FILED
JANUARY 26, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 33874-6-111
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
JOEL MATTHEW GROVES, )
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, J. -Joel Groves was convicted of drug offenses as a result of
contraband found in a motorcycle he had been operating. Because the search of the
motorcycle was unlawful, we reverse his conviction.
FACTS
Mr. Groves was pulled over for speeding on a motorcycle. During the traffic stop,
the Washington state trooper became suspicious that the motorcycle was stolen.
Ultimately, these suspicions were never confirmed nor dispelled. Mr. Groves was not
arrested, but he was not allowed to drive away with the motorcycle as he did not have a
motorcycle endorsement. The trooper decided to impound the motorcycle based on a
Washington State Patrol policy requiring the automatic impound of motorcycles operated
without an endorsement.
No. 33874-6-111
State v. Groves
During an inventory search of the motorcycle, the trooper removed the seat and
discovered two cases that had been zippered shut. The trooper opened both cases in an
effort to find documentation regarding ownership. Instead of documentation, the trooper
found drugs and related evidence.
The contents of the zippered bags prompted the State to bring drug charges against
Mr. Groves. The trial court denied Mr. Groves's pretrial motion to suppress evidence
seized from the motorcycle search. He was then convicted after a jury trial and sentenced
to 90 months incarceration. Mr. Groves appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Groves argues the evidence seized from the motorcycle should have been
suppressed. We agree. Because the trooper decided to impound the motorcycle based on
a mandatory state patrol policy, the initial impound decision violated state law that
requires the exercise of individual discretion. RCW 46.55. l 13(2)(g); In re Impoundment
of Chevrolet Truck, 148 Wn.2d 145, 60 P.3d 53 (2002). In addition, the subsequent
inventory search was unlawful because the trooper opened closed containers without
demonstrating exigent circumstances or consent. State v. Houser, 95 Wn.2d 143, 158,
622 P.2d 1218 (1980). Finally, the inventory was also illegal because it was not
conducted according to standardized criteria and procedures. Florida v. Wells,
2
No. 33874-6-111
State v. Groves
495 U.S. 1, 4-5, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990).
We recognize the trooper investigating Mr. Groves faced difficult circumstances.
Although he lacked probable cause to believe the motorcycle was stolen, the trooper was
also uncertain about ownership. He was understandably hesitant to release the
motorcycle or to leave it on the side of the highway. But regardless of good intentions,
the trooper's actions violated well established precedent. Less intrusive steps needed to
be taken to investigate ownership and secure the motorcycle. Because this was not done,
evidence seized from it must be suppressed.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Graves's conviction is reversed and his charges are ordered dismissed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Pennell, J.
WE CONCUR:
Fearing, C.J.
3
State of Washington v. Joel Matthew Groves
Combined Opinion