Reported / Citable
Background
In August 2021, a Pittsburg police officer pulled over Steven Louis McCowan III after observing him commit a traffic violation. A check showed McCowan’s driver’s license was suspended, so the officer decided to tow the vehicle and conducted an inventory search. Inside an open backpack on the floor, the officer found an AR-style short-barreled rifle loaded with 13 rounds in a large-capacity magazine.
McCowan was charged with possessing an assault weapon (Penal Code section 30605), carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him, and possessing a large-capacity magazine (section 32310). He moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, holding the search was a valid inventory search incident to a lawful tow.
McCowan pleaded no contest after the suppression denial and appealed, arguing (1) trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting damaging testimony at the suppression hearing, (2) the inventory-search finding was unsupported, and (3) his convictions for the assault-weapon and large-capacity-magazine charges violated the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. On the Fourth Amendment claim, the court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the search was a valid inventory search. McCowan’s vehicle was on the freeway shoulder where it could not lawfully remain, his license was suspended, and the officer followed standard impound and inventory procedures. The presence of an open backpack with a visible firearm did not transform the inventory into an investigative search.
On the ineffective-assistance claim, the court found defense counsel’s questioning of the officer at the suppression hearing did not fall below a reasonable standard of representation. Even taking the most damaging testimony the cross-examination produced, the result of the suppression motion would not have changed.
On the Second Amendment claim, the court held — consistent with the growing body of post-Bruen California decisions — that the state’s prohibitions on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The dangerous and unusual character of these weapons, combined with the public-safety rationale supporting their regulation, places them within the historic tradition Bruen recognized as authorizing categorical bans.
Key Takeaways
- An inventory search of a vehicle towed because the driver’s license is suspended remains a valid Fourth Amendment exception when officers follow standardized impound procedures.
- Defense counsel’s tactical decisions at a suppression hearing — including cross-examination that produces some damaging testimony — are unlikely to support a Strickland claim absent a showing of prejudice.
- California’s prohibitions on assault weapons (section 30605) and large-capacity magazines (section 32310) survive Second Amendment challenges under Bruen, in line with prior state and federal post-Bruen decisions.
- Defendants challenging California gun-control statutes after Bruen should expect courts to look closely at the historical tradition supporting categorical bans on dangerous and unusual weapons.
- The opinion is partially published; the published portion includes the Bruen analysis, which is binding statewide.
Why It Matters
Post-Bruen Second Amendment litigation has produced uncertainty about whether longstanding California gun-control statutes can survive. This decision adds another appellate voice — and an explicitly published holding — confirming that the assault-weapon and large-capacity-magazine bans pass constitutional muster. Defense counsel raising similar challenges should expect courts to follow this line of authority unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes.
For California criminal practitioners, the inventory-search analysis is also a useful refresher. Provided the officer documents the lawful tow rationale (suspended license, unsafe parking location, standardized impound policy), an inventory search is likely to be sustained even when the resulting evidence is significant. Defense counsel should focus on whether standard procedures were actually followed and whether the officer’s conduct went beyond inventorying into investigation.