COA reverses order suppressing evidence gathered during warrantless search of rental car
State v. St. Clair Riley, 2024AP2360-CR, 11/3/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
In this state’s appeal, the circuit court ordered suppression of the evidence gathered during a warrantless search of a rental car driven by St. Clair Riley, reasoning that the officers should have contacted the rental car company before having the car towed and failed to complete an inventory form. COA disagrees that these issues render the search unconstitutional and reverses.
An officer pulled the car Riley was driving over after observing him passing other cars in the highway’s shoulder. (¶3). As Riley’s driver’s license was suspended, the officer called for a tow truck, wrote citations and returned to inform Riley. (¶4). Riley told him that it was rental car and someone would be there to pick it up in five minutes, but the officer told him it was illegal to stop there and no one could come to the car due to safety concerns. Thus, the officer detained Riley for the purpose of transporting him away from the scene and conducted an inventory search of the car for “valuables.” (¶5). The officer found several cellphones, pill bottles, a digital scale, baggies of suspected marijuana, cocaine and other controlled substances, a Glock magazine, and a wallet. (¶6).
The state charged Riley with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, one for methamphetamine and the other for cocaine. Riley moved to suppress evidence found in the car, asserting that the impoundment and inventory search of the car were improper. (¶7). After a suppression hearing, the circuit court concluded that Riley’s constitutional rights had been violated because the officer should have tried to contact the rental car company “to find out if this individual in route would be permitted to remove the vehicle,” or if it “wanted to send someone to pick up the vehicle” and the officers failed to complete an inventory form listing items left in the car when it was towed. (¶8).
The state appealed, arguing that the officer’s actions were justified under the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Specifically, the state claims that police often seize cars in the exercise of their community caretaker function, and in this case, the public interest of towing the rental car from the emergency lane of I-43 during rush hour outweighs the intrusion upon Riley’s privacy. Riley argues that the rental car did not pose a threat to public safety or the efficient flow of traffic, and as a consequence, towing the car was not a legitimate community caretaker function. (¶12).
COA applies Wisconsin’s three-part test: (1) whether a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred; (2) if so, whether police were exercising a bona fide community caretaker function; and (3) if they were, whether the public interest outweighs the intrusion upon the privacy of the individual such that the community caretaker function was reasonably exercised. (¶14). The state concedes the first prong. As to the second and third prongs, the court agrees with the state that the car, illegally stopped in the emergency lane of the freeway, posed a threat to public safety and impediment to traffic. (¶19). COA finds it significant that police could not secure and leave the car where it was parked nor leave Riley on the scene after issuing the citations. (¶¶19, 22).
The state next argues that the inventory search of the rental car was justified because towing the vehicle was justified. Riley argues that the inventory search was unjustified because towing the vehicle was unjustified, and was unreasonable because the officers failed to follow their own standard operating procedures that required them to complete an inventory form, which they didn’t do. (¶26). COA already concluded that towing the car was justified, so it focuses on whether the scope of the search was reasonable, which Riley did not challenge. (¶29). The court reasons that the rule the officers failed to follow had no effect on the reasonableness of the decision to conduct an inventory search and concludes that the officers were justified in performing the search. (¶¶32-33). COA accordingly reverses the order granting suppression and remands the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. (¶34).