Can Police Search Your Car Before Towing It? Texas Inventory Searches and Police Policy

October 13, 2026

Police can sometimes search a vehicle without a warrant before it is towed. An inventory search is supposed to account for property and protect people, not provide a shortcut for looking for evidence. Whether a particular search qualifies depends on the legal basis for taking the vehicle into custody, the department’s procedures, and what the officers actually did.[1][2]

A Texas case illustrates why those details matter. In Taylor v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed a conviction after finding substantial departures from an inventory policy. But that September 3, 2024 decision is under further review. As of October 12, 2026, the official Court of Criminal Appeals docket shows that review was granted and the case was submitted; no decision resolving that review was located. The 2024 opinion should not be described as the final statewide answer.[3][4]

An inventory is different from an investigation

An inventory serves practical purposes: protecting property in police custody, protecting officers against claims that property disappeared, and guarding against dangerous items. Those purposes explain why a proper inventory can qualify as an exception to the usual warrant requirement.[1]

The label alone is not enough. In Florida v. Wells, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that standardized criteria or an established routine must regulate the opening of containers. Officers cannot have unrestricted discretion to turn an inventory into a general search for incriminating evidence. At the same time, the Court did not require an entirely mechanical approach to every container.[2]

The decision to impound the car is a separate issue. A department’s search policy does not, by itself, establish that taking custody of the vehicle was lawful. The reason for the tow and the way the inventory was performed both deserve attention.[1][3]

What happened in Taylor

Kyle police encountered Dylan Eugene Taylor in his car after responding to a complaint from his former girlfriend. According to the appellate opinion, the vehicle was illegally parked near a stop sign. Officers confirmed outstanding arrest warrants, arrested Taylor, and decided to impound his car. During the inventory, an officer found a handgun in the center console. Taylor was later convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.[3, pp. 1–4]

The department had a detailed inventory policy. Among other things, it addressed giving the owner an opportunity to remove valuables, searching compartments, documenting property, and obtaining signatures. The appellate majority compared that policy with the officer’s testimony and video of the search.[3, pp. 5–8]

The majority concluded that the officer’s effort became cursory after he found the gun. Its concerns included the limited examination of other areas where property could be found, the lack of a written itemized inventory, and failures to follow the policy’s owner-participation requirements. The court treated the combined departures as substantial, not merely a missing signature.[3, pp. 7–11]

One justice dissented. He concluded that the record supported the trial court’s finding of compliance, including the use of photographs to document the vehicle’s contents. That disagreement is another reason not to reduce this case to a slogan about paperwork.[5]

Does every policy mistake require suppression?

No. It would be misleading to say that any minor departure automatically makes every inventory unconstitutional.

The Taylor majority discussed Texas precedent requiring compliance with department policy, but it also recognized the distinction between a nominal mistake and abandoning the inventory’s protective purpose. It expressly asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to clarify the compliance standard. The majority concluded that the search before it failed even under a standard permitting something less than strict, mechanical compliance.[3, pp. 9–11]

The State’s petition for discretionary review was granted on January 22, 2025. The official docket records submission on October 15, 2025. The degree of required compliance remains the issue to watch; granting review is not itself a ruling that the search was valid or invalid.[4][6]

There is also more recent appellate treatment. On September 29, 2026, the Amarillo court relied on Taylor in Shelton v. State, another inventory-search case. Shelton emphasized the State’s failure to establish the substance of the inventory policy and evidence that the officers were searching for violations rather than simply protecting property. The opinion expressly noted that the Court of Criminal Appeals had not yet issued its decision in Taylor. Shelton is a separate, recent appellate ruling—not the higher court’s resolution of Taylor.[7, pp. 6–10]

Finding evidence does not erase the inventory question

The Taylor majority rejected the idea that finding contraband excused the officer from completing the policy-required inventory. The property was still going to be impounded, and the reasons for accounting for it had not disappeared.[3, pp. 8–11]

That does not mean officers must ignore evidence they encounter during a lawful inventory. Colorado v. Bertine upheld the use of evidence found during a proper inventory. The question is whether the government has a valid legal basis for the search, rather than simply attaching an inventory label to evidence-gathering.[1]

For someone challenging a search, the useful records may include the policy in effect on the search date, body-camera footage, tow paperwork, photographs, property lists, and testimony about the decision to impound the vehicle. Comparing those records can help an attorney assess whether the search followed a genuine caretaking process. A missing form and a search that effectively stops once evidence is found are not necessarily the same problem.[3][5]

Reversal did not mean acquittal

The Taylor court rejected Taylor’s separate argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove possession of the gun. It nevertheless concluded that the trial court should have suppressed evidence from the inventory search, reversed the judgment, and sent the case back for further proceedings. That was not an acquittal or a dismissal order. And the State’s further review must be considered before treating that disposition as final.[3, pp. 2–4, 11, 15][4]

If a vehicle search led to criminal charges, the relevant question is what happened in that search—not whether another defendant won an appeal. Contact The Napier Law Firm to discuss the search and the records needed to evaluate it. No particular result can be promised.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources

1. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371–76 (1987), official U.S. Reports.
2. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 3–5 (1990), official U.S. Reports.
3. Taylor v. State, No. 07-23-00402-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 3, 2024), majority opinion.
4. Court of Criminal Appeals docket, Taylor, PD-0877-24.
5. Taylor, dissenting opinion.
6. Court of Criminal Appeals notice granting the State’s PDR, January 22, 2025.
7. Shelton v. State, No. 07-25-00297-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 29, 2026), opinion.