers. If of icers do
not query other occupants of the vehicle, the policy would have little meaning.” Young, 363 Ill. App.
3d at 271. The appellate court af irmed the trial court’s suppression order, concluding that, once the