United States v. Jay Vee Wanless, A/K/A William Earl Wanless, Douglass Scott Tompkins, Linda Aune, and Michael Eugene Beck

882 F.2d 1459 58 USLW 2151 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay Vee WANLESS, a/k/a William Earl Wanless, Douglass Scott Tompkins, Linda Aune, and Michael Eugene Beck, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 88-3037, 88-3038, 88-3039 and 88-3045. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 13, 1988. Decided Aug. 23, 1989. Phillip J. Wetzel, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-appellant Linda K. aune. Gene E. Hamilton, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-appellant Jay Vee Wanless. Richard C. Agman, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-appellant Douglass Scott Tompkins. Richard B. Kayne, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-appellant Michael Eugene Beck, aka Frank Eugene Stone. Earl A. Hicks, Asst. U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Before WRIGHT, PREGERSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Four appellants challenge the district court's denial of a motion to suppress certain evidence obtained through inventory and investigatory searches of two automobiles. The appellants contend that because the police did not inform the owner of the vehicles that…

Fouiv "appellants challenge the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress certain evidence obtained through inventory and investigatory searches of two automobiles. The appellants contend that because the police did not inform the owner of the vehicles that he did not have to consent to the inventory search, the evidence resulting from the search should have been suppressed. They also contend that the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to allow the police to search the two vehicles. We agree. 1

FACTS 2

After being alerted by an air traffic patrol, Troopers Pass and Ahren of the Washington State Patrol stopped two vehicles for speeding on Interstate 90 near Spokane. The first vehicle was a green 1953 Chevrolet with two occupants; appellant Douglass Scott Tompkins was driving and appellant Jay Vee Wanless was the passenger. The second vehicle was a black El Camino, also with two occupants; the El Camino was being driven by appellant Michael Eugene Beck, and appellant Linda K. Aune was the passenger.

After stopping the two cars, Trooper Pass asked Tompkins, the driver of the Chevrolet, for identification. Tompkins was unable to provide the…

dissenting:

The majority concludes that, because the police conducted the inventory searches without first obtaining the vehicle owner’s consent, as required by Washington state law, the district court should have suppressed the evidence resulting from the searches. I dissent because the majority relies erroneously on state law rather than federal law. Moreover, it is unclear whether Washington state law requires that police give car owners the option of consenting or not consenting to an inventory search.

In United States v. Chavez-Vernaza, 844 F.2d 1368, 1374 (9th Cir.1987), this court held that evidence seized by state officials in compliance with federal law is admissible in federal court without regard to state law. As the majority notes, federal law regarding an inventory search by state or local police officers requires that it be carried out in accordance with standard procedures of the local or state police department conducting the search. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 375 , 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3100 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1975). The majority decides, however, based only on a Washington Supreme Court case, that the State Patrol failed to follow standard state…