Barteau, Senior J.
Richard Bernard Sansbury appeals his convictions of carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving with a suspended license with a similar infraction within the past ten years, a Class A misdemeanor. We reverse and remand.
….
On the evening of January 17, 2016, Detective Andrew McKalips and Officer Mollie Johanningsmeier of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) were on patrol in Indianapolis. … McKalips saw a vehicle, specifically a Pontiac Aztek, make a turn without activating a turn signal. …
McKalips turned his car around and stopped the Aztek in an apartment complex. …
McKalips approached the Aztek and learned that Sansbury was the driver. Sansbury had a passenger, Elisha Goins. …
McKalips determined Sansbury did not have a valid driver’s license. Further, Sansbury was not the Aztek’s registered owner. The registered owner was Sansbury’s mother, Jorja Payton. McKalips decided to impound the Aztek. …
Next, McKalips searched the vehicle, claiming it was necessary to inventory its contents. During the search he found three handguns. … McKalips determined that neither Sansbury nor Goins had a valid permit to possess guns. At that point, the search ended, and neither McKalips nor Johanningsmeier prepared a written inventory of the Aztek’s contents.
….
The case was tried to the bench, and Sansbury renewed his objection to the admission of evidence discovered during McKalips’ search. … The trial court determined Sansbury was guilty as charged and imposed a sentence. This appeal followed.
… When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that the search falls into one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. Meister v. State, 933 N.E.2d 875, 878 (Ind. 2010).
One exception to the warrant requirement is a police inventory search of a vehicle following impoundment. Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 430 (Ind. 1993). Impoundment is proper when it is part of law enforcement’s community caretaking function or is otherwise authorized by statute. …
When impoundment is not specifically directed by statute, the risk increases that a decision to tow will be motivated solely by the desire to conduct an investigatory search. …
In the current case, the IMPD’s policy on impounding vehicles and conducting inventory searches was admitted into evidence at trial. Detective McKalips explained that he impounded the vehicle pursuant to the department’s policy, specifically a provision that a vehicle may be impounded and towed if it is “operated by a non-licensed or suspended driver.” … Based upon these two reasons, we conclude the State established, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, that the vehicle posed a threat of harm or was itself imperiled, and the decision to impound the car complied with established department regulations.
….
… We agree with the trial court that the decision to impound the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
We reach a different conclusion as to the vehicle search that followed the decision to impound the Aztek. The State claims the search was a valid inventory search. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, an inventory search must be conducted pursuant to standard police procedures. …
… If an officer conducts an inventory search in compliance with valid protocol, the search may be constitutionally valid despite minor deviations from the policy. Sams v. State, 71 N.E.3d 372, 377-78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Major deviations from an inventory search policy may give rise to an inference of pretext which the State must overcome.
In this case, the IMPD’s policy for impounding vehicles defines an inventory search as “conducting an administrative, routine and warrantless search of the passenger area (including the glove compartment), trunk, and closed containers, pursuant to lawfully towing a vehicle.” …
In this case, the officers’ conduct deviated greatly from the requirements of the policy. … neither he nor Officer Johanningsmeier created a list of property found during the search of the Aztek. Officer Johanningsmeier filled out a tow slip for the tow truck, but she did not include a description of the vehicle’s contents … The officers’ failure to produce a written inventory disserved two of the purposes of inventory searches: protection of private property in police custody and protection of police against claims of lost or stolen property.
….
… Having concluded that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, we must further conclude the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the handguns discovered during the search. We reverse Sansbury’s conviction for possession of a handgun without a license.
Sansbury argues the State failed to prove he committed the offense of driving with a suspended license with a similar infraction within the previous ten years. …
… Sansbury’s official driving record was admitted into evidence at trial, but it fails to demonstrate that his license was suspended on January 17, 2016. Instead, it shows Sansbury’s license was suspended from July 7, 2015 through October 5, 2015, with the period of suspension ending well before the night of the traffic stop.
… The State failed to carry its burden of proof as to whether Sansbury’s license was suspended on the date in question, and we must reverse his conviction. …
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.