E.D.Mich.: Officer couldn’t ID purposes of inventory but here it’s still valid because defendant fled car

Defendant fled from the car when it was stopped. Its inventory was valid. While the officer couldn’t testify to all the main purposes of an inventory, he got “documenting evidence” right [which to me means nothing], the inventory was in good faith and not solely for investigation, so it’s valid. United States v. Detloff, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181030 (E.D. Mich. December 30, 2013):

Like the officers in Hockenberry, Officer Edgar’s testimony reflects “a less than ideal understanding” of the purposes of an inventory search. While he was able to identify some of the main goals of an inventory search, such as safekeeping of valuable items, he also stated that one of the purposes of an inventory search is to document evidence.

Nevertheless, his testimony establishes that he followed the main parameters of the City of Novi’s policy by searching the van and documenting the items found in the van on his written report.

. . .

The Court also finds that Officer Edgar was not acting in bad faith or for sole purpose of investigation.

Accordingly, this Court concludes that Officer Edgar conducted a valid inventory search of the van and the Court shall deny Detloff’s motion.

Also, the search of his apartment was by consent. United States v. Detloff, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181029 (E.D. Mich. December 30, 2013)*:

Here, the characteristics of Detloff weigh in favor of the conclusion that the consent to search his apartment was voluntary. Detloff is a mature adult who has had prior contact with the legal system. Detloff testified that he has been arrested before and has prior experience with consent-to-search forms. Detloff’s age, intelligence, and experience indicate the ability to freely consent to a search.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.