N.D.Iowa: USMJ erroneously puts burden on def to show inventory invalid

Defendant was seen drunk in the grass behind a liquor store and then crawling to his car by a citizen informant who called the police. An officer arrived and arrested defendant for DUI. The vehicle was properly towed because it was parked in a lane between the liquor store and the motel next door that partially blocked the driveway. There was no evidence that the inventory wasn’t according to standardized procedure. [Thus, the court erroneously shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that the inventory was invalid.] Alternatively, the search of the car was valid as a search incident for the offense of impaired driving. United States v. Crane, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178867 (N.D. Iowa December 31, 2014):

There is no evidence that Trooper Degen failed to comply with the standardized policy when conducting the inventory search. Compare United States v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding that the inventory search exception was inapplicable because the police did not comply with the department’s standardized procedures). Here, Defendant does not claim that Degen failed to comply with the standardized procedures adopted by the Iowa State Patrol. “An inventory search is reasonable and constitutional if it is conducted according to standardized police procedures.” United States v. Garreau, 658 F.3d 854,857 (8th Cir. 2011). I believe the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle falls within the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement, first recognized in Opperman.

Apparently the government was willing, and the court complicit, to just wave its hand over the search, utter the incantation “inventory,” and it’s all OK? This is a warrantless search. The burden is always on the government to show that any warrantless search is valid. Here, it seems the court literally shifted the burden to the defendant to show it was invalid. But, when the R&R goes to the USDJ, the alternative ground of search incident would be sufficient.

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Inventory, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.