D.Nev.: Consent search or inventory were invalid

Defendant did not validly consent to a search of his car, and an inventory search of the car was not justified either. United States v. Minor, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29506 (D. Nev. March 11, 2010)*:

After review, the Court finds that the relevant factors indicate that Minor did not voluntarily consent to a search of his vehicle. He was in custody, not given Miranda warnings, not told he had the right to refuse consent, not given a written waiver, and informed that the vehicle would be searched for inventory purposes prior to consent. Accordingly, the Government has not met its burden to show the consent was voluntary. Because consent was not voluntarily given, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether the search exceeded its permissible scope.

. . .

Here, the only potentially viable circumstance [for inventory], as specified by LVMPD’s policy, is that “[i]f there is not a licensed driver in the vehicle and it is not legally parked” impoundment is appropriate. See Government’s Exhibit 4 presented at the evidentiary hearing. This language “limits the discretion of the officer” to ensure that an impoundment/inventory search is not a guise for a general exploratory search. Government’s Exhibit 2 presented at the evidentiary hearing. The language also dictates which party bears the burden to establish the legality of an impound and inventory search. It is the government’s burden to demonstrate that “there is not a licensed driver in the vehicle.” It is not a defendant’s burden to demonstrate that there was a licensed driver in the vehicle. Additionally, the government must establish that the vehicle was parked illegally. There is no credible dispute regarding whether the vehicle was parked illegally upon being stopped–it was. The initial question is whether the officers complied with LVMPD’s written requirement to determine whether there was a licensed driver in the vehicle prior to the impound. If not, the impound was inappropriate and the inquiry ends.

IAC claim under 2255 failed because defendant did not show how the motion to suppress that was not filed had merit. Stein v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29607 (S.D. Ill. March 29, 2010).*

When claimant’s vehicle tag was run, it was not in the system, so the stop was valid. While none of the factors mentioned by the officer alone were sufficient, together they were. United States v. $85,688.00 in United Sates Currency, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29422 (D. Utah March 25, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.