D.Kan.: Govt failed to prove legal basis for impoundment and inventory

Defendant had standing in his father’s car that he let defendant drive. The inventory of the car and impoundment was not for a legitimate inventory purpose. It was impounded because another police department asked for it. “The government has failed to adduce any evidence showing that law enforcement followed a standardized policy when it decided to impound the Pontiac. Instead, it asserts only that Officer Riggins decided to impound the vehicle ‘in reasonable reliance upon the Capitol Police[‘s] advi[c]e.’ … This assertion is insufficient to satisfy the burden that Sanders imposes on the government. See 796 F.3d at 1248. For one, the government has not carried its burden to establish that the impoundment complied with a Topeka Police Department policy. Nor has the government shown that the Capitol Police’s request complied with its own policies. Indeed, McCarty has offered evidence that it did not.” It also could not be supported as a search incident. United States v. McCarty, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172486 (D.Kan. Dec. 29, 2015).