## Facts

- NYPD officers on patrol in the Bronx approached a parked car with the passenger door open, engine running, and occupants arguing.
- Ricardo Lopez was the driver; a woman passenger said she was “hanging out” with her boyfriend.
- An officer observed signs of intoxication and Lopez admitted drinking; she arrested him for driving while intoxicated.
- During a search incident to arrest, officers found a handgun in Lopez’s pants pocket and cocaine in the passenger’s purse.
- After impounding the car and taking it to the precinct, officers conducted an “inventory search” and found cocaine in the center console, a liquor bottle in the driver’s door, and a bag containing cocaine and paraphernalia in the trunk; later, a loaded gun was found in the glove compartment.
- The inventory form listed some items specifically but grouped many items under a general description; the officers gave differing accounts of their inventory-recording practices.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless precinct search of the impounded car was a valid Fourth Amendment inventory search despite alleged noncompliance with standardized procedures and an incomplete inventory list.
2. Whether the district court erred by admitting expert testimony that the drugs and paraphernalia were consistent with distribution, rather than personal use, under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and the denial of the motion to suppress.
- The court held the vehicle search fell within the inventory-search exception because the car was lawfully impounded and the search was conducted in good faith pursuant to standardized police procedures, notwithstanding minor record-keeping deviations.
- The court held the narcotics detective’s expert testimony was properly admitted; it assisted the factfinder and did not impermissibly opine on Lopez’s actual mental state.

## Legal Principles

- A vehicle inventory search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement when the vehicle is lawfully impounded and the search is conducted in good faith under standardized procedures for non-investigatory purposes (e.g., safeguarding property, preventing false claims, and ensuring officer safety).
- The Fourth Amendment does not require a perfect or exhaustive written inventory listing; minor deviations in documentation do not invalidate an otherwise legitimate inventory search absent a showing of investigatory pretext.
- Expert testimony based on specialized narcotics experience may explain the typical significance of drugs and paraphernalia and is admissible when it helps the factfinder and stops short of stating the defendant’s actual intent, consistent with Rule 704(b).

## Conclusion

The court upheld the warrantless inventory search of Lopez’s impounded vehicle despite imperfections in inventory documentation and affirmed admission of expert narcotics testimony describing what the seized drugs and paraphernalia commonly indicate, leaving intent to the factfinder.


United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008)