Impoundment of car did not dissipate exigency for search under automobile exception

Police possession of a car for impoundment did not dissipate the initial exigency for an automobile search. The trial court’s suppression order is reversed. State v. Ruiz, 219 Ore. App. 148, 182 P.3d 246 (2008).*

Malfunctioning taillight led to one occupant’s admission she was in possession of Xanax, so that justified a search incident. State v. Stoutes, 980 So. 2d 230 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008).*

The officer was justified in making a stop because defendant was waving down cars, apparently for the purpose of drug sales. A full blown search of the defendant was, however, unjustified. The video of the search contradicted the officer’s testimony. State v. Whitehead, 980 So. 2d 243 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (Comment: What? A cop lied? I’m shocked, shocked to hear that police officers might lie.)

Officers had probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances of what they knew about defendant’s potential drug trafficking and the odor of marijuana in the car to search it. Waiting two miles to pull it over after a traffic violation was not unreasonable. Turner v. State, 261 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. App. –- San Antonio 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.