United States v. Peter Unakalu , 455 F. App'x 730 ( 2011 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30320
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00298-TSZ-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PETER UNAKALU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 11, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and BURNS,
District Judge.**
An inventory search is a “well-defined exception to the warrant requirement
of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 (1987). Such
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
page 2
a search is reasonable so long as officers exercise their discretion “‘according to
standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of
criminal activity.’” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990) (quoting Bertine, 479
U.S. at 375). The officers conducted this inventory search after defendant’s rental
car was impounded and he asked that his belongings be taken for safe-keeping.
The officers followed the Seattle Police Department’s standard inventory policy,
which requires officers to search for contraband, narcotics, explosives, hazardous
materials, perishable items, money and weapons. This necessarily involves
looking within closed containers, thus making the officers’ search of defendant’s
sealed envelopes reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Because we find that
the inventory search was reasonable, it is unnecessary to decide whether
defendant’s consent was valid.
AFFIRMED.