No. The Georgia Court of Appeals has adopted the view that “`[w]hen the driver of a motor vehicle is arrested and a reliable friend is present, authorized and capable to remove an owner’s vehicle which is capable of being safely removed; 405 or where the arrestee expresses a preference as to towing service and designates an appropriate carrier and destination for the vehicle, it is unnecessary for the police to impound it. In either of these instances the rationale for an inventory search does not exist.'” State v. Ludvicek, 147 Ga. App. 784, 786 (250 SE2d 503) (1978). In such a case, there is no justification for the police intrusion. Therefore such “inventory” searches are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Mulling v. State, 156 Ga. App. 404 (274 SE2d 770) (1980); Strobhert v. State, 165 Ga.App. 515, 516, 301 S.E.2d 681 (1983)

See also:

This court has long held” the view that when a driver is arrested and a reliable friend is present who may be authorized and capable of removing the vehicle, or where the arrestee expresses some preference for a private towing service, the rationale for impoundment does not exist

– in Lopez v. State, 2007 and 2 similar citations

Courts generally have said that, even where impoundment might in the circumstances be lawful, the owner or possessor of a vehicle, if available and physically and mentally capable, must be given a reasonable opportunity to make an alternative disposition of the vehicle before the police may impound it for the sole or primary purpose of protecting it and the contents …

– in People v. Krezen, 1986 and one similar citation

Inventory searches have been upheld because they serve three legitimate interests:(1) protection of the property while in custody;(2) protection of the police from potential dangers; and (3) protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen property.

– in State v. Gilchrist, 1985 and one similar citation

—impoundment was unnecessary following the defendant’s arrest where the vehicle was legally parked and the passenger was available to drive

– in Automobile Inventory Search Exception: The Supreme Court Disregards Fourth … and one similar citation

Accordingly, under these circumstances, we find that the trial court was authorized to find that the impoundment was not reasonably necessary and to grant the motion to suppress.

– in State v. Bell, 2003 and one similar citation

Those cases in which this court has ruled that an impoundment was unreasonable to have involved situations in which a reliable passenger or companion was present at the scene of the arrest who could have driven the impounded vehicle away or otherwise taken care of arrangements for removing the vehicle.

– in Gooden v. State, 1990 and one similar citation

The vehicle was not stopped by police on a highway but was parked at the residential property of a friend, and there is no evidence that the car was connected to the arrest of Wright, that his ownership was in doubt, that he was consulted regarding the alternate disposition of the vehicle, that it had an invalid tag, or that his friend requested its removal.

– in Wright v. State, 2003 and one similar citation

Although absolute necessity is not required, however, a seizure must still be reasonable under the circumstances of a case, and the rationale for inventory searches must be inhere in the decision to impound.[Cits.] “

– in Martin v. State, 1991

” `(T) he individual’s right of privacy is superior to the power of police to impound a vehicle unnecessarily….'[Cits.] “

– in State v. Lowe, 1997

—the arresting officer had not asked about nor given the appellant the opportunity to make alternative arrangements for the removal of the vehicle

– in State v. Gilchrist, 1985