No need to search wallet for property safekeeping

Whitney T. Kauffeld won in State v Evans, No. 119,458 (Kan. November 21, 2018), affirming Judge Sexton's suppression order in a Dickinson County drug prosecution.  An officer responded to a serious one-car accident on I-70. Ms. Evans, the driver, was in pain and distraught, but identified herself to officers. Emergency personnel extracted Ms. Evans from the car and took her away by ambulance. Prior to having the car towed, an officer observed a purse and a wallet in the car. The officer retrieved the wallet and purse and proceeded to look through the purse. The officer testified that he was looking for a drivers' license, not investigating a crime. The officer testified that he needed information to complete the paperwork for the accident. When he did not find a drivers' license, he proceeded to open the wallet and discovered a baggie containing what later was determined to be methamphetamine. 

The district court held that the officer could seize the purse and wallet for safeguarding of property, but held that further intrusion into the containers without a warrant or other exception violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The KSC first clarified that there was no probable cause to search the car--the state's only asserted exception was as an inventory search. Then reviewing inventory search cases, the KSC agreed with the district court's legal conclusions. The KSC particularly noted the failure to prove any standardized procedures in such circumstances:

Likewise, here, we have no evidence establishing the standard procedures of either the Abilene Police Department or the Dickinson County Sheriff's Office. {The officer] testified "there was a wrecker coming for [Evans' car], and it's my practice, when there's something of possible value in the car, I like to collect it for safekeeping, so it doesn't get lost, or stolen from the wrecker yard." But an individual officer's practice does not meet the standard discussed in [Cady v. Dombrowski 413 U.S. 433 (1973)]. He also did not speak to any policy about searching closed purses and zipped wallets once seized—a standard the ]Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990)] decision makes clear must exist for the search to be constitutional. In fact, the State has never argued that the search complies with the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. Yet, as Dombrowski, [South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)], Wells, and other cases make clear, the caretaking role of law enforcement does not itself constitute an exception to the warrant requirement. Without evidence of a standardized policy allowing the search, we hold the authority of Dombrowski, Opperman, and other related cases does not support the State's contention that the search of Evans' purse and wallet fits a well-delineated exception to the warrant requirement. 

The KSC also rejected the state's claim that Kansas statutes governing accident reports justified the warrantless search in this case. In particular, the KSC held that there was no exigency in identifying Ms. Evans because she had provided her name to the officers before being removed by emergency personnel. And the KSC held that a driver can have a reasonable amount of time to produce a drivers' license upon demand by an officer. Because the officers intruded upon Ms. Evans' wallet without a warrant and without proving an exception to the warrant requirement, the KSC affirmed the suppression order.