## Facts

- Curtis Gipson was stopped in Chicago around 12:25 a.m. after police followed his vehicle; an officer determined Gipson’s driver’s license was revoked.
- The officer arrested Gipson for driving on a revoked license and decided to tow the vehicle.
- Before towing, the officer conducted an inventory search and completed (or proceeded to complete) a tow sheet listing “items of value,” consistent with Illinois State Police practice.
- The officer inventoried the passenger compartment and trunk and opened bags found in the trunk to check for valuables.
- Inside nested tied plastic bags in the trunk, the officer discovered crack cocaine.
- Gipson moved to quash arrest and suppress the cocaine, asserting the search was not a valid inventory search and that he did not consent.
- At the suppression hearing, the State did not introduce the written inventory policy; the officer testified about the policy and was not cross-examined on its contents.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, reasoning the absence of the written policy made the officer’s testimony insufficient and the opening of closed bags unjustified; the appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether unrebutted officer testimony may sufficiently establish a standardized police inventory-search policy when the written policy is not admitted into evidence.
2. Whether an inventory policy requiring officers to list “items of value” authorizes opening closed containers found in an impounded vehicle when the policy does not expressly mention closed containers.
3. How the burden of proof and persuasion at a suppression hearing applies to a challenge to an impound inventory search.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court and remanded.
- The court held that credible, unrebutted officer testimony can establish the existence and content of an inventory policy without admitting the written policy.
- The court held that a policy directing officers to inventory “items of value” is sufficiently specific to permit opening closed containers where valuables may be stored.
- The court concluded the inventory search was valid and that suppression was improper because Gipson did not meet his ultimate burden to prove the search unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- At a suppression hearing, the defendant bears the burden to make a prima facie showing of an unlawful search; after the State offers justification, the defendant retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
- Inventory searches of vehicles being towed are permissible when conducted for a noninvestigatory caretaking purpose and pursuant to standardized procedures that limit officer discretion.
- The State is not subject to a categorical requirement to produce a written inventory policy; the policy’s existence and content may be proven through testimony, including unrebutted officer testimony.
- A standardized directive to inventory “items of value” may reasonably include opening closed containers in the vehicle when necessary to locate and record valuables, absent evidence the inventory is a pretext for investigation.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court upheld an impound inventory search that included opening closed bags in a vehicle’s trunk, ruling that unrebutted officer testimony can prove standardized inventory procedures and that a policy to record “items of value” can justify opening containers likely to hold valuables, thereby rendering suppression unwarranted.


People v. Gipson, 786 N.E.2d 540 (Ill. 2003)