W.D.Pa.: After gun was found in car, search incident and automobile exception didn’t apply, but inventory was inevitable [right result, wrong reasoning]

After defendant’s car was stopped, the officers conducted a Michigan v. Long protective weapons search of the car while gaining control of the defendant, and a gun was located. There was a search incident: “Furthermore, he was standing at the back of the car behind the trunk, at least a few feet away from the door to the car’s passenger compartment, and there were a half-dozen other officers right behind the closer ‘bodyguard’ officers. In short, Defendant was going nowhere. There was no ‘reasonable possibility’ that Defendant could access the inside of the car at the time the search began.” Thus, the search incident was invalid. “The Court also notes that the ‘automobile exception’ does not apply to the warrantless search of the car in this case because the officers did not have probable cause to ‘believe the vehicle contain[ed] contraband.’ United States v. Boyd, 625 F. App’x 183, 186 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2012, 195 L. Ed. 2d 222 (2016).” [What about the illegally possessed weapon? Why isn’t that justification?] The inevitable discovery rule applies because an inventory would have occurred. United States v. McMillan, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 640 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 4, 2017).*
Note:
I think this one is wrong on everything including inevitable discovery, which would have been unnecessary if the case was properly decided in the first place. If the officers had reasonable suspicion there was a gun and promptly found it, and the gun was a crime, then a search incident for more clips, weapons, ammunition, a holster, or a concealed carry card would be valid. Moreover, there would be probable cause for the automobile exception because it doesn’t depend on “contraband”; it depends upon finding evidence of a crime. Then the inventory is superfluous. Besides, defaulting to inventory is just wrong because many police officers usually think “inventory” is a Fourth Amendment evaporator, and they often fail to conduct a legitimate inventory in the first place. So, why give them inventory when inventory is often (usually here) merely a pretext for search and then improperly conducted? One simply cannot legitimately say that “because they had a right to inventory they would do it right.” Right result, really wrong reason. The problem for both sides is how to deal with this mess on appeal. I’m not going to even attempt to put this case in the supplement.