IN: State failed to show standard inventory procedures were followed

“Officer Greathouse’s testimony was insufficient to prove the inventory search he performed of Rhodes’ vehicle complied with official police policy. Because the State did not present evidence of police procedure, the search violated Rhodes’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the evidence found in Rhodes’ vehicle as part of the inventory search.” Rhodes v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 9 (Jan. 19, 2016).

“Where officers receive a vague description of a suspect, and many persons could be expected to fit the description, officers do not have probable cause to arrest. United States v. Shavers, 524 F.2d 1094, 1095-96 (8th Cir. 1975). But where a person meets the description of a suspect, and other information links that suspect to a crime, there may be sufficient facts to support probable cause. United States v. Martin, 28 F.3d 742, 745 (8th Cir. 1994).” United States v. Van, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103851 (D.Minn. May 22, 2007),* adopted 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53962 (D. Minn. July 25, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.