The Police Impoundment of a Vehicle in the Owner’s Driveway Following a Traffic Infraction is an Unreasonable Search and Seizure

In Miranda vs. City of Cornelius, — F. 3d —, 2005 WL 3071541, C.A.9 (Or.), Nov. 17, 2005, a federal appeals court considered whether the police impoundment of a car from the owner’s driveway following a traffic infraction was an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. It found no valid public safety purpose for impounding the vehicle, and ruled that the seizure violated the constitutional rights of the owner.

Facts

In the City of Cornelius, Oregon in 2003, Irene Miranda was getting a driving lesson from her husband, Jorge Miranda. During the lesson, Mrs. Miranda, who had no driver’s license, was driving the car owned by Mr. Miranda. A city police officer observed her driving poorly, and followed the vehicle until Mrs. Miranda pulled into the driveway of their home. When the officer learned that Mrs. Miranda was unlicensed, he cited her for driving without a license, and cited Mr. Miranda for allowing the operation of a vehicle by an unlicensed driver.

A city ordinance authorized police to tow a vehicle, without prior notice, if an officer reasonably believed the driver was unlicensed. The officer contacted a towing company, which arrived 30 minutes later and towed the car to an impoundment lot. Mr. Miranda retrieved the vehicle the following day after paying towing charges and impound fees, and said he’d lost a day’s pay for missing work as a result.

The Mirandas sued the city, claiming unreasonable seizure and a violation of their due process rights for not being notified of the tow and given an opportunity to contest it. The district court upheld the seizure on the grounds that the Mirandas had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their parked car on their unenclosed driveway. The Mirandas appealed.

Appellate Court Decision

The United States Court of Appeals cited a United States Supreme Court ruling in South Dakota v. Opperman (428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, U.S.S.D., July 6, 1976), to determine whether the police could justify the seizure under their “community caretaking” function. In South Dakota v. Opperman, the Supreme Court defined that as the right to impound vehicles that “jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.”

he Court of Appeals found that the Mirandas’ car, parked in their driveway, posed no such threat to safety or traffic flow. The court dismissed the city’s argument that impounding the Mirandas’ car would stop them from repeating their illegal activity in the future, finding that a non-criminal traffic infraction was insufficient to justify the seizure under the community caretaking function. It noted that the deterrence rationale was incompatible with the community caretaking principal, and added that in this case the deterrent effect was negligible anyway.

The appellate court concluded that the seizure served “no acceptable purpose” and was therefore unreasonable and unconstitutional. The court said that while the Mirandas’ constitutional rights against unreasonable seizure had been violated, their due process rights had not been, since there was no city policy that deprived plaintiffs of their right to contest the impoundment. The appellate court awarded the Mirandas their costs stemming from the seizure, and remanded the case to the district court, saying it may consider whether the city can provide any legitimate government purpose sufficient to make the seizure reasonable.