In Mozzetti v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 699, the defendant, who was driving one of two vehicles involved a collision, was taken to the hospital. The police arranged for her car to be towed to police storage, because it was blocking the roadway. Prior to the towing and pursuant to standard departmental policy, an officer "filled out an inventory form which listed the vehicle's equipment, such as mirrors and radio, and all of its contents in the front and back seats, the glove compartment, and the trunk." (Mozzetti, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 702.) During the inventory, the officer observed a small suitcase on the back seat. He opened the unlocked suitcase "apparently to determine if it contained any articles of value. Inside he found a plastic bag containing a quantity of marijuana." (Mozzetti, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 702.) He seized the marijuana. When he finished his inventory, he locked the remaining items found, including the suitcase, in the trunk of the car, which was a convertible. The car was towed to a police storage garage. (Ibid.) The Mozzetti court found the search of the closed suitcase to be unlawful under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Mozzetti, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 711.) In pertinent part, the court reasoned the search of the suitcase was not justified on the grounds it was "necessary to protect defendant's personal property from loss or damage and to protect the police and storage bailee from unfounded tort claims." (Id. at pp. 706, 707.) On the issue of loss or damage to such property, the court explained that ordinarily, valuable items "may be adequately protected merely by rolling up the windows, locking the vehicle doors and returning the keys to the owner." (Mozzetti, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 707.) With respect to convertible cars, "adequate protection of valuables could be achieved by raising the top or, if necessary, by moving visible items, like the small suitcase, into the trunk for safekeeping." (Ibid.) On the issue of potential tort liability, the court reasoned, "since the police are not liable for ordinary negligence in handling automobile contents it cannot be urged seriously that they fail to adequately fulfill their duty by rolling up the windows and locking the doors of vehicles taken into custody." (Mozzetti, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 708.) The court also reasoned that storage bailees only owe the bailor a duty of ordinary care, which "does not require the storage bailee to inventory contents not in plain sight in automobiles he retains." (Id. at p. 710.)