W.D.Mo.: Just because def ran away from the car, it was still “readily mobile” for the automobile exception

“His argument is that because the car was parked and defendant had run away from the car, it was ‘not mobile within the meaning of the Carroll/Chambers exception.’ Not surprisingly, defendant cites no case law to support this argument; and I find that it is completely contrary to well established law.” United States v. Wilkins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59808 (W.D.Mo. April 8, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59149 (W.D. Mo. May 4, 2016).

Police received a report of a man lying in the roadway at night. The officer found defendant. He walked up and asked how defendant was, and defendant said he was “resting.” He asked him to pull his hand out of his pocket and a gun came out held by the barrel. The rest was with reasonable suspicion. The encounter was clearly justified by the community caretaking function, and there was no seizure up to that point. United States v. Goins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58714 (E.D.N.C. April 4, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58702 (E.D.N.C. May 2, 2016).

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Community caretaking function. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.