be released to any licensed driver upon a showing of proof of insurance for the vehicle that was
impounded and the notarized written consent for the release by the vehicle owner.” (Emphasis
added.) 625 ILCS 5/6—303(e) (West 2008). Thus, neither the Zion police department policy nor
the statute requires an of icer to investigate the presence of a licensed driver and facilitate the
showing of proof of insurance.
Even ifwe were to read into the Zion police department impoundment policy and the Vehicle
Code the requirement of asking passengers whether they possess valid driver’s licenses, the reason
for the tow (the failure to show proof of insurance) would not be cured. This case is distinguishable
from Young, where proof of insurance was never at issue. We decline to extend Young to require an
of icer to ask a passenger to produce proof of insurance for a car when the driver cannot produce it.
B. The Inventory Search
Our determination that section 6—303(e) of the Vehicle Code mandated the impoundment
does not end our analysis, as defendant argues that the inventory search was a fourth amendment
violation. Hucker testified that, consistent with the police department’s procedures for impounding
and inventorying vehicles, the officers prepared the vehicle tow report, which included defendant’s
information, the condition of the vehicle, and a description of property found inside. Hucker testified
that an officer must conduct an inventory search if a vehicle is impounded; the entire car is searched
for any items of value, and the items are noted on the tow report to protect the defendant’s property
and to protect the department from false claims of loss. He further testi ied that the search is not
designed to discover narcotics or other kinds of contraband.
We hold that the State met the three criteria for a valid warrantless inventory search of a
vehicle. First, section 6—303(e) of the Vehicle Code and the Zion police department guidelines