## Facts

- A state trooper stopped Joel A. Villela for speeding late at night and detected signs of alcohol use.
- After Villela declined field sobriety tests, the trooper arrested him for suspected DUI.
- Relying on RCW 46.55.360, the trooper impounded Villela’s Jeep under a mandatory rule requiring impoundment whenever a driver is arrested for DUI, without regard to alternatives.
- The trooper did not consider releasing the vehicle to either of Villela’s two passengers.
- During an inventory search of the impounded Jeep, the trooper found items associated with drug distribution (including baggies, a digital scale, pipes, and cash).
- A search incident to arrest of Villela uncovered cocaine.
- Villela presented evidence that impoundment commonly imposes substantial financial consequences that can exceed $1,000 and can lead to loss of the vehicle.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, ruling RCW 46.55.360 unconstitutional as applied under article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 46.55.360’s mandatory impound requirement supplies “authority of law” under article I, § 7 to justify warrantless impoundment and a resulting inventory search.
2. Whether a mandatory impound rule that removes officer discretion to consider reasonable alternatives authorizes seizures beyond the limited warrant exceptions recognized under article I, § 7.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed suppression of the evidence.
- The court held RCW 46.55.360 unconstitutional to the extent it mandates impoundment in circumstances where article I, § 7 would not otherwise permit it.
- The court concluded that obedience to a statutory command does not itself create “authority of law” for a warrantless seizure and inventory search under article I, § 7.

## Legal Principles

- Under article I, § 7, the State may not disturb private affairs without “authority of law,” which generally requires a warrant or a recognized, long-standing exception to the warrant requirement.
- The legislature may provide greater protection for constitutional rights, but it cannot reduce constitutional protections or expand warrant exceptions by statute.
- Warrantless vehicle impoundment and inventory searches are permissible only in limited, constitutionally recognized circumstances and must be reasonable in light of available alternatives.
- A statute that mandates impoundment regardless of need or reasonable alternatives cannot convert an otherwise unconstitutional seizure into a constitutional one.
- Vehicle impoundment is a significant interference with property and privacy interests; its nontrivial consequences reinforce the need for a valid constitutional justification.

## Conclusion

The court held that a mandatory DUI impound statute cannot itself supply the “authority of law” required by article I, § 7, and because the impound was executed without considering reasonable alternatives or fitting within a recognized warrant exception, the resulting inventory-search evidence was properly suppressed.


State v. Villela, 450 P.3d 170 (Wash. 2019)