OR: Def ordered from car left purse inside, and it was subject to inventory when car towed

Defendant was ordered out of the car, and she left her purse inside. Her purse was legitimately subjected to the inventory since it was left in the car. State v. Fulmer, 296 Ore. App. 61, 2019 Ore. App. LEXIS 190 (Feb. 8, 2019).

“While Mahbub is not directly challenging his sentence or conviction, his claims stem from dissatisfaction with the district court’s rejection of his motions in the criminal and postconviction proceedings. Mahbub is directly challenging the court decisions under which his convictions were affirmed and his arguments mirror those made in his various postconviction and habeas actions. Mahbub has simply repackaged his arguments as § 1983 claims. Mahbub cannot use § 1983 to further challenge the state courts’ decisions rejecting his evidentiary arguments.” Mahbub v. Freitag, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21701 (D.Minn. Feb. 11, 2019).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.