Police in Colorado do not have the automatic power to impound a vehicle when the driver is arrested and no one else is around to take possession of it, the Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.

In reaching this decision, a three-judge panel found that an Arvada police officer who arrested a man six blocks from the man’s home committed an unconstitutional seizure when he ordered a tow of the vehicle, then found drugs and weapons inside.

“Our country was founded on a belief that authorities can’t just take people’s possessions or rummage through their belongings unless they have a valid search warrant,” said Tristan Gorman, legislative policy coordinator with the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar.

Officer Brandon Valdez pulled over Kyle Christopher Thomas on a traffic violation six blocks from Thomas’s home. Valdez discovered Thomas had an outstanding warrant for failure to appear in court and arrested him.

There was conflicting testimony between the two men about whether Thomas had requested to call his wife to pick up the nearby vehicle, but the court concluded she was never given the opportunity.

The Arvada Police Department had a policy stating that when the driver of a vehicle is arrested, “the officer will have the vehicle towed unless a properly licensed driver authorized by the vehicle owner is readily available to take control of the vehicle.” Valdez interpreted the directive to mean he needed to tow the vehicle because there was no authorized driver present when he arrested Thomas.

As part of the tow procedure, Valdez conducted an inventory of the vehicle, whereupon he found a handgun, methamphetamine and a knife. Jefferson County prosecutors charged Thomas with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of a weapon by a previous offender, possession of an illegal weapon, and traffic violations. A jury convicted him.

The trial court judge had denied the defense’s request to suppress the evidence. Thomas contended the impoundment and search of his vehicle was unreasonable because his wife was nearby and could have retrieved the vehicle. Also, the car was on a residential street in his neighborhood, and therefore not an impediment to traffic. Prosecutors countered that Arvada’s policy required the tow.

Under the Fourth Amendment, illegally-obtained evidence is excluded from trials, but there are exceptions to the prohibition on warrantless searches. One such allowance is the community caretaking exception, which the U.S. Supreme Court applied to vehicles in 1973 by reasoning that officers are acting to safeguard the community when responding to vehicles that are disabled, involved in accidents or “vulnerable to intrusion by vandals.” 

A subsequent decision arising from Colorado established that police who act in good faith to secure the property of motorists do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals considered whether prosecutors had proven Valdez was performing a community caretaking function while searching Thomas’s vehicle, instead of merely following departmental protocol. The appeals panel found they had not.

“Thomas’s vehicle was legally parked on a residential street. The evidence did not show that the street was busy, that the vehicle was obstructing traffic, that it was dangerous or disabled, or that it was blocking any driveway,” wrote Judge Anthony J. Navarro in the panel’s opinion. “The prosecution presented no evidence that it was illegal, hazardous, or even unusual to leave a vehicle parked in that location. Without such evidence, the prosecution did not demonstrate any interest in public safety or convenience that justified removing Thomas’s vehicle.”

To the suggestion that Valdez needed to impound the vehicle to protect against vandalism, the panel found no grounds to believe that police may always tow a car if it would be left unattended. Nor was there proof that leaving Thomas’ car in that specific residential neighborhood overnight created a risk of vandalism or theft – especially if his wife could travel the six blocks to retrieve it.

“We do not suggest that Officer Valdez was required to wait with the vehicle until Thomas’s wife appeared,” Navarro explained. “We note merely that the officer had reason to believe that the vehicle would not be left unattended for long if he simply left it locked and legally parked.”

The panel ruled that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence from the unconstitutional seizure. It reversed Thomas’ convictions.

Gorman, with the criminal defense bar, said it was common for police departments to have policies like Arvada’s, but the Court of Appeals had not weighed in on whether the policy itself had sufficient limits on officers’ discretion or whether Valdez followed the policy.

“It’s really less of a question of rewriting existing policies. The real question is making sure that our law enforcement officers receive training that’s required of anyone who’s authorized to enforce the law,” she said.

A spokesperson for the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office said prosecutors could not comment on open cases, but in general, “we work with all law enforcement agencies to ensure that searches and seizures comply with applicable laws.”

The Arvada Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is People v. Thomas.