Panel reviews impoundment and inventory-search rules after car towed from gas-station lot
Loading...
Summary
Counsel debated whether officers properly impounded an unregistered vehicle found at a gas station and whether written police policy and reasonable practical alternatives required the judge to suppress later evidence; the defense emphasized the private-property context and claimed officers did not consider alternatives.
The appeals court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Beechman about whether the impoundment of an unregistered vehicle and a subsequent inventory search complied with policy and Article 14 principles.
Paul Lynn, for the Commonwealth, cited cases holding impoundment of an unregistered or uninsured vehicle is typically proper and said policy governing inventory searches need not list every justification for impoundment. Lynn argued the vehicle could not lawfully be driven and several appellate decisions have upheld impoundments in similar circumstances.
Haley Jacobson, representing Lorenzo Beechman, said those precedents are distinguishable because the car in this case was in a gas-station lot (private property open to the public) and because the officers did not consider readily apparent practical alternatives such as allowing the owner to have the car towed privately. Jacobson urged that the motion judge correctly found the impoundment was not authorized by policy and that failure to follow the department's written procedures required suppression under Article 14.
The justices asked about distinctions in the case law for public-way impounds and about whether officers must advise a driver of alternatives before deciding to tow. No opinion was issued from the bench at the hearing.
