Can police conduct inventory searches despite hoping to find evidence? State v. Tirado Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the validity of inventory searches when officers have mixed motives in State v. Tirado, affirming that such searches remain constitutional despite officers’ subjective expectations of discovering contraband.

Background and Facts

A Layton City police officer stopped a vehicle for expired registration with two occupants, including defendant Tirado as a passenger. After running a records check that revealed information suggesting Tirado was a “gang member and drug abuser,” the officer decided to impound the vehicle. During the subsequent inventory search, officers found methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and unprescribed oxycodone near the passenger seat. Tirado moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Key Legal Issues

The court analyzed whether the inventory search met the two-part test: (1) reasonable justification for impoundment, and (2) substantial compliance with standardized procedures. Tirado argued officers failed to properly follow the department’s written policy by photographing rather than itemizing property and by opening his prescription pill bottle containing contraband.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found both requirements satisfied. The expired registration provided adequate justification for impoundment. Regarding compliance with procedures, the court held that officers need only achieve “essential conformance” with policy terms, not strict compliance. Photographing property constitutes substantial compliance with requirements to “inventory and list” items. The court emphasized that officers may open containers during inventory searches when following standardized procedures, even if they suspect contraband inside.

Critically, the court rejected Tirado’s pretext argument, explaining that “coexistent suspicions that incriminating evidence might be discovered” do not invalidate otherwise lawful inventory searches. Mixed motives are present in most inventory searches but do not render them unconstitutional when proper procedures are followed.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that inventory searches withstand constitutional scrutiny when departments maintain clear written policies and officers substantially follow them. Defense practitioners should focus challenges on procedural violations rather than officers’ subjective motivations. The ruling also clarifies that comprehensive photography can satisfy documentation requirements traditionally met through written itemization.