D.N.M.: Govt’s rationale for impoundment failed: car was in a safe residential neighborhood in front of a friend’s house who said he’d watch it

Defendant was buying the car searched from his sister, although it was still in her name and registered to her. He had standing to challenge its search. The government’s rationale for impoundment was community caretaking, but the car was parked in front of the house of a good friend who would let him leave it there. In the Tenth Circuit that was enough to make the impoundment unreasonable. It was not a high crime area and the chances of vandalism were minimal. United States v. Barraza, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191828 (D. N.M. June 27, 2016).

The officer here encountered the plaintiff walking at 3:30 am on a hot and humid night in Miami wearing all black and a sweater with a t-ball bat in his back pocket hidden by the sweater. A scuffle ensued and plaintiff was shot six times. There is a fact question for trial on whether plaintiff was reaching for a weapon, the bat or something else, when he was shot. Gregory v. Miami-Dade Cty., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22903 (11th Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.