USA V. SAPALASAN, No. 21-30251 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In this case, Markanthony Sapalasan was arrested and his backpack was searched. After the arrest, his backpack was taken into police custody, and Sapalasan was taken to the police station for questioning regarding a potential murder. After questioning, Sapalasan was released, but his backpack remained in police custody. Approximately six hours later, Officer Tae Yoon conducted an inventory search of the backpack and discovered methamphetamine. Sapalasan was subsequently convicted of two drug felonies and appealed the conviction, claiming that the search of his backpack violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the police may constitutionally conduct an inventory search of belongings when the property is lawfully retained and the search is done in compliance with police regulations, even after the individual has been released. The court found that the lawfulness of the initial separation of Sapalasan from his backpack was unchallenged, so the justification of an inventory search did not depend on whether he was headed to jail. The court also determined that Officer Yoon's inventory search substantially complied with the police department's policy. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's denial of Sapalasan's motion to suppress the methamphetamine found during the search.
Court Description: Criminal Law. In a case in which Markanthony Sapalasan was convicted of drug felonies, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Sapalasan’s motion to suppress methamphetamine found during an officer’s inventory search of Sapalasan’s backpack.
The panel held that the police may constitutionally conduct an inventory search of belongings when the property is lawfully retained and the search is done in compliance with police regulations, even after the individual has been released. Distinguishing Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983), the panel wrote that because Sapalasan conceded that he was validly separated from his property, government custody of the backpack lawfully emerged. That separate custody allowed the government to conduct an inventory search of the backpack, and because that search was done in substantial compliance with police department policy, suppression of the evidence is unwarranted.
Concurring, Judge R. Nelson wrote separately to emphasize (1) he would reach the same conclusion on the lawfulness of the search by applying the principles laid out in Lafayette; and (2) he would not reach the merits of differentiating Alaskan state law because Sapalasan waived any reliance on Zehrung v. Alaska, 569 P.2d 189, 193, 195 (Alaska 1977), by failing to address it below. Judge Hawkins dissented. Citing Lafayette and Ninth Circuit case law emphasizing the significance of impending incarceration on the propriety of a jailhouse inventory search, Judge Hawkins disagreed with the majority’s conclusion regarding the inventory search of Sapalasan’s backpack at the police station after Sapalasan—who was never booked, let alone incarcerated—had been released from questioning. Judge Hawkins wrote that the majority also refused to follow Ninth Circuit case law that requires consideration of whether the inventory search complied with existing state law requirements as part of the Fourth Amendment analysis.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.