United States v. Gordon: Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Impoundment Authority and Inventory Search Standards When Vehicle Owner Is Incarcerated

Introduction

In United States v. Willie Gordon (11^th Cir. July 29 2025), the Eleventh Circuit delivered a non-precedential yet highly instructive opinion on Fourth-Amendment inventory searches. Willie Gordon was stopped for a seat-belt violation, arrested for driving without a license, and ultimately convicted of narcotics and firearms offenses after deputies discovered contraband in a backpack during an inventory search of the impounded vehicle. Gordon challenged the search as an unconstitutional pretext. The district court denied suppression; the Eleventh Circuit has now affirmed.

The case is significant because it re-articulates the two-step inquiry for inventory searches and addresses a recurring factual wrinkle: What happens when the registered owner of the car is incarcerated and therefore unavailable to retrieve it? The Court holds that officers may reasonably impound and inventory a vehicle under such circumstances without exhausting other, less intrusive alternatives and without telephoning the jailed owner, provided that departmental policy is followed in good faith.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court affirmed the denial of Gordon’s motion to suppress, holding that the inventory search was valid under the Fourth Amendment.
• It concluded that (1) officers had lawful authority to impound the vehicle after a valid arrest where the owner was jailed and the vehicle sat in a high-crime parking lot; and (2) officers adhered to Escambia County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO) standardized impoundment and inventory procedures.
• Because the convictions stood, the Court likewise affirmed the 24-month sentence for violating supervised release.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel drew heavily on Supreme Court and Eleventh-Circuit inventory-search jurisprudence:

1. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) – Recognized vehicle inventory search as a categorical exception to the warrant requirement.
2. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) – Emphasized that impoundment discretion must rest on standardized criteria, not on suspicion of evidence.
3. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) – Warned that inventories cannot be a “ruse for general rummaging.”
4. United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 1243 (11th Cir. 1991) – Adopted the two-prong test: (i) authority to impound, (ii) compliance with policy when searching.
5. United States v. Staller, 616 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1980)
6. Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1992)
7. United States v. Roberson, 897 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 1990)
8. United States v. O’Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985)

Each precedent served to reject Gordon’s two principal contentions: (1) that officers lacked “reasonable” grounds to impound; and (2) that alleged deficiencies in the inventory receipt demonstrated pretext. Bertine and Opperman validated impoundment for “safekeeping” and “protection” reasons. Sammons framed the “realm of reason” test for method of impoundment. Wells confirmed that an officer’s expectation of contraband does not invalidate an otherwise objective procedure (Roberson likewise).

Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Authority to Impound

• Deputies lawfully arrested Gordon for driving without a license.
• ECSO policy permits impoundment when (a) driver is taken into custody and (b) “reasonable efforts” to provide alternatives fail. Gordon identified the owner as Whitney, who was incarcerated; officers reasonably concluded no alternative retrieval was possible.
• The parking lot was known for “frequent criminal activity,” creating a risk of vandalism or theft (Staller).
• The Court reiterated that officers are not required to pursue every “less intrusive” option (Bertine).

2. Compliance with Standardized Criteria

• Deputies completed an incident report and a “Vehicle Impound and Inventory Receipt,” listing contents.
• The search occurred contemporaneously with requesting a tow truck; calling the tow company is itself a policy requirement.
• The policy did not prescribe granular detail for listing items; therefore, any lack of specificity was not fatal (O’Bryant).
• Presence of multiple deputies and an expressed interest in contraband did not transform the inventory into a “rummage” because the structural guardrails (forms, tow, custody) were observed.

Impact on Future Cases and the Law of Inventory Searches

Although unpublished, the opinion is persuasive authority within the Eleventh Circuit and further clarifies:

1. Incarcerated Owner Rule – Officers may treat the unavailability of an incarcerated owner as a per se failure of “reasonable alternatives,” justifying impoundment.
2. No Exhaustion Requirement – Police need not telephone the jailed owner or allow an unverified third party to retrieve the vehicle when safekeeping concerns outweigh convenience.
3. Pretext Inquiry Narrows – So long as inventory procedures are followed in form and substance, an officer’s subjective intent carries little weight.
4. Documentation Tolerance – Minor clerical defects in inventory forms will rarely void a search absent evidence of gross deviation from policy.
5. Supervised-Release Revocations – A revocation sentence premised on underlying convictions remains valid when those convictions survive appeal; the opinion briefly but firmly re-affirms this principle.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Inventory Search – A routine, non-investigatory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle to catalogue valuables, ensure officer safety, and guard against false-claim liability.
• Impoundment vs. Towing – Impoundment is the decision to place a vehicle in police (or contracted) custody; towing is the mechanical act of moving it. Both must be justified under policy.
• Standardized Criteria – Departmental rules that cabin officer discretion (e.g., when to tow, how to list items). Courts look for written policies or well-established routines.
• Pretext Argument – The claim that officers used an apparently lawful procedure as a cover (“ruse”) to search for evidence. Courts assess objective compliance with policy—not subjective motives.
• Non-Argument Calendar – A docket category in which the Court resolves an appeal without oral argument, usually because the law is clear or the record sufficient.

Conclusion

United States v. Gordon underscores that objective adherence to valid departmental policy will almost always salvage an inventory search, even where officers plainly anticipate finding contraband. The Eleventh Circuit’s endorsement of impoundment where the owner is incarcerated provides practical guidance for frontline officers and prosecutors, while offering defense counsel a roadmap for challenging searches that deviate—even slightly—from written norms.

The decision consolidates earlier precedents into a concise, two-step test and rejects the notion that police must exhaust every theoretical alternative before towing a vehicle. Consequently, future litigants should focus less on officers’ subjective motivations and more on the existence—and faithful execution—of standardized procedures.