D.Nev.: No actual or apparent authority to consent shown; presence of gun in motel room not exigency per se

Actual authority to consent and apparent authority in a motel room are two different things. Here, the government can’t show either on this record. The possibility of a gun in the room is not an exigent circumstance. United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 680 (9th Cir. 1993). United States v. Rivera, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19216 (D.Nev. Feb. 10, 2017).

The inventory of defendant’s car was valid. The officer had previously arrested defendant for driving on a suspended license, and then saw him again. This time defendant gave a false name, too, so defendant was arrested. The car was parked on somebody else’s property he had no connection to, so the impounding of the car was reasonable as was the inventory. Cobb v. Commonwealth, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 6 (Feb. 16, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Emergency / exigency, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.