Cited by

But even with a diminished expectation of privacy, an individual’s privacy interest in their vehicle “is still constitutionally protected.”

a defendant was found guilty of two counts of possession of controlled substances.

To determine whether an inventory search is lawful, an appellate court must “look, as a threshold inquiry, to the propriety of the impoundment, since the act of impoundment 6 gives rise to the need for and justification of the inventory.” d 506, 510 (Minn. 1977).

“If impoundment is not necessary, then the concomitant [inventory] search is unreasonable.” State v. Goodrich

The police may also impound a vehicle to protect “the arrested individual’s property from theft and the police from claims arising therefrom.”

To determine if an inventory search of an impounded vehicle is reasonable, appellate courts examine “the propriety of the impoundment, since the act of impoundment gives rise to the need fo r and justification of the inventory.”

(holding a vehicle impoundment unreasonable where the officer testified “that he did not know [the vehicle] was not stolen and that it was possibly a stolen car which had not yet been reported” (emphasis omitted)); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.

Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987); South Dakota v. Opperman , 428 U.S. 364, 373, 9 6 S. Ct. 3092, 3099 (1976); State v. Gauster , -10 (Minn. 1977).

and despite defendant’s alternative arrangements for disposition of the automobile.”

(concluding that defendant who was arrested was still able to protect his “property from theft and the police from claims arising therefrom” by arranging for a family member to take his car).

to support this contention.

If impoundment is not necessary, then the concomitant search is unreasonable.”

Thus, an inventory search “conducted pursuant to a standard police procedure prior to lawfully impounding an automobile [is] not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.”

We have similarly acknowledged a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in one’s home and curtilage, in one’s automobile, and in a public restroom, State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 211-12

2585 , 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975); (holding privacy interest in automobile constitutionally protected).

“If im-poundment is not necessary, then the concomitant search is unreasonable.”

Section 152.18, subdivision 1, provides that upon a guilty plea to certain offenses involving possession of a controlled substance, the court may defer further proceedings and place the person on probation “without entering a judgment of guilty.” -12 (Minn.1977) (trial court deferred imposition of sentence under section 152.18 “without entering a judgment of guilty”); (there is no adjudication of guilt under section 152.18).

1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1967); [quoting from State ex rel.

3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); City of St.