car driven by arrestee was owned by a passenger in a second following car, who could have taken possession
How later courts described this case
- car driven by arrestee was owned by a passenger in a second following car, who could have taken possession
- no legal justification for impounding car where alternative to impoundment exists
- impoundment is appropriate if a vehicle’s retention as evidence is necessary
- articles in trunk of car
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Fortune, 236 Kan. 248 (1984)
217 Kan. 618, 624 , 539 P.2d 294 (1975), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fortune, 236 Kan. 248 , 689 P.2d 1196
The opinion
Fontkon, J.,
concurring: I agree that the impoundment of the vehicle driven by defendant was unauthorized and hence that the inventory search was illegal. However, I have diificulty in accepting the concept that a search for inventory purposes is limited to those areas and to those objects which are in plain view. The general, and better rule in my judgment, would appear to be otherwise. (See Anno: Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicle, 48 A. L. R. 3d §§ 12 [a], pp. 577, 578, 13 [a], p. 580.)
Kaul, J., joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.
Fromme, J., not participating.