Constitutional Minimum, Not Perfection: Minor Deviations from Inventory-Search Policy Do Not Invalidate a Lawful Impound Search

Introduction

In The People of the State of New York v. Brandon Craddock, the Appellate Division, Third Department, addressed how strictly courts must police compliance with standardized police inventory-search procedures when a vehicle is lawfully impounded. The case arises from a traffic stop on the New York State Thruway that led to discovery of a loaded handgun during an inventory search conducted pursuant to New York State Police policy. County Court suppressed the weapon on the ground that the trooper materially departed from the policy. The People appealed.

The Third Department reversed suppression (3–2), holding that the constitutionality of an inventory search turns on whether the search was conducted under standardized procedures and produced a meaningful inventory serving the recognized caretaking objectives, not on perfect adherence to every administrative detail of the policy. The court emphasized that minor deviations—such as uncertainty about when the form was completed and whether a copy was provided to the owner—did not undermine the reasonableness of the search or suggest pretext for investigative purposes.

The decision clarifies the “constitutional minimum” for inventory searches in New York and signals that courts will not “micromanage” paperwork minutiae where the record—including body-worn camera footage—shows a standardized, non-pretextual search that generated a meaningful inventory list.

Summary of the Opinion

The majority (Egan Jr., J.P., joined by Clark and Ceresia, JJ.) held that:

The stop for speeding (92 in a 65) and the decision to tow the car were lawful, given that no occupant had a valid driver’s license and it was a dark, rainy night on the Thruway, implicating public safety concerns.
The State Police had a written inventory-search policy requiring troopers to search “all vehicle compartments and closed containers that can be opened without causing damage,” complete a Vehicle Impound and Inventory Record by the end of the tour, and provide a copy to the registered owner or operator (or leave it in the vehicle).
The trooper conducted a comprehensive inventory search consistent with policy and created a meaningful inventory list of valuables remaining in the vehicle. Items removed at an occupant’s request were recorded on personal property forms, not the vehicle inventory form, which is acceptable.
Any omissions of non-valuable items, uncertainty about whether the inventory form was completed before the end of the shift, and lack of clarity about providing a copy to the owner/operator were minor deviations that did not render the search unreasonable, especially where body-worn camera footage corroborated what was found and there was no evidence of pretext.

The dissent (Mackey, J., joined by Powers, J.) would have affirmed suppression, stressing deference to the suppression court’s factual findings that the trooper did not comply with key policy requirements. The dissent viewed the timing and completeness failures as fatal to the constitutionality of the search under Galak and Leonard, because a delayed, memory-based list that was not provided to the owner undermines the very purposes of an inventory search.

Disposition: Order modified by reversing the suppression of the physical evidence; suppression motion denied to that extent; as modified, affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Factual and Procedural Background

State troopers stopped a 2011 Kia Soul for speeding on the Thruway in Ulster County. No occupant had a valid driver’s license. The troopers decided to tow the vehicle and conduct an inventory search under State Police policy. During the search—documented on body-worn camera—the trooper opened the glove compartment at 2:26 a.m., and a loaded 9mm handgun fell out. He rendered the gun safe, completed the search, and later retrieved certain personal items at an occupant’s request as the vehicle was being loaded onto a tow truck. The occupants were arrested.

County Court granted suppression, finding (1) many items and effects in the vehicle were not memorialized on the inventory form and (2) the form was not filled out until “many hours—if not days” after the search. The People appealed. The Appellate Division accepted that towing and searching were justified but disagreed that these recordkeeping shortcomings required suppression, concluding the People carried their burden to show a standardized, non-pretextual, meaningful inventory.

Precedents and Authorities Cited, and How They Shaped the Decision

COLORADO v. BERTINE, 479 U.S. 367 (1987); FLORIDA v. WELLS, 495 U.S. 1 (1990).
Inventory searches fall within a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement when conducted according to standardized criteria. Wells underscores that rules must meaningfully limit officer discretion, especially regarding closed containers. The State Police policy here expressly authorized searching all compartments and closed containers that can be opened without damage—aligning with Wells and supporting constitutionality.
PEOPLE v. SULLIVAN, 29 N.Y.2d 69 (1971); PEOPLE v. GALAK, 80 N.Y.2d 715 (1993); PEOPLE v. JOHNSON, 1 N.Y.3d 252 (2003); People v. Walker, 20 N.Y.3d 122 (2012); People v. Lee, 29 N.Y.3d 1119 (2017).
New York’s Court of Appeals has articulated the core objectives of inventory searches: protecting property in police custody, insulating police from false claims, and safeguarding police and the public from dangerous items. The “hallmark” is a meaningful inventory list (Johnson). Walker cautioned against “micromanaging” reasonably standardized inventory practices. The majority relied on Lee and Walker to focus on the search’s objectives and the meaningfulness of the list rather than perfection in paperwork.
PEOPLE v. GALAK, 80 N.Y.2d 715 (1993).
The dissent’s anchor. In Galak, a five-hour delay in listing property—combined with the absence of a written procedure and lack of clarity about the disposition of items—rendered the search unreasonable. The majority distinguished Galak: here, there was a written policy; a meaningfully documented search corroborated by bodycam; and no evidence of pretext. The court suggested that delay alone is not dispositive, particularly when reliable contemporaneous documentation (bodycam) exists and the list’s omissions are minor.
PEOPLE v. GOMEZ, 13 N.Y.3d 6 (2009); People v. Douglas, 40 N.Y.3d 385 (2023).
Both underscore the need for the People to prove reliance on standardized, established procedures, including how closed containers are treated. The State Police policy satisfied this requirement, and the trooper’s search fit within it.
People v. Kabia, 197 A.D.3d 788 (3d Dept 2021), lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1162 (2022).
Omitting non-valuable items from the inventory report does not invalidate the search. The majority relied on Kabia to reject suppression based solely on the absence of trivial items from the list.
People v. Leonard, 119 A.D.3d 1237 (3d Dept 2014).
The dissent’s secondary anchor. Leonard invalidated an inventory search where the inventory form was prepared from memory at the barracks and a copy was not provided to the defendant owner. The majority distinguished Leonard, treating the deviations here as minor under the totality—particularly with bodycam corroboration, a written policy, and evidence the owner was notified of the tow.
People v. Jones, 185 A.D.3d 1159 (3d Dept 2020).
When a department’s policy requires a vehicle be “completely inventoried,” failure to do so can invalidate the search. The majority implicitly viewed the State Police policy here as not requiring an exhaustive itemization of every trivial object; rather, it required a comprehensive search and a meaningful list—consistent with Kabia and Walker.
People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268 (2013); PEOPLE v. BLAIR, 45 A.D.3d 1443 (4th Dept 2007), lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 838 (2008).
The majority relied on these decisions to explain why items removed at an occupant’s request after the search properly appear on personal-property forms rather than the vehicle’s inventory form.
People v. David, 41 N.Y.3d 90 (2023); People v. Witt, 129 A.D.3d 1449 (4th Dept 2015); PEOPLE v. JOHNSON, 254 A.D.2d 500 (2d Dept 1998).
These cases support the reasonableness of impounding and towing when no occupant can lawfully drive—a point uncontested on appeal.
People v. Keita, 162 A.D.3d 610 (1st Dept 2018), lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1065 (2018).
Minor procedural deviations that do not suggest pretext do not undermine the reasonableness of an inventory search. The majority cited Keita to frame the deviations here as non-dispositive.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The majority applied the well-settled framework for inventory searches. First, it confirmed the impoundment decision was reasonable and non-pretextual: no licensed driver, adverse conditions on the Thruway, and an established policy requiring towing in such circumstances. Second, it verified that the State Police had a written policy that standardized the scope of inventory searches, including opening closed containers when possible without damage.

The core question was whether the People proved that the search was conducted “in accordance with procedure” and produced a “meaningful inventory list,” with the primary objectives being caretaking rather than evidence gathering (People v. Lee; PEOPLE v. JOHNSON; PEOPLE v. GALAK). On this record:

The trooper searched the entire vehicle, as required by policy, and discovered the handgun lawfully upon opening the glove compartment.
He listed valuables that remained in the vehicle, and later amended the form to add a lighter initially omitted.
Items removed at an occupant’s request were appropriately tracked on personal-property forms rather than the vehicle inventory form.
The body-worn camera footage contemporaneously documented the discovery and the conduct of the search.

Against this backdrop, the court characterized the following as “minor deviations”: uncertainty about whether the form was completed before the end of the trooper’s tour, uncertainty about whether a copy of the inventory was provided to the owner or operator, and omission of non-valuable items from the list. The majority found these deviations did not undermine the reasonableness of the search or its caretaking objectives, particularly in the absence of any sign of investigative pretext.

The majority distinguished cases invalidating inventory searches, especially Galak and Leonard, by emphasizing the presence here of a written policy, a comprehensive search, a meaningful (if imperfect) list, the availability of bodycam footage that could refresh memory, and no suggestion of pretext. Citing Walker, the court warned against “micromanaging the procedures used to search properly impounded vehicles,” and concluded that constitutional minima were met.

The Dissent’s Counter-Analysis

The dissent would have affirmed suppression, deferring to County Court’s factual findings. It viewed two policy requirements—the mandate to complete the written inventory record by the end of the shift and to provide a copy to the owner or driver—as central, not ancillary. The trooper could not say when he completed the form (and might have done so days later) and there was no proof a copy was given to the owner or driver. The dissent regarded a delayed, memory-based list that omitted many items as incompatible with the “hallmark” requirement of a meaningful inventory and as undercutting the very purposes of inventory searches (property protection, claim defense, and safety) emphasized in Galak and Johnson.

The dissent also underscored that the State Police policy did not vest discretion to list only “valuable” items; thus, in its view, omissions were material. It relied on Jones (when policy demands a “complete” inventory) and Leonard (memory-based list, no copy provided) to conclude the People failed to carry their burden to show compliance with established procedures.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

Calibration of “meaningful inventory list”: The decision reinforces that New York courts will look functionally at whether the search achieved caretaking objectives under standardized procedures. Exhaustive itemization is not required; listing valuables that remain in the vehicle, with appropriate use of personal-property forms for items removed, can suffice.
Paperwork deviations and timing: The Third Department treats certain timing and service-of-copy lapses as “minor” where the record otherwise shows a standardized, non-pretextual search and a meaningful inventory. This marks a pragmatic tilt away from suppression for administrative imperfections.
Role of body-worn cameras: The opinion expressly notes that bodycam footage can refresh memory and corroborate what was found. This elevates bodycam evidence as a practical safeguard against the risks that concerned Galak (delayed, unreliable lists without contemporaneous documentation).
Pretext analysis remains central: The absence of any evidence that the inventory was a ruse for investigation is a key pillar of the majority’s holding. Where pretext is present or procedures are exploited to rummage, suppression remains likely.
Intra-department tension and potential further review: The 3–2 split—especially the dissent’s reliance on Leonard and Galak—may invite further clarification from the Court of Appeals regarding how strictly to enforce timing and service requirements and the weight to give bodycam corroboration. The decision signals a permissive approach that may influence future Third Department cases unless narrowed on further review.
Practical guidance for law enforcement:
- Maintain written, standardized policies that expressly address closed containers.
- Conduct full-vehicle inventories; open accessible closed containers without causing damage.
- Document valuables left in the car on the inventory form; record items returned to occupants on personal-property forms.
- Complete the inventory record as promptly as policy requires and provide the copy to the owner/operator—these remain best practices and reduce litigation risk.
- Preserve bodycam footage and ensure it captures the inventory process.
Defense strategies after Craddock:
- Probe whether deviations are minor or aggregate into systemic noncompliance (e.g., no standardized policy for containers, no meaningful list, no record of disposition, evidence of investigative motive).
- Highlight any policy language requiring a “complete” inventory and compare what was listed versus what the video shows.
- Develop pretext arguments where inventory coincides with investigative objectives unrelated to caretaking.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inventory search: A non-investigatory search of an impounded vehicle meant to catalog contents to protect property, guard against false claims, and ensure safety. It is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement when conducted under standardized procedures.
Standardized procedures: Written rules or policies that guide officers on how to conduct the inventory, including whether and how to open closed containers, to limit discretion and avoid arbitrary or pretextual searches.
Meaningful inventory list: A practical, useful record of items in the vehicle that advances the caretaking purposes—often focusing on valuables left in the vehicle; it need not itemize every trivial item.
Pretext: Using inventory procedures as a cover to search for evidence of crime. If shown, pretext can invalidate an inventory search even if some procedures were followed.
“Completion of tour”: The end of the officer’s shift. Some policies require the inventory record to be completed by this time and a copy provided to the owner/operator or left in the vehicle.
Personal-property forms: Separate forms used to log items that are in a person’s possession or that are returned to a person at their request, rather than left in the vehicle, after an inventory search.

Conclusion

People v. Craddock clarifies that under New York law, an inventory search will be upheld where the record shows a standardized, non-pretextual process producing a meaningful inventory list—even if officers are imperfect in completing or serving the paperwork required by internal policy. The decision distinguishes cases like Galak by emphasizing the presence of a written policy governing closed containers, body-worn camera corroboration, and the absence of pretext, and it follows Walker in declining to “micromanage” administrative minutiae that do not affect constitutional reasonableness.

The dissent’s reliance on strict compliance with timing and service requirements reflects a continuing tension in New York’s inventory-search jurisprudence over how exacting courts should be when paperwork deviates from policy. Until the Court of Appeals speaks further, Craddock stands for a functional approach: constitutional minima, not perfection, govern inventory searches. Officers should still strive for timely, complete documentation and service, but minor paperwork lapses will not automatically trigger suppression where the search is otherwise standardized, transparent, and non-pretextual.