UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan K. CHERRY, Defendant-Appellant, 436 F.3d 769

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Alan Cherry was caught with a gun during a traffic stop and later pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, Cherry preserved his right to challenge on appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the gun, which was found in the trunk of his car. The propriety of that search is the only issue before us. Cherry’s encounter with Joliet, Illinois, police began when he was stopped on Interstate 80 for speeding and failing to signal a lane change.

Officer Harris testified at the suppression hearing that he smelled burnt marijuana as he approached Cherry, who provided a driver’s license but not proof of insurance. Harris then walked behind the car to deliver Cherry’s licence to another officer, Officer May, while a third officer, Officer Batís, approached the car from the passenger’s side. Batís testified that from his vantage point he saw a plastic bag protruding from Cherry’s right-front pants pocket. Batís gestured to Harris, who testified that he understood the signal to mean that Batís saw contraband.

The officers directed Cherry to exit the car, and when he did, according to Harris, the bag of marijuana in his pants pocket was visible. The officers searched Cherry, seized the marijuana, and placed him in custody. Harris then issued three tickets — for speeding, failing to signal, and driving without proof of insurance — and began completing a tow sheet to record the condition and contents of Cherry’s car. At the same time Batís and May began an inventory search of the car. May found the gun in the trunk. After he was charged in federal court, Cherry challenged the admissibility of the gun.

He argued that he never should have been ordered out of his car and searched because Officer Batís could not possibly have seen the marijuana while he was still seated in the car. And, Cherry continued, since the search revealing the marijuana was unconstitutional, his drug arrest was unlawful and the inventory search that uncovered the gun was tainted. Although Cherry was not charged with possession of marijuana, the district court first addressed its discovery. The court focused on two photographs, introduced by Cherry, of a car similar in make and model to his.

The photographs show a front-seat console that the court opined would have blocked Officer Batis’s view of the plastic bag in Cherry’s pants pocket. The court also questioned why Officer Harris testified that he relied on Batis’s observations as the basis for directing Cherry to exit the car, when Harris stated in his arrest report and testified that he himself smelled burnt marijuana. In a tenuous ruling, the court found Batís not credible and, apparently on that basis alone, concluded that the seizure of the marijuana and the arrest of Cherry did not justify the inventory search that uncovered the gun.

And though the district court never explicitly discredited Harris or explained why the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Cherry and search his car based solely on Harris’s unchallenged testimony that he smelled burnt marijuana, the court moved on to consider whether the circumstances of the traffic stop were enough to authorize the inventory search. The court observed that the traffic stop and subsequent revelation that Cherry lacked proof of insurance, under the written policies of the Joliet Police Department, prevented him from moving his car from its location alongside the interstate.

In this circumstance, the court found, department policy required that the car be towed. And, the court continued, when a car is towed “on the authority” of an officer, department policy also requires an inventory search. Thus, despite concluding that it must ignore the marijuana, the court still reasoned that the inventory search had been authorized.

The court, though, explained that it was denying the motion to suppress based upon the doctrine of “inevitable discovery.” Given the district court’s analysis, the parties debate whether the admission of the gun was justified under the “inevitable discovery” doctrine, but resort to that doctrine is unnecessary. The “inevitable discovery” doctrine is a means for the government to avoid suppression of evidence obtained as the result of unlawful conduct by the police, see, e.g., United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 352, 356-57 (7th Cir.2003); United States v.

Langford, 314 F.3d 892, 895 (7th Cir.2002), and for the doctrine to apply the government must prove by a preponderance that authorities “would have found the challenged evidence through lawful means.” United States v. Jones, 72 F.3d 1324, 1334 (7th Cir.1995) (emphasis added); see Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); United States, v. Pittman, 411 F.3d 813, 817 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Johnson, 380 F.3d 1013, 1014 (7th Cir.2004). In this case, however, the government has always contended that Joliet Police officers did find the gun through lawful means.

We recognize that the government has inexplicably abandoned reliance on Officer Harris’s testimony that he smelled marijuana — which seems a simple and compelling foundation for searching Cherry and ultimately the car including the trunk, see United States v. Wimbush, 337 F.3d 947, 950-51 (7th Cir.2003) (smell of marijuana gave rise to probable cause for warrantless search of vehicle revealing marijuana in passenger compartment); United States v.

McGuire, 957 F.2d 310, 314 (7th Cir.1992) (presence of contraband in passenger compartment is probable cause to search entire vehicle, including trunk, for additional contraband); see also United States v. Foster, 376 F.3d 577, 583-84, 588 (6th Cir.2004) (smell of marijuana coming from vehicle provides probable cause to search without warrant); United States v. Brown, 334 F.3d 1161, 1173 & n. 11 (D.C.Cir.2003) (discovery of contraband in passenger compartment “is a factor that strongly supports the lawfulness of a trunk search”); United States v.

Peltier, 217 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir.2000) (smell of burnt marijuana gave police probable cause to search truck for drugs); cf. United States v. Nielsen, 9 F.3d 1487, 1491 (10th Cir.1993) (search of trunk reasonable if initial search of passenger compartment, premised on smell of burnt marijuana, produces contraband). The government now focuses exclusively on the fact that Cherry lacked proof of insurance when the police stopped him; his lack of insurance, the government argues, was a valid basis for conducting the inventory search even if finding the marijuana on Cherry was not.

But this is an argument that the search of the trunk was lawful, not an argument— like “inevitable discovery” — that unlawful conduct should not result in suppression. Inventory searches are a recognized exception to the warrant and probable-cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Wilson, 938 F.2d 785, 788 (7th Cir.1991).

Searches conducted by the police prior to towing a car are “lawful if conducted pursuant to standard police procedures aimed at protecting the owner’s property — and protecting the police from the owner’s charging them with having stolen, lost, or damaged his property.” Pittman, 411 F.3d at 817. We review a district court’s conclusion that police officers “followed standard procedure while conducting an inventory search” for clear error, United States v. Lozano, 171 F.3d 1129, 1132 (7th Cir.1999); see also United States v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir.2004); United States v.

Lomeli, 76 F.3d 146, 149 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Privett, 68 F.3d 101, 104 (5th Cir.1995), but our review of the reasonableness of the inventory search and seizure is plenary, see United States v. Grap, 403 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Jackson, 189 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Haro-Salcedo, 107 F.3d 769, 771 (10th Cir.1997). We turn first to the district court’s finding that the written police policies of the Joliet Police Department authorized the inventory search of Cherry’s car. The court relied on two written policies.

General Order 17-3 requires an inventory search “[a]ny time a vehicle is towed on the authority of a member of [the Joliet Police] Department,” except in the case of a traffic accident. See Gen. Order 17-3, “Towing Vehicles,” § 1.3 (2003). General Order 17-18, in relevant part, establishes procedures for enforcing the Illinois Mandatory Insurance Law (“I.M.I.L.”), 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3-707: 5. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE 5.1 When a sworn member stops a vehicle for a traffic law violation or investigation of a traffic accident, he will request proof of insurance documents from vehicle operators.

No member will stop a vehicle solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid insurance policy- 5.2 If an operator is not driving an exempt vehicle, and cannot or will not provide proof of insurance documentation, the officer will then: A. in addition to any other citations, issue a citation for violation of

Chapter 625 ILCS 5/3-707. B. cause the vehicle to be left legally parked, or, at the request of the operator, notify a tow company of the operator’s choice, if the operator has a valid driver’s licence. If, however, the driver does not have a valid driver’s licence and does not have proof of insurance, the member must tow and impound the vehicle. The vehicle will then be released only upon a showing of proof of insurance for the motor vehicle that was impounded and notarized written consent of the release by the vehicle owner. 6.

TOWING PROCEDURE 6.1 Vehicles will be towed only under the following circumstances: A. when LEADS message information verifies state registration for the vehicle has been suspended for non-compliance with the I.M.I.L. B. If, after being cited for violation of the I.M.I.L., the driver either drives away or attempts to drive away. C. If a second citation is issued to the same driver by the same officer during the same tour of duty. 6.2If the vehicle is towed, an Offense Report, and a Vehicle Inventory and Tow Report are required. Gen. Order 17-18, “Illinois Mandatory Insurance Law,” §§ 5, 6 (2003).

The district court read General Order 17-3 to require an inventory search when a police officer causes a car to be towed, and in turn relied on General Order 17-18 to provide officers the authority to order the tow of Cherry’s car (because without proof of insurance Cherry could not move his car to a legal parking place). We cannot say that the district court committed clear error in finding that the Joliet police officers followed standard procedure in conducting the inventory search of Cherry’s car.

General Order 17-18 prevented Cherry from driving his car after the police discovered he lacked proof of insurance. And, because the car was located alongside the interstate — where it presented a public safety hazard — the police were authorized to order it towed to a safe location. Their authority to order such a tow in the interest of public safety is unassailable. See South Dakota v.

Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.”); see, e.g., United States v. Briggs, 273 F.3d 737, 739 (7th Cir.2001) (truck towed from alongside road because driver’s license suspended). Moreover, a third written policy introduced by the government, General Order 17-4, provided unambiguous authority for the police to tow Cherry’s car. See Gen. Order 17-4, “Illegally Parked, Abandoned and Inoperable Vehicles,” § 2.4 (2003).

The policy states that “ANY VEHICLE THAT PRESENTS AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY WILL BE TOWED” and defines “immediate hazard” to include a vehicle that “creates or constitutes a traffic hazard which impedes the efficient movement of traffic” or “obstructs or may obstruct the movement of any emergency vehicle.” Id. at §§ 2.4, 1 (capitalization in the original). As the officers testified, without challenge from Cherry, a car parked alongside an interstate highway meets this definition. Cherry urges a different

interpretation of the policies, principally arguing that § 6.1 of General Order 17-18 is exhaustive as to the circumstances under which a tow is authorized. That contention, however, ignores that Cherry’s car was towed not only because he lacked proof of insurance but also because the car could not be left alongside the interstate without creating a hazard — a circumstance not addressed in General Order 17-18. General Order 17-4, which Cherry does not confront, explicitly addresses parked vehicles that present a hazard and provided unambiguous authority to tow Cherry’s car.

And, though he may disagree with the reading given General Order 17-18 by the police witnesses and the district court, we do not understand why General Order 17-4 is not dis-positive. The officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing, moreover, confirms the district court’s view of police policy. See Lomeli, 76 F.3d at 149 (relying in part on officer’s understanding of police policy). Officers Batís and Harris both testified that the police department’s “common practice” is to tow illegally parked cars after an officer discovers the driver lacks insurance.

Harris did acknowledge an alternate reading of the written policy when cross-examined by Cherry’s attorney, but Batís testified without challenge that Cherry’s car had to be towed (after an inventory search) because it was parked illegally. The officers’ testimony strengthens our view that the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Nor was the search unreasonable. “Warrantless inventory searches of ears in police custody are also proper as long as the police lawfully have custody of the vehicles.” United States v. Jensen, 169 F.3d 1044, 1048 (7th Cir.1999).

Here, again relying on General Order 17-18, Cherry argues that it was unnecessary for the police to take custody of his car and trigger an inventory search because, in his view, he had the option of requesting a towing company (and presumably specifying the destination of the car). See Gen. Order 17-18, at § 5.2(B). But, putting aside that Cherry never did say that he wanted to arrange for a tow himself, the answer is the same: General Order 17-4, not General Order 17-18, covers parked vehicles that present a hazard, and General Order 17-4 directed the police to tow the car.

That directive does not compel the officers at the scene to invite or accept input from the motorist as to the appropriate disposition of his vehicle, nor does the Fourth Amendment demand that police offer a motorist an alternative means of removing his vehicle that will avoid the need to tow it and conduct an inventory search. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 373-74, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987) (police need not give motorist “an opportunity to make alternative arrangements” that avoid impoundment); Illinois v.

Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (“The reasonableness of any particular governmental activity does not necessarily or invariably turn on the existence of alternative ‘less intrusive’ means.”); Privett, 68 F.3d at 104 (finding search within inventory exception to Fourth Amendment, even though vehicle could have been towed to motorist’s home rather than impound lot); United States v. Skillern, 947 F.2d 1268, 1275-76 (5th Cir.1991) (police not required to offer motorist alternative to impoundment); cf. United States v.

Penn, 233 F.3d 1111, 1116-17 (9th Cir.2000) (absent policy requiring consent of owner for search, police need not allow motorist to remove property from car prior to routine inventory search). Thus, even if events conspired to deprive Cherry of the opportunity to request a specific towing company, no Fourth Amendment violation has occurred; the police were free to tow his hazardously parked car pursuant to their standard policy, in furtherance of their “community caretaking” function. See Cady v.

Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); see Opperman, 428 U.S. at 375-76, 96 S.Ct. 3092; Lomeli, 76 F.3d at 148 (7th Cir.1996). AFFIRMED. . Cherry does not argue that police engineered the initial traffic stop in this case as a "subterfuge for criminal investigations." South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 371 n. 5, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Regardless, our

interpretation of the Joliet policy would not, as the dissent posits, allow police to "use the policy on inventory searches to authorize illegal investigatory searches," post, at 779, by simply arranging to stop any motorist alongside the interstate. The police’s authority to search Cherry's car rested on his inability to produce proof of insurance. Had he been able to drive his car after the routine traffic stop, and had police not pursued the alternate justification that they smelled burning marijuana, it is unlikely that the inventory search could have occurred. See Knowles v.

Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998). . The dissent observes that police "conduct cannot fill a gap in the policy” because, in this case, the police searched Cherry's car "because they were looking for marijuana.” Post, at 779. The officers, though, testified to the department's "established routine” for such stops. See Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); United States v. Lozano, 171 F.3d 1129, 1132 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Duguay, 93 F.3d 346, 350-51 (7th Cir.1996).

Their testimony — that cars like Cherry’s are towed as a matter of practice — is consistent with our

interpretation of Joliet policy. . We decline to reach the hypothetical suggested by the dissent, post, at 779. The record does not show that Cherry requested that a specific company tow his car to his home, or elsewhere. Colorado v. Bertine does not require the police to offer that alternative, see 479 U.S. 367, 373-74, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987), and thus we need not decide whether .police would have a valid interest in conducting an inventory search of a car under those circumstances.