Inventory Searches, Impoundment, and Selective Enforcement: What Commonwealth v. Lewis Teaches About OUI Stops in Massachusetts
In Commonwealth v. Ashlie Lewis, the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed two recurring—and often misunderstood—issues in OUI litigation: when police may lawfully impound and inventory a vehicle, and what it takes to succeed on a selective-enforcement claim under Commonwealth v. Long.
The Court affirmed the conviction, but the decision is instructive precisely because it clarifies where the lines are, and where they are not.
The Incident: A Wellness Check That Turned Into an OUI Arrest
Police were dispatched to a Town Fair Tire parking lot in Walpole for a 911 call reporting an unresponsive driver slumped over the wheel. When officers arrived, they found the defendant seated in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle, parked across two spaces and partially blocking the entrance to an open business.
Officers observed classic indicia of intoxication: slow movements, glassy and bloodshot eyes, and an odor of alcohol. The defendant declined field sobriety tests and was arrested for OUI. Before towing the vehicle, police conducted an inventory search pursuant to department policy, during which they found an open bottle of vodka.
The defendant later challenged both the inventory search and the police conduct more broadly, including through a Long motion alleging selective enforcement based on race.
Inventory Searches: Policy Compliance and Public Safety Still Matter
The defendant argued that once police confirmed her immediate medical safety, any further investigation, and certainly an inventory search, was unlawful. The Appeals Court disagreed.
The key points from the Court’s inventory-search analysis are practical:
Impoundment must be reasonable and non-investigatory, grounded in public safety or caretaking concerns.
Written inventory policies matter, and courts will scrutinize whether officers complied with them.
Police are not required to offer alternatives to towing unless the policy itself requires that inquiry.
Here, the Court credited findings that the vehicle was:
Partially blocking the entrance to a business open to the public;
Illegally parked across marked spaces; and
Owned by a third party who was not present.
Under those circumstances, the Court held that impoundment was reasonable and that the inventory search—conducted according to written policy—was lawful. The fact that evidence of intoxication was found during the inventory did not invalidate the search.
The takeaway is not that inventory searches are immune from challenge, but that courts will defer to reasonable, policy-based decisions grounded in public safety, not convenience or investigation.
No Duty to “Find Another Way” to Avoid Towing
One aspect of Lewis that defense lawyers should note is what the Court reaffirmed: police generally have no affirmative duty to seek alternatives to impoundment—such as contacting the owner—unless the inventory policy itself requires it.
That point, drawn from recent SJC precedent, underscores the importance of obtaining and carefully reading the actual inventory policy in suppression litigation. The policy defines the limits of police discretion.
Selective Enforcement Under Long: Statistics Alone Are Not Enough
The defendant also filed a Long motion, arguing that the police investigation and enforcement were racially discriminatory. She supported the motion with an expert report analyzing the arresting officer’s citation and arrest statistics over multiple years.
The Appeals Court assumed—without deciding—that the defendant had met the initial burden of raising a reasonable inference of discrimination. Even so, the claim failed at the second step of the Long framework.
Why?
Because the Commonwealth articulated—and the judge credited—race-neutral reasons for every stage of the encounter:
A specific 911 call reporting an unresponsive driver;
Observations of the defendant passed out behind the wheel;
Objective signs of intoxication;
A vehicle creating a public safety hazard.
Where the record supports such race-neutral explanations, and the judge credits them, selective-enforcement claims will fail—even where statistical disparities are alleged.
Long Applies Beyond Traffic Stops—but the Burden Still Matters
One important clarification in Lewis is doctrinal: the Long framework applies not only to traffic stops, but also to threshold inquiries, wellness checks, and other investigatory police actions.
That expansion matters. But Lewis shows that application does not equal success. Courts will look hard at:
The specific facts confronting police in real time;
Whether the officer’s actions make sense independent of race; and
Whether statistical evidence actually supports an inference of discrimination in context.
Why This Case Matters
Commonwealth v. Lewis reinforces several realities of Massachusetts OUI litigation:
Inventory searches remain fertile ground for suppression—but only where policy violations or pretext can be shown.
Impoundment decisions rooted in public safety are likely to survive appellate review.
Long motions are powerful tools, but they require more than general statistical disparities; they must confront the facts of the specific encounter.
Judges’ credibility findings at suppression hearings continue to carry significant weight on appeal.
The Bottom Line
Lewis is not a pro-police outlier, nor is it a defense-hostile decision. It is a reminder that suppression litigation turns on details: the exact policy language, the physical positioning of a vehicle, the timing of observations, and the evidentiary foundation of selective-enforcement claims.
For defendants facing OUI charges, especially those involving impoundment or inventory searches, the lesson is clear: these cases are winnable—but only with disciplined, fact-driven litigation grounded in the record and the governing policies.
If you or someone you care about is facing criminal charges based on an inventory search, do not wait. Early decisions can shape the entire case.
Call Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP today at (508) 897-0001 to schedule a confidential consultation and put experienced, strategic defense counsel to work for you immediately.