We also agree with the trial court’s decision finding Officer Waddle “was correct in not permitting a person whose license was under suspension to just drive away.” This is because, as explained by the trial court, “[H]ad he done so and [Mr. Mendonca] had injured someone by his driving, the officer and his department would face civil liability for those injuries.
State v. Mendonca
2023 – Ohio – 1780
Twelfth District Appellate Court
Brown County, Ohio
May 30, 2023
Fourteen Miles Over the Speed Limit
Officer Sean Waddle with the Fayetteville Police Department conducted a legally permissible traffic stop of Mr. Mendonca’s rental car after Officer Waddle clocked Mr. Mendonca driving 39 mph in a posted 25 mph speed zone while in Fayetteville, Brown County, Ohio on the afternoon of Friday July 30, 2021.
Suspended Operator’s License
Once the traffic stop of Mr. Mendonca’s rental car was effectuated, Officer Waddle approached the vehicle and contacted Mr. Mendonca. Upon contacting Mr. Mendonca, and after asking Mr. Mendonca to produce his driver’s license and registration, Officer Waddle noticed a large stack of cash located in the car’s open glovebox. Officer Waddle also discovered that Mr. Mendonca’s out-of-state driver’s license was suspended. Officer Waddle further discovered that the vehicle’s registration and proof of insurance were both expired. Because Mr. Mendonca’s driver’s license had been suspended, and because the vehicle’s registration and proof of insurance were both expired, Officer Waddle decided to have Mr. Mendonca’s rental car towed away from the scene and impounded. The record indicates that Officer Waddle did this in accordance with Fayetteville’s vehicle towing and release policy.
Fayetteville’s Vehicle Towing Policy
Officer Waddle then conducted an inventory search of the vehicle. The record indicates that Officer Waddle also did this in accordance with Fayetteville’s vehicle towing and release policy. Specifically, Section §502.5, which states:
All property in a stored or impounded vehicle shall be inventoried and listed on the vehicle storage form. This includes the trunk and any compartments or containers, even if they are closed and/or locked. Members conducting inventory searches should be as thorough and accurate as practicable in preparing an itemized inventory. These inventory procedures are for the purpose of protecting an owner’s property while the owner is in police custody, to provide for the safety of officers and the public, and to protect the Department against fraudulent claims of lost, stolen or damaged property.
Two Pound Brick of Cocaine Discovered in the Not-So-Hidden Compartment
During the subsequent inventory search of Mr. Mendonca’s rental car, Officer Waddle discovered a small baggie containing .143 ounces of cocaine located in the vehicle’s passenger compartment stuffed in between the car’s driver’s seat and center console. Upon finding this small baggie of cocaine, Officer Waddle then opened the vehicle’s trunk to continue his search. The search of the vehicle’s trunk area resulted in Officer Waddle discovering a large, over two-pound brick of cocaine sealed in a brown bag hidden behind an access panel.
Following this discovery, Mr. Mendonca was placed under arrest and transported to the Brown County Jail by Deputy William Dickman, a deputy with the Brown County Sheriff’s Office. Once there, Mr. Mendonca was removed from Deputy Dickman’s police cruiser and a search of the cruiser’s backseat was conducted. This search resulted in the discovery of .5 ounces of methamphetamine located in the Deputy Dickman’s police cruiser near the area where Mr. Mendonca had been sitting.
Indictments to Include Major Drug Offender
On August 12, 2021, the Brown County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Mr. Mendonca with single counts:
First-degree felony trafficking in cocaine in violation of O.R.C. §2925.03(A)(2);
First-degree felony possession of cocaine in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A);
Third-degree felony aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of O.R.C. §2925.03(A)(2), and;
Third-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A).
The indictment also included four major drug offender specifications pursuant to O.R.C. §2941.1410(A) and two forfeiture specifications in accordance with O.R.C. §2941.1417(A).
Motion to Suppress
Did the Fayetteville Police Policy Writers Get the Inventory Policy Wrong?
On October 14, 2021, Mr. Mendonca filed a motion to suppress. Mr. Mendonca advanced several arguments in support of his suppression motion. This included Mr. Mendonca’s argument that Officer Waddle conducted an unconstitutional inventory search of his vehicle. This was because, according to Mr. Mendonca, Fayetteville’s vehicle towing and release policy “effectively attempts to eviscerate” the rights guaranteed to him by the United States and Ohio Constitutions to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court held a hearing on Mr. Mendonca’s motion to suppress on November 10, 2021.
Officer Waddle was the only witness who testified at this hearing. As part of this testimony, Officer Waddle was asked upon what he based his decision to have Mendonca’s rental car towed. To this, Officer Waddle testified that his decision to tow Mendonca’s rental car was based on Mendonca “driving under suspension, as well as the vehicle not having a valid registration,” and “no valid insurance.”
Motion to Suppress is Denied
On December 10, 2021, the trial court issued a decision denying Mr. Mendonca’s motion to suppress. In so holding, the trial court stated:
There has been no showing of a violation of the United States Constitution by the officer’s action in stopping the vehicle or in conducting an inventory search when he learned [Mr. Mendonca’s] operator’s license was under suspension.
The trial court also stated:
[Officer Waddle] would have been derelict in his duty if he had simply issued a citation for speeding and a license violation. He was correct in not permitting a person whose license was under suspension to just drive away. Had he done so and [Mr. Mendonca] had injured someone by his driving, [Officer Mr. Mendonca] and his department would face civil liability for those injuries.
Three Day Trial – Guilty on All Counts
From Fourteen Over the Speed Limit to a Thirteen to Sixteen Year Sentence
From August 22 to August 25, 2022, the trial court held a three-day jury trial on the matter. After both parties rested, and following the jury’s deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Mendonca guilty as charged. The next day, the trial court held a sentencing hearing where it sentenced Mr. Mendonca to serve a total, aggregate sentence of a mandatory minimum 13 years in prison with a maximum 16-and-one-half-years in prison, less 393 days of jail-time credit. The trial court also ordered Mr. Mendonca to pay court costs and notified Mr. Mendonca that he would be subject to a mandatory minimum two-year to a maximum five-year postrelease control term. The trial court issued a judgment entry of sentence later that same day. Mr. Mendonca filed a notice of appeal on August 31, 2022. Oral argument was held before this court on May 1, 2023. Mr. Mendonca’s appeal now before this court for decision, Mr. Mendonca has raised two assignments of error for review.
Appeals
Spoiler Alert – Each Appeal Lacks Merit
Failing to Determine WHY Mr. Mendonca’s License was Suspended
Mr. Mendonca initially argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because Officer Waddle did not follow Fayetteville’s vehicle towing and release policy by having his rental car towed without first determining why his driver’s license had been suspended. However, upon review, we can find nothing within Fayetteville’s vehicle towing and release policy that would require Officer Waddle to learn why Mr. Mendonca’s driver’s license had been suspended prior to having the car towed. We instead find Officer Waddle complied with the procedures outlined in Fayetteville’s towing and release policy by towing Mr. Mendonca’s rental car given that Mr. Mendonca’s driver’s license was suspended and the vehicle’s registration and proof of insurance were both expired. Mr. Mendonca’s rental car was clearly subject to impoundment under these circumstances. In so holding, we agree with the trial court’s decision finding Officer Waddle would have been “derelict in his duty” if he had simply issued Mr. Mendonca a citation for speeding and a license violation. We also agree with the trial court’s decision finding Officer Waddle “was correct in not permitting a person whose license was under suspension to just drive away.” This is because, as explained by the trial court, “[H]ad he done so and [Mr. Mendonca] had injured someone by his driving, the officer and his department would face civil liability for those injuries.”
Therefore, Mr. Mendonca’s first argument lacks merit.
Does a Vehicle Inventor include Hidden Compartments?
Mr. Mendonca lastly argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because Officer Waddle’s search of his rental car’s trunk area—specifically, the area behind an access panel between the rental car’s trunk liner and the vehicle’s outside shell where the cocaine was hidden—was outside the scope of what could be considered a lawful inventory search. However, while not explicit, Mr. Mendonca is essentially arguing that Officer Waddle’s inventory search should have been limited to just those designated storage areas within a vehicle that are in plain view. This would include, for instance, his rental car’s passenger compartment, glovebox, center console, and trunk. We disagree.
Established Case Law
Inventory Includes Hidden Compartments
“[T]he scope of an inventory search is not restricted to items in plain view.” State v. Semenchuk, 122 Ohio App.3d 30, 40 (8th Dist.1997).
The scope of an inventory search is also not restricted to just those areas that are designed and intended to be used as storage. State v. Johnson, 2022-Ohio- 1733, (finding officer did not exceed the scope of a lawful inventory search by opening and reaching into the “space behind the access panel” located on the lower portion of a vehicle’s passenger side center console).
Inventory Includes Closed Containers and Compartments
The scope of an inventory search is in actuality quite broad and, in most instances, includes “the contents of closed containers and compartments so long as the search is administered in accordance with reasonable police procedures.” State v. Early, 2002-Ohio-4112.
Inventory Includes Opening the Hood
This includes searches of a vehicle’s engine compartment and areas within the engine compartment. State v. Johnson, 2022-Ohio- 1733, citing United States v. Lumpkin, 159 F.3d 983, 987-988 (6th Cir.1998); and United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.2016) (upholding inventory search of air filter compartment that was “obviously large enough to hold a firearm, and could be opened by lifting the hood and releasing the latches on the box”).
The Fayetteville Police Inventory Policy Writers Got it Right!
In this case, Officer Waddle’s inventory search of Mr. Mendonca’s rental car’s trunk area, including the area behind the access panel between the rental car’s trunk liner and outside shell where the cocaine was hidden, was conducted in accordance with Section 502.5 of the Fayetteville’s vehicle towing and release policy. As noted above, that section specifically provides that, “All property in a stored or impounded vehicle shall be inventoried and listed on the vehicle storage form. This includes the trunk and any compartments or containers, even if they are closed and/or locked.” Here, the cocaine was hidden behind an access panel in the vehicle’s trunk area, a place that falls squarely within what is commonly understood to be a one of the vehicle’s many easily accessible compartments. Therefore, because Officer Waddle’s inventory search of Mr. Mendonca’s rental car did not extend beyond the scope of what could be considered a lawful inventory search, Mr. Mendonca’s third argument likewise lacks merit.
Accordingly, finding no merit to any of Mr. Mendonca’s three arguments raised herein, Mr. Mendonca’s first assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Mendonca, 2023 – Ohio – 1780.
State v. Mendonca, 2023 – Ohio – 1780 was issued by the Twelfth District Appellate Court on May 30, 2023 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Fayette, Madison, Preble and Warren.
Lessons Learned:
- Why? Mendonca alleged that Officer Waddle had unconstitutionally impounded his vehicle because the officer failed to determine why Mr. Mendonca’s license was suspended. This is a unique legal argument advocated by Mr. Mendonca’s legal team that the court quickly dismissed as the court should have dismissed. Could you imagine that on every No Operator’s license charge, law enforcement would have to determine as to why the driver lost his license prior to charging the suspect? Not only is it ridiculous it would not change the fact that a person without an Operators License was driving without a valid license.
- Civil Liability – This is a criminal case. However, the trial court and the appellate court highlighted that IF Officer Waddle permitted Mr. Mendonca to drive away from the scene and he was subsequently involved in an injury accident the Fayetteville Police Department may have been civilly liable. As the court stated “We also agree with the trial court’s decision finding Officer Waddle “was correct in not permitting a person whose license was under suspension to just drive away.” This is because, as explained by the trial court, “[H]ad he done so and [Mr. Mendonca] had injured someone by his driving, the officer and his department would face civil liability for those injuries.”” This wording is cautionary for law enforcement officers to not permit unlicensed drivers to knowingly drive.
- Hidden Compartment Search – Mendonca advanced the argument that a vehicle inventory does not include hidden compartments. The court provided a series of precedential cases that have long supported that an inventory does include hidden compartments.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Officers should mirror the behavior of Officer Waddle to know, understand and apply the police department’s inventory policy. Remember, if an officer is legally confident, he will be tactically confident. Officer Waddle developed a fourteen mile an hour speed limit violation into a Major Drug Offender case. Well done Officer Waddle!
Does your agency train on the Vehicle Inventory Doctrine?
Contact me at https://www.objectivelyreasonable.com/contact/
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and Objectively Reasonable!