Impounding a driver’s vehicle pursuant to the Vehicle Code to prevent further illegal driving  does not satisfy the community caretaking function and allow a search

People v. Perez (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 19, 2026, No. H053314) 2026 WL 777180, at *1

Summary: A police officer’s decision to impound a driver’s vehicle pursuant to the Vehicle Code solely to prevent further illegal driving does not satisfy the community caretaking function.

Perez pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The police found drugs in Perez’s vehicle during an impoundment and inventory search following a traffic stop. The police also found a firearm and more drugs when later executing a search warrant on a hotel room linked to Perez.

Prior to entering his no contest pleas, Perez moved to suppress the evidence found in the inventory and hotel room searches as the fruits of an illegal seizure. A magistrate denied Perez’s motion and held him to answer. The trial court also denied Perez’s renewed suppression motion.

On appeal, Perez claims the magistrate erred under the Fourth Amendment in denying his motion to suppress evidence.  Perez argued that the impoundment of his vehicle was unlawful because the impoundment did not serve a community caretaking function. The Court of Appeal determined that the prosecution failed to show the police reasonably impounded Perez’s vehicle pursuant to their community caretaking function. Accordingly, the seizure of the vehicle and resulting inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded  with directions for the trial court to permit Perez to withdraw his no contest pleas; if he does so, the court shall vacate its denial of Perez’s motion to suppress evidence, grant the motion, and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Procedural Background

In May 2022, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging Perez with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 1), possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 3), transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 4), misdemeanor driving in violation of a license restriction related to a driving under the influence offense (Veh. Code,1 § 14601.2, subd. (b); count 5), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a); count 6). The complaint alleged that Perez was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)) and had suffered two prior convictions for drug possession (Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(11)).

Perez filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 (suppression motion).

The district attorney filed an opposition to Perez’s suppression motion. The district attorney argued that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Perez’s vehicle, had probable cause to arrest Perez for driving with a suspended license, lawfully decided to impound Perez’s vehicle and conduct an inventory search, and lawfully seized items pursuant to a warrant from a hotel room linked to Perez.

Inventory searches when a vehicle is impounded

Milpitas Police policy, when impounding a vehicle, is to conduct an inventory to document any items inside the correct vehicle in order to mitigate any possibility for lost or stolen items. An inventory search ensures the vehicle is safe and free of weapons, so employees of the impounding company are not in danger when the vehicle is eventually picked up by the owner or in the event someone tries to enter the vehicle to retrieve an item.

During the inventory search of Perez’s minivan, police found an open plastic shopping bag situated between the driver’s seat and front passenger’s seat. The container held two bags of a white crystalline substance and two small glass jars containing a pink and a white powdery substance. The container also held credit cards bearing Perez’s name and approximately $300 in cash. Other items found inside the shopping bag included a cigarette box containing a small plastic bindle of suspected methamphetamine, an eyeglass case containing $600 in cash, two bags of suspected marijuana, a digital scale, and a cell phone.

Crime lab for analysis revealed the presence of methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Community caretaking

Perez contends that a community caretaking function must be a standardized, non-discretionary procedure and the Milpitas Police Department lacked a policy guiding the decision to impound, which cannot be supplied by the Vehicle Code.

Inventory searches and the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the “right … to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” “The impoundment of an automobile is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” (Miranda v. City of Cornelius (9th Cir. 2005) 429 F.3d 858, 862 (Miranda); see also Vehicle Code § 22650, subd. (b).)

A warrantless search or seizure is presumed unconstitutional, and the government bears the burden of establishing that its action fell within an exception to the warrant requirement. (People v. Rogers (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1136, 1156, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 652, 209 P.3d 977; see also People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, 723, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 887, 133 P.3d 1044.)

One such exception is the “community caretaking” function, which allows police officers to “impound vehicles that ‘jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.’ ” (Miranda, supra, 429 F.3d at p. 864, quoting South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (Opperman).)

In Opperman, the United States Supreme Court explained the community caretaking function as follows: “In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called ‘community caretaking functions, automobiles are frequently taken into police custody. Vehicle accidents present one such occasion. To permit the uninterrupted flow of traffic and in some circumstances to preserve evidence, disabled or damaged vehicles will often be removed from the highways or streets at the behest of police engaged solely in caretaking and traffic-control activities. Police will also frequently remove and impound automobiles which violate parking ordinances and which thereby jeopardize both the public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic. The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.” (Opperman, supra, 428 U.S. at pp. 368–369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, fn. omitted, citing Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706.)

“[I]nventory searches are a well-defined exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.  When a vehicle is impounded or otherwise in lawful police custody, an officer may conduct a warrantless search aimed at securing or protecting the vehicle and its contents.

Analysis

The prosecution bears the further burden to show that an impoundment is constitutionally reasonable under the circumstances. A general statutory authorization for impoundment, does not by itself justify the removal of a vehicle from the street under the  community caretaking function based on the facts surrounding the vehicle itself.

Here, Officer Bernardo’s desire to protect public safety by impounding the minivan to prevent Perez from unlawful driving without more does not satisfy the community caretaking function.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the prosecution provided no evidence of any reason to impound the minivan other than to prevent Perez from unlawfully driving it after being cited and released. Exercising its independent judgment under the totality of the circumstances, the Court of Appeals concluded that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Officer Bernardo’s decision to impound Perez’s minivan and conduct an inventory search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The impoundment and resulting inventory search violated Perez’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court reversed the judgment with directions for the trial court to permit Perez to withdraw his no contest pleas.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.