X hits on this document

PDF document

No. 2—09—0833 Opinion iled March 31, 2011 - page 19 / 24





19 / 24

No. 2—09—0833

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

  • -


Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedTue Oct 25 07:51:45 UTC 2016