Bradford, J.
On April 15, 2015, a Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy initiated a traffic stop after observing that the expiration date on a vehicle’s license plate was not visible. … During the traffic stop, it was discovered that Weathers did not have a valid driver’s license. Weathers was placed under arrest for driving without a license. The deputy eventually decided to impound the vehicle in question after Weathers failed to find someone to retrieve the vehicle. The deputy then completed a warrantless inventory search of the vehicle, during which the deputy recovered a handgun.
The next day, Weathers was charged with Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. The handgun charge was subsequently elevated to a Level 5 felony by virtue of Weathers’s prior felony conviction. …
….
The inventory search of an impounded vehicle is one such exception to the warrant requirement “since it serves an administrative, not investigatory, purpose—because when police lawfully impound a vehicle, they must also perform an administrative inventory search to document the vehicle’s contents to preserve them for the owner and protect themselves against claims of lost or stolen property.” Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371, 374 (Ind. 2016). ….
In the instant matter, Weathers argues that Deputy Andre’s search of the vehicle was unreasonable because …[he] failed to comply with the requirement that he compile a written inventory of all items found in the vehicle. ….
… The record demonstrates that Deputy Andre had knowledge of the policy relating to inventory searches. …
… we note that it does not seem unreasonable to require that an officer conducting a warrantless search follow any and all written policies for conducting such a search. … On the other hand, under the specific facts of this case, we note that reversal on this ground alone would not appear to be consistent with the purpose of the applicable portion of the policy.
The parties indicate that the purpose of the requirement that an officer complete a written inventory is to protect both the individual and the deputy. …
Here, however, Weathers does not contest the fact that the handgun was recovered from the vehicle or that it was recovered from the exact location where he told Deputy Andre it was located. … Deputy Andre’s apparent failure to complete a written inventory had no bearing on any of these facts. As such, upon review, we are unable to see how Weathers was prejudiced by Deputy Andre’s apparent failure to complete a written inventory of all items found in the vehicle. … We therefore conclude that despite Deputy Andre’s apparent failure to strictly follow all aspects of the relevant procedure, his warrantless inventory search of the vehicle was not unreasonable. …
….
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.