U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Maria E. Garcia ruled in favor of two Danbury Police officers accused of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of Moore Bail Bonds (MBB) owner Yvonne Perkins when they inventoried items in a vehicle she owned after arresting two MBB employees based on a warrant.
Cramer & Anderson achieved the successful outcome for the officers and Danbury Police Department. Partner Dan Casagrande serves as Corporation Counsel for the City of Danbury.
Judge Garcia sided with the argument presented by Cramer & Anderson that the actions of Danbury officers Melissa Morrill and Jim Antonelli in making an inventory of potentially valuable items in the vehicle did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
While noting that making an inventory of a vehicle left vacant by arrests can be viewed as similar to a search, Judge Garcia concluded that a specific set of procedural circumstances and a body of case law combined to affirm that the actions of the Danbury officers were appropriate.
“The United States Supreme Court has exempted vehicle inventories from the warrant and probable cause requirement of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, the Danbury officers strictly followed department protocol on vehicle inventories, and they immediately stopped the inventory when the vehicle owner arrived,” Attorney Casagrande explained.
According to the summary in Judge Garcia’s decision, the Danbury Police Department began investigating Moore Bail Bonds for allegedly misappropriating bond collateral in January 2015. Officers other than Melissa Morrill and Jim Antonelli arrested MBB employees Dameisha Moore and Michael Baptiste on June 2, 2016, based on an arrest warrant.
The officers had observed Ms. Moore driving on Padanaram Road in Danbury in a car that was owned Yvonne Perkins, according to the judge’s case summary. They stopped the car and directed her to park it at a nearby CVS.
At that point, the officers took custody of the car and arranged for it to be towed to an impoundment lot. Soon afterward, Officer Morrill arrived at the CVS parking and was informed by the arresting officers that a tow truck was on the way.
Officer Morrill decided to inventory the contents of the vehicle based on the Danbury Police Department’s vehicle inventory policy, which, according to the judge’s summary, states that “a vehicle inventory shall be done whenever an officer causes a vehicle to be towed,” such as “whenever the operator of a motor vehicle is taken into custody.”
The policy directs officers to “check all areas of the vehicle where it would be reasonable to expect personal property to be found,” according to the judge’s summary, which further said that although a vehicle inventory “may lead to the inadvertent discovery of contraband and/or evidence,” its stated purpose is “not to . . . gather evidence in lieu of a search warrant,” but to “protect an arrested person’s property” while they are detained and defend the Danbury Police Department from “claims that property has been stolen, lost, or damage.”
In completing the inventory, Officer Morrill discovered a “plastic shopping bag full of money”, according to the judge’s summary, and called Officer Antonelli, her supervisor, for assistance. He arrived at the parking lot and assisted Officer Morrill by counting the “thousands of dollars” found in car so that the exact amount could be recorded on the inventory form, based on the Danbury Police Department’s standardized procedures for vehicle inventories.
Ms. Moore had called Yvonne Perkins before parking the car in the CVS lot and Ms. Perkins arrived while the officers were still inventorying the car’s contents and saw all the doors and the trunk open, and Officer Morrill going through the car. “[S]he believed that Defendants were unlawfully searching her car and seizing her property,” the judge’s summary said.
Upon confirming that Ms. Perkins was the car’s owner, Officer Antonelli stopped counting money and Officer Morrill stopped looking through the car. Both officers testified that they discontinued the inventory based on the Danbury Police Department’s standardized procedures for vehicle inventories.
In her decision, Judge Garcia wrote: “The Supreme Court has long recognized that when police ‘take a vehicle into custody, they may search the vehicle and make an inventory of its contents without need for a search warrant and without regard to whether there is probable cause to suspect that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal conduct.’” Williams, 930 F.3d at 53 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364, 369 (2d Cir. 2008)). That is because police officers perform vehicle inventories not to “detect crime or to serve criminal prosecutions,” but to “protect the owner’s property while [her vehicle] is in police custody,” “protect the police against spurious claims of lost or stolen property,” and “protect the police from potential danger.” Lopez, 547 F.3d at 369 (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976); Bertine, 479 U.S. at 372).
Judge Garcia noted that courts also recognizes the “danger” posed to the core privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment “by allowing police officers to conduct warrantless investigative searches” of vehicles, and said this concern underscored the necessity of having, and following, standardized policy procedures for vehicle inventories.
About Attorney Casagrande
Attorney Casagrande, who was named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list for a third consecutive year in 2024, has served multiple-year engagements as Town Attorney for New Milford and New Fairfield, as well as being retained for special counsel assignments on behalf of Ridgefield, Middlebury, Southbury, New Milford, Waterford, Cheshire, Bethany, Beacon Falls, Norfolk, and the City of Waterbury.
In addition to Municipal Law, Attorney Casagrande’s practice also focuses on Planning & Zoning Land Use, Appellate Law, and Land Use & Environmental Law.
His notable awards and honors include a 2023 Distinguished Leaders Award in the New England Legal Awards, achieving AV Preeminent status from Martindale-Hubbell, being named a Fellow of the Connecticut Bar Foundation (CBF) James W. Cooper Fellows Program, and receiving a Marvin J. Glink Private Practice Local Government Lawyer of the Year from the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) in 2019. In 2018, he was honored as the “Giant Slayer” among Connecticut counsel as part of the Connecticut Law Tribune’s professional excellence awards.
See Attorney Casagrande’s profile page to learn more. He may be reached by phone at 203-744-1234 or by email at dcasagrande@crameranderson.com.
About Cramer & Anderson
Cramer & Anderson provides sophisticated legal services, close to home, with regional offices in New Milford, Litchfield, Danbury, and Ridgefield. For more information, see the website or call the flagship office in New Milford at (860) 355-2631.