Summary
The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of habeas corpus, holding that a violation of a local police department's inventory-search policy does not itself violate the Fourth Amendment under *Florida v. Wells*; the policy validly allowed officers discretion to open locked containers unless damage would be unreasonable, and the officer's exercise of that discretion was constitutional. Because the search was valid, counsel's failure to argue a policy violation was not ineffective assistance under *Strickland*, and the state court's factual finding about damage was not a basis for federal collateral relief. Key topics: Fourth Amendment inventory searches, police policy and discretion, ineffective assistance of counsel, and AEDPA deference.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in granting habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue that the inventory search violated police policy by damaging the locked box.
Holdings
- The district court erred because the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The police department's inventory policy was valid under Florida v. Wells, and the officer's exercise of discretion in opening the box, even if it caused some damage, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this argument.
Key quotations
“Our view that standardized criteria or established routine must regulate the opening of containers found during inventory searches is based on the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The policy or practice governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory. The individual police officer must not be allowed so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime. But in forbidding uncanalized discretion to police officers conducting inventory searches, there is no reason to insist that they be conducted in a totally mechanical 'all or nothing' fashion.” (at 4)
“Inventory the contents of suitcases, boxes, and other containers. … Closed and/or Locked Containers - Inventory all closed or locked containers. If a situation exists that requires extreme measures (extensive time, manpower and equipment), and/or unreasonable potential damage to property, the officer should avoid opening the container, but should document why the container was not opened.” (at 5)
Factual background
Raymond Marling was arrested while driving his car. Police conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and found a locked box in the trunk. An officer opened the box with a screwdriver, causing some damage to the lock, and discovered illegal drugs. Marling was convicted of drug and firearm offenses and received a 38-year sentence, including a 20-year habitual criminal enhancement. His trial counsel moved to suppress the contents of the box but did not argue that opening the box violated police department policy by damaging it.
Procedural history
Marling was convicted in Indiana state court and sentenced to 38 years. His direct appeal and state post-conviction proceedings were unsuccessful. He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The district court granted the writ, ruling that the state court's factual finding (that the box was not damaged) was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the inventory search violated police policy. The state appealed.
Remand instructions
The case is reversed; the district court's grant of habeas corpus is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to deny the petition.