United States of America v. William Eugene Moore

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM EUGENE MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50113
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00537-JLS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 6, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
William Eugene Moore was convicted of Transporting an Illegal Alien
following a conditional guilty plea. He appeals the district court’s denial of a
motion to suppress the evidence of the illegal alien found in the trunk of his car
FILED
JUL 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

following an impoundment and subsequent inventory search of the vehicle. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The impoundment of Moore’s car was reasonable. Community caretaking is
an exception to the warrant requirement by which “police officers may impound
vehicles that ‘jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular
traffic.’” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368-69 (1976)). Moore’s car was
located in a no parking zone, obstructing a right turn lane and designated bicycle
lane, which would have created a hazardous condition. Moore did not have a
driver’s license. He concedes that the officer had authority to arrest him. The
decision to impound Moore’s vehicle logically followed, and it was not
unreasonable. The availability of less intrusive alternatives, such as allowing
Moore to call a friend to come get the car, does not make the course the officer
chose unreasonable. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374 (1987).
Once the vehicle was impounded, the discovery of the unlawful alien in the
trunk was inevitable. The inventory search of the vehicle was reasonable.
Inventory searches are a “well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the
Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 371. Based on Gray’s testimony as to his inventory
search training and the written procedure in the California Highway Patrol manual,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

the district court did not clearly err in finding that Gray’s inventory search
complied with standardized inventory search procedures. Cf. Florida v. Wells, 495
U.S. 1, 4-5 (1990) (holding that the inventory “search was not sufficiently
regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment” because “the Florida Highway Patrol
had no policy whatever with respect to the opening of closed containers
encountered during an inventory search”). “[T]he presence of an investigative
motive does not invalidate the inventory search,” United States v. Bowhay, 992
F.2d 229, 231 (9th Cir. 1993), so even if the district court had found a subjective
investigatory intent, the inventory search by the officer was valid.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --