Law360 (October 30, 2026, 6:30 PM EDT) -- The highest criminal court in Texas has ruled that a man cannot suppress evidence that he had an illegal firearm in his car because a vehicle inventory taken by police did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, even if the search did not follow department policy.

The court voted 7-2 that Dylan Eugene Taylor should not be allowed to suppress the gun evidence after police arrested him for stalking his ex-girlfriend even though the arresting officers failed to follow a policy requiring Taylor to verify that an inventory of his vehicle was correct.

"Under a totality of the circumstances, the inventory search of Appellee's vehicle was reasonable and thus, did not violate the Fourth Amendment," Judge Bert Richardson said in the opinion. "Any minor deviations from official departmental policy, under the facts of this case, were not of the character to create a pretext for an ulterior criminal investigation."

In November 2020, Kyle Police Department officers responded to a 911 call from Taylor's ex-girlfriend alleging Taylor had been stalking her for the last several hours. The ex-girlfriend said that at one point Taylor texted her asking if a man was inside her home after a FedEx driver delivered a package, the opinion said.

Two police officers responded and found Taylor in his vehicle illegally parked next to a stop sign and in proximity to his ex-girlfriend's home. Police discovered that Taylor had two active arrest warrants for stalking and making terroristic threats from a previous interaction with his ex-girlfriend, the opinion said.

The warrants were from the previous month when the ex-girlfriend alleged Taylor had been stalking her and that she feared for her safety. The ex-girlfriend claimed that Taylor would call and text from unknown numbers, and in one message threatened her life if she "did not comply with his wishes," the opinion said.

Police placed Taylor under arrest after confirming his warrants and asked if a friend or relative could pick up his car, or if he had a preferred towing service to collect it. Taylor asked police if his mother, who was an hour away, could take it, and police declined, the opinion said.

A towing company was dispatched to pick up the vehicle and one of the officers began conducting an inventory search of the car, per department policy. The officer opened the center console and discovered a handgun with an aftermarket laser grip, the opinion said.

The officer then radioed dispatch to see if Taylor was a convicted felon and if he was legally allowed to own a firearm. The gun was put back into Taylor's car and the officer took photographs of the inside of the vehicle to attach as part of the car's inventory, the opinion said.

A copy of the inventory was included with the tow vehicle receipt, and Taylor did not sign the inventory, despite department policy requiring the owner to verify the items were correct. Taylor was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and he filed a motion to suppress evidence under the search, the opinion said.

A trial court refused to suppress the evidence, finding that the inventory was lawfully conducted and did not violate Taylor's Fourth Amendment rights. A jury convicted Taylor and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison as a habitual offender, the opinion said.

Taylor appealed and an appeals court ruled that because the search deviated from the department policy by not getting his signature or asking him about other valuables in the car, it was unlawful. The appeals court ruled that the evidence should have been suppressed, then reversed the decision and ordered further proceedings, the opinion said.

The Court of Criminal Appeals for Texas held that U.S. Supreme Court precedent gives police a Fourth Amendment carve out to inventory vehicles without a warrant. The exception was developed to protect the owner's property while in police custody, protect police from lost property claims and protect officers' physical safety, the opinion said.

The majority found that because the car was going to be impounded anyway, the search of Taylor's car was not an unfair pretext for the felon in possession of a firearm investigation. The court also found that a "minor" deviation from the department policy did not upset the reasonableness of the inventory, the opinion said.

Judge Lee Finley issued a dissenting opinion in which he suggested that police not only deviated from the policy, but that the nature of the search changed after the gun was found. The actual inventory only lasted "approximately thirty seconds" until the gun was found, and no attempt was made to search the car for valuables.

The officer instead relied on photographs that were taken because it would be "easier" than itemizing every piece of Taylor's property in the car. The dissent attached copies of the photos which show a large amount of loose property in the backseat, and a single closeup shot of the firearm.

The dissent, which was joined by Judge Scott Walker, said the majority opinion's new rule effectively overruled the court's precedent laid out in the 1991 case Moberg v. State. The court in Moberg set a requirement that officers cannot deviate from department policy during an inventory search, the opinion said.

"In failing to uphold what we said in Moberg and its progeny, the Court creates an unworkable standard that will only incentivize further noncompliance with written inventory search policies," Judge Finley said in the dissent.

Vikash M. Bhakta, who represents Taylor, told Law360 in a story that he agrees with the dissent that Thursday's opinion will allow law enforcement to disregard written department policies.

"What we were looking for is a clear bright line right, and the court created a giant exception," Bhakta said.

A spokesperson for the Hays County District Attorney's Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The state is represented by Kelly Higgins and Daniel Skaida of the Hays County District Attorney's Office.

Taylor is represented by Vikash M. Bhakta of The Bhakta Law Firm.

The case is Dylan Eugene Taylor v. The State of Texas, case number PD-0877-24, in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

--Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.